1989-09-27

Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 31 with regard to an article that has appeared across the country. The article reports me as saying things that are anti-French and anti-Quebec.
The quotes that were used were taken from an article in Montreal's The Gazette written earlier this month in which I was discussing how my attitude has completely changed from that of when I was living in Montreal in 1978. I spoke of how I supported fostering better relations between the French and the English and how I myself am taking lessons in French. This, however, was omitted from the wire service story.

I want to apologize to those people who read the article and possibly got the impression that I was antiFrench and anti-Quebec. I am myself a member of an ethnic minority, and I can assure you I harbour no discriminatory feelings.

I believe that in Canada, being the cultural mosaic that it is, linguistic tolerance is one of the cornerstones of a Canadian democracy.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the VIA Rail document recently presented
to the priorities and planning committee of cabinet and leaked by The Winnipeg Free Press shows this government's blatant disregard and short-sightedness toward tourism, one of Canada's leading industries.
The government spends millions of dollars promoting train travel as part of its tourism product, while it simultaneously does a hatchet job on VIA. The Vancouv-er-Montreal route which is to be scrapped completely is an internationally renowned favourite with foreign travellers and enjoys an annual booking of over half a million passengers.
Cutting VIA routes to the extent indicated by the proposal will do serious harm to the businesses that rely on tourism and the tourism dollars which of course are generated by tourist travellers using the VIA Rail trains.
This hatchet job to VIA Rail will compromise the future of Canada's tourism industry and its ability to service the international tourism market.
Killing VIA Rail, Mr. Speaker, is indeed a false economy.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the release of the GST technical paper has sparked considerable interest in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton. It has spawned an insatiable appetite for information. Over the past weeks I have attempted to meet this demand with a wide variety of materials. Public forums, talk shows, personal newspaper columns and briefing packages, as well as finance publications have all been made readily available to my constituents.
In the end they are appreciative of my efforts and the information that they are receiving; information that depicts the inequities of the current system, information that gives them a better understanding and appreciation of how the GST will work and benefit our country, information that allows them to know and understand that the present FST is hidden and the GST will be very, very evident.

I think that we all can learn an important lesson from my experience. We as members of Parliament have a duty to provide our constituents with as much factual information as possible on the GST. Only from this type of knowledge base can they formulate fair, accurate and informative opinions.


Hon. Steven Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of all members and all Canadians the fact that September 1, 1989 marks the fiftieth anniversary of Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland. With this tragic invasion one-half century ago the world was plunged into war.
The memory of the horrifying consequences that followed serve to remind all of us of the importance of maintaining peace in the world. It reminds us also of the priority we must place in offering assistance in resolving conflict among other nations through the UN and whatever other means are available to us.
Canada and its allies came to the defence of the Polish people during the Second World War and we, along with other nations, paid a heavy price. Many of our youth never returned to enjoy the life of prosperity that we have experienced in Canada since then. We have not forgotten those fallen heroes who ensured our continuing freedom.
And we also recognize that the Polish people persevere in their struggle for freedom and democracy 50 years later. Their persistence through the years brought some progress, and we rejoiced with the Polish people when we saw the recent election of Solidarity members to the Government of Poland.
On this the fiftieth anniversary of their loss of freedom we salute the courageous people of Poland who go on with their fight, and we wish them continued success.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on August 1, 1989 it was discovered that 27 bags of mail, some of it postmarked as early as December 1988, had remained undelivered in a privatized postal outlet in Woodbridge, Ontario. Upon learning of this, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, or CUPW, reported the incident to the media and then of course
Canada Post quickly picked up the mail bags and commenced a damage control exercise.
Canada Post management then launched a grievance against the union accusing CUPW of "direct public criticism detrimental to the corporation's legitimate business interests".
This is simply nuts. Canada Post should have thanked the union for reporting the error and should have apologized to the people of Canada for the sloppy service. But, typically of Canada Post, it chose instead to shoot the messenger.


THE PRESS
Mr. Garth Ttirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a single country made up of different cultures in different regions. Sometimes people forget this and try to drive wedges between us.
Yesterday Canadian Press reported that a member of this national House went to Quebec during the recent election campaign. While there he was quoted as saying disparaging, divisive and unsettling things about Quebec and Quebecers. At a time when all regions of the country are feeling political pressures to pull in their own narrow self-interest this was a distressing report.
If anywhere, national unity has to be felt on the floor of the House of Commons. If anyone speaks for Canada it has to be members of Parliament. So I salute the member, my colleague here, for accepting this reality and apologizing to this House.
You are either for Canada or you are against Canada, and that means all of it. Linguistic tolerance, as my colleague has just said, is the cornerstone this country is built on. None of us can afford to forget that, even for a moment.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the decision last week by this government to move search and rescue from CFB Summerside to Nova Scotia certainly jeopardizes the work of the federal-provincial task force.
When this task force was set up by the federal government to examine the base closure, search and rescue was on the table for discussion. Now the government has chosen to ignore the process which it helped to set up.
I would urge the Department of National Defence to postpone any decision regarding CFB Summerside until
September 27, 1989

the task force has submitted its report. Otherwise it will continue to undermine and compromise the credibility and the usefulness of this task force.
The people of Prince Edward Island are fed up with this kind of conduct.


VIA RAIL
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to comment on the government's plan to axe the passenger rail service in this country. British Columbians are accustomed to being ignored but we will not take it quietly.
VIA cuts to B.C. include reduction of the Transcontinental, elimination of the winter run on the Jasper-Prince Rupert line, and total disappearance of E & N passenger service on Vancouver Island. The E & N is near and dear to my heart. The island has always been my home. Some 9,000 people from only two federal ridings on Vancouver Island sent in petitions demanding that the E & N be saved; saved, expanded and run efficiently.
If VIA Rail had been running all its lines the way it has the E & N, no one can doubt that VIA management has played directly into the government hands. It has run its service so badly that anyone looking at the books would say "Shut it down".
I suggest this has been done deliberately in order to provide this government with the excuse it has been seeking. Some 9,000 from a small part of Vancouver Island would like to be heard. How many across Canada? British Columbians demand open debate and public hearings to voice their views. The government must listen.


ATLANTIC RAIL SERVICE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 when the then Liberal government cut back Atlantic service the Conservatives claimed to be outraged. In 1985 they reinstated the Atlantic route and issued a challenge to Atlantic Canadians: "Use it or lose it". Some statement.
Atlantic Canadians took these words to heart and in 1988 close to a million passengers rode the rails in the maritimes. A target was set for the Atlantic route-200,000 riders by 1990. That challenge was met in 1987 when 249,000 Atlantic Canadians rode on the Atlantic route. That challenge was met again in 1988 And again in the first four months of this year that challenge was met.
Atlantic Canadians have lived up to their part of the bargain but the government has not. The Conservative government has once again deceived Atlantic Canadians. It plans to eliminate all train service except what amounts to a thrice weekly tourist run in that region of the country where VIA is the most popular, and that is unacceptable. I challenge this government to remember its commitment to Atlantic Canadians. They have used it. They don't deserve to lose it.


ARMENIA
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet central authorities have clearly demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to lift a month long Azerbaijani blockade of Karabagh and Armenia. The delivery of desperately needed materials for the reconstruction of the earthquake stricken regions of Armenia has been blocked by Azerbaijani. In March of this year I saw the destruction and the suffering caused by the earthquake, and I believe that manipulating that tragedy for political ends is unacceptable.
I call on our government to bring the present critical situation to the attention of the UN General Assembly and other competent organs of the United Nations, to appeal to the Soviet authorities urgently to lift the blockade of Armenia and Karabagh, to ensure the security of the Armenian people in the region and, lastly, to organize a referendum in mountainous Karabagh in

September 27, 1989
Oral Questions
order to ascertain the majority will of the autonomous region.


BILL C-21
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee studying the unemployment insurance bill, Bill C-21, is now in its fourth week of intensive hearings. As of last night 143 out of the 183 groups appearing before the committee in all provinces have strenuously opposed this bill. That is overwhelming opposition.
These groups have pointed out that the cuts proposed in the bill will leave 775,000 unemployed Canadians with no or reduced unemployment insurance benefits. The only alternative for these Canadians will be provincial or municipal social welfare.
When will the Conservative government start listening to the grassroots of this country and withdraw this bill, send it back to the drawing board and present new legislation which will effectively help, not hurt, Canada's unemployed?


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Secretary of State for Canada, and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education announced that Canada will soon ratify the UNESCO convention on the recognition of studies and diplomas. They also announced that a commission for the international recognition of foreign studies and diplomas will be created to apply the convention in our country.
The main purpose of this convention is to share information about educational, scientific, and technological resources. The commission will collect information on the education systems of other countries and make it available in Canada. It will also promote our education system internationally.
We welcome the efforts of the commission in the work it will carry out in the interests of fellow Canadians of all origins who have completed their schooling elsewhere. Their qualifications are not always fully recognized. The commission's work will help reduce such inequities by
providing up to date and objective information to those who are involved in the recognition of foreign academic credentials.
Let us join in congratulating the ministers responsible for this excellent example of federal-provincial collaboration in an initiative that will benefit all Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Transport arrogantly refused to meet a delegation of this country's mayors to discuss the future of VIA Rail. The Prime Minister also should know that there are reports right across Canada today that at the very time the minister refused to meet our mayors he was at a cabinet meeting recommending the elimination of VIA routes to Sydney, Yarmouth, Ed-mundston, Sherbrooke, Brantford, Sarnia, London, and Trois Rivieres.
There are also reports that the minister recommended the elimination of the Halifax-Montreal train service. There are documents to the effect that the minister recommended destroying our most famous train service, The Canadian, from Montreal to Vancouver, across the Canadian Shield, through the prairies and across the Rocky Mountains.
I want to say to the Prime Minister, because we get nothing from his minister, that the time for cat and mouse games played with this House of Commons is over. Will the Prime Minister finally tell Canadians, or order his minister to tell Canadians, what cuts are in store for them on the service of VIA Rail and do it before this Parliament finally runs that minister out of town on a rail?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. I met the mayors of municipalities twice in June for a long time. I think they had a chance to express exactly what they wanted to express.
September 27, 1989

As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He said I refused to consult but he asked me to make a decision immediately. I believe we have to make up our minds. I will make a decision on official documents, not the one that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. I issued no official document about the decision. When it is made I will be pleased to give official documents to the Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, returning again to the documents that are abroad in the country today, it is bad enough that the Minister of Transport recommended eliminating VIA Rail service from Winnipeg to Brandon to Regina to Calgary, but he actually recommended that the only train service available from Toronto to Niagara Falls be Amtrak, the American passenger rail service.
How could the Prime Minister continue to justify having in his cabinet a Minister of Transport who recommends that Ontario and the Niagara Peninsula be served only by the American national train service?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, any representations the Minister of Transport has to make in the decision-making process are made in Cabinet. That is the procedure and it is the procedure I intend to follow, But I repeat, as I said in English, that I think it is essential, and the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that in the decision-making process, decisions are not made on the basis of leaked documents but on the basis of official documents. And that is what I intend to do. When the decision is made, I will be happy to give him some documents, but these will be official documents.


John Napier Turner: I think on this issue Canadians have come to the conclusion that enough is enough. American Express is going to run our banks and Amtrak is now going to run our rail service. Canadians are beginning to wonder when the United States postal service is going to deliver our mail. That is what Canadians are waiting for.
Oral Questions

Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned consultation. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said here in the House how important the Finance Committee's hearings were for the future of his sale tax. However, his Minister of Transport, despite what he said today, tells us there will be no public hearings to determine the future of VIA Rail. I therefore have the following question for the Prime Minister: Does he intend to disown his Minister of Transport who, in the past few days, has shown utter contempt for the public consultation process? Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no cutbacks will be imposed on VIA Rail without regular, public consultation with Canadians across the country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier. The reference levels for VIA Rail were given to the Department of Transport last April. It is now the end of September, and during that time I met dozens of people. I met mayors, and last week I had a meeting with the provincial ministers. I consulted, and I even had meetings with Members of the Opposition. So in that context, I think that any information that was out there was received. I repeat, a decision will be made as soon as we feel it is necessary to do so and we will communicate that decision, and this will be done, I repeat, according to the normal procedure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The
7,000	people who work for VIA Rail, whose livelihoods depend upon VIA Rail, and the millions of Canadians who support a rail passenger service in this country have a right to be heard on the future of VIA Rail.
This question has never been referred to the Commons transport committee for public hearings and it has never been referred to the National Transportation Agency for public hearings.
My question for the Prime Minister is quite simple. Yesterday the Prime Minister himself, on the floor of this House, made a strong case that it was critical in the case of the goods and services tax that the Commons finance committee be heard and that the government give the committee a chance to work and consider its recommendations. If the Prime Minister's principle of yesterday meant anything, will he tell this House today

September 27, 1989
Oral Questions
that the future of VIA Rail will be referred for full public hearings to the Commons transport committee and to the appropriate regulatory agency, the National Transportation Agency? Will he do that today?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I myself met with the committee on transport twice in May or June. The committee can have the discussions it wants. It is up to the committee to do what it wants, but at the same time I repeat what I said, that for six months now we have considered a lot of representations from VIA Rail.
Something is clear. The Minister of Finance, I think quite relevantly, has decided for the best of this country to determine new reference levels for VIA Rail, for a mode of transportation that only 3 per cent of Canadians use. I will make a decision within the fiscal responsibility. I think that is what Canadians want.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, "how ironic", in the words of Mayor Elsie Wayne on behalf of 24 mayors who received a collective slap in the face yesterday.
They were left waiting in the Railway Committee Room of the House of Commons for a Minister of Transport and/or a Prime Minister who never showed up. In her words, "how ironic to have a Prime Minister, who on the one hand professes to admire the glasnost of the Soviet Union, practising a dictatorial tactic in this country".
My question for the Prime Minister is quite simple. He has not answered it. Yesterday the Prime Minister said it was an important principle of parliamentary democracy that the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons be heard on an important national matter like the goods and services tax before the government acted.
If he is consistent and sincere, will he give a commitment in this House today that the Commons transport committee and the National Transportation Agency will hold public hearings on the future of VIA Rail before this government brings down the axe?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to glasnost and perestroika I would just tell my hon. friend in regard to VIA Rail and VIA Rail hearings that unless I am badly mistaken he was a member of the government which in 1981 walked in and, without so much as a single hearing, wiped out 20 per cent of VIA Rail service across the country.
Not only did they do it, they did it on a Friday night in the middle of summer. They did not even have the courage to confront the House of Commons. I think this is an absolutely shameful thing to have done.
The Minister of Transport is a model of consultation in a democracy compared with the Liberals.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of a Minister of Transport who neither knows nor cares about transportation in this country.
The Prime Minister has just reminded this House of the Liberal tactic of passing an Order in Council in the middle of the summer on a Friday afternoon in order to cut 20 per cent. It was the Minister of Transport's intention, as he told the Transport Committee, to do the same thing in the middle of this summer. Only his dithering has prevented that from occurring. I want to ask the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: The Tory caucus may think this is funny, but to the seven million Canadians who use VIA Rail it is damned important.
I want the Prime Minister to indicate whether or not the priorities and planning committee of cabinet did consider this document that was referred to in the Winnipeg Free Press this morning, and if so, did P and P approve the recommendations to go to cabinet or did it reject them.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will first of all say to my friend that he knows very well that he asked me not to make a decision this summer. The decision has not been made. It is exactly as he wanted, and he is not happy again. I do not understand.
The process of decision by the cabinet is not made on leaked documents. That is very clear. I believe once again that what my friend wants to know is when the decision will be made. I will be pleased to tell him. But at the time I will give him official documents so the question could be more relevant to me in the House of Commons.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for those documents for a long time. The people of Canada would like to see them before the decision is made and
September 27, 1989

before the Order in Council is passed, because at that point it becomes law.
If P and P has not made the decision, perhaps the Prime Minister could explain why over 130 VIA Rail employees were served notice of permanent lay-offs this morning, some of them with over 20 years of seniority and nothing to rely on. Could he explain how that decision is happening in the absence of any kind of cabinet decision?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the decision about VIA Rail has been made within the current operations of the corporation. They are working at the present time. The corporation wants to operate within the reference levels we have given. They did before. Years before there were no decisions as we have to make. They will do it again. Regardless of the fact that we have to make decisions today, those people have been laid off in the regular process of the operations of a Crown corporation. That is all.


Iain Francis Angus: That is a regular process according to the Tory philosophy, I think.
Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Prime Minister. Again I want to go back to him because we have a Minister of Finance who is dictating the monetary aspects of VIA Rail. We have a Minister of Transport who is taking the approach of elimination of service. I want him to accept his responsibility. I ask the Prime Minister if, finally, he will appoint a cabinet minister responsible for transportation who believes in rail passenger services, not just in air and road transportation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I believe as much as the member believes in rail transportation. But, in my view, it is not necessary to put $700 million into a service which is not used by Canadians. Only the NDP do not worry about where we get the money. You can expend the money. I am trying to see where I would best spend the money for all transportation in this country.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. This country has had experience with leaked documents. One of them became a Budget.
Oral Questions
This leaked document will mean the loss of 180 out of 210 jobs in the city of Moncton. That makes a total of
2,000	people who have lost their jobs in Moncton over the last two years.
This government is interested in freight and not people. They have hearings for CN abandonment of lines, but they do not have them for VIA.
Given the Minister of Transport's refusal to meet the mayor of Moncton yesterday, will the Prime Minister give his commitment for full public transportation committee hearings in Moncton and across this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. I said that I met with the mayors of Saint John and Mississauga. If you are from Ontario, you will know very well that when the mayor of Mississauga has something to say she does not need to say it twice. We understand it very well the first time.
I would like to say as well that I believe consultations have been made. We have to make a decision. The people of New Brunswick, like everyone else in the country, have had the chance to make their views known, and I have taken them into account. Now it is time for a decision.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Given that two million passengers use VIA in the Windsor-Quebec corridor representing 17 per cent of the travelling public, and given that Samia-London represents the gateway to Chicago and the mid-west with its great tourist potential, how can this government with its perverted logic even consider cutting VIA service to the corridor?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, very shortly we will know exactly the future of VIA Rail-when the decision will be made. It is just speculation and premature to say what he said.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We have read that the west is losing The Canadian, our nation's original transcontinental train. We have also read that the Minister of Transport is recommending a so-called luxury service connecting Toronto to Calgary.

September 27, 1989
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister tell us today which of his good friends in the private sector will be picking up passengers in Brandon, Kenora, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Maple Creek, Medicine Hat and many other communities across the west that he is forcing VIA Rail to abandon?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, the decisions concerning VIA Rail are made following a normal procedure and certainly not based on documents that no one has seen, leaked documents, documents which, again, have not been submitted to me. In this context, any information of that kind is not serious and is not to be considered.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Transport. Does the Minister of State, who is southern Ontario's voice in cabinet, agree with and support the cuts to VIA Rail in an area where the highways and skyways are already congested and clogged? How can she stay in cabinet under these circumstances?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the voice in cabinet for southern Ontario, and as the Minister of Transport has said, we do not comment on leaked documents. When the decisions are made, then I will make my comments.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is he awake over there?
This Conservative government said to the people of the Atlantic region regarding rail passenger service, "Use it or lose it". In fact, VIA passenger ridership this year to date is up 30 per cent. The people of the Atlantic have kept their end of the bargain.
My question to the minister is this. Will the minister now keep his end of the bargain with the people of the Atlantic and assure them that there will be no slashing or cutting or gypping of Atlantic Canadians of their rail passenger service?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when I was the Minister of Employment this member was my critic. I think he was a little more serious, because I have already answered that question.
I said, of course, if we consider the philosophy of his party, we will expend all the money we can without giving thought to where we will get the money. We believe Canadians want a system of transportation which is national, which can give the services to Canadians with the affordability we have and in a way that will sustain all transportation systems in the country. That is what we are trying to provide to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary is to the same minister. I recall that when I was the critic for employment and immigration this minister was a lot more serious and thoughtful about unemployment matters.
In view of the fact that Atlantic Canadians are finding themselves increasingly isolated from this government, first with budget cuts, then with GST, with back-benchers who make all sorts of insulting remarks about Atlantic Canadians, Summerside and a whole host of other matters, I want to give the minister this opportunity, to get on the better side of Atlantic Canadians-one more opportunity, one more try. Can the minister stand in his place and assure Atlantic Canadians that there will be no cut-backs in VIA Rail service in the future?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Nickel Belt that I will try to manage the Department of Transport in a way that respects the reference levels which have been given to me by the Minister of Finance in light of the fiscal reality of Canada. I believe, as a responsible minister, I have to take into account the reality of the economy of Canada. I have to work out any option which will permit Atlantic Canada, central Canada or western Canada to respect that purpose. It is what I will do.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Over the last number of months over 200,000 Atlantic Canadians have signed petitions opposing any cut-back in VIA Rail service. All four Atlantic premiers have said that they are opposed to such cuts.
Yesterday, in a monumental display of ignorance and contempt, the Minister of Transport refused to meet with Mayor Elsie Wayne and 24 other municipal leaders from across Canada to discuss this very serious issue. Since the Minister of Transport says that he has consulted enough, then either the Minister of Transport is
September 27, 1989

deaf or he is so arrogant that he has refused to listen. Mr. Prime Minister, which is it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think once again that it is not arrogant to say that I met Mayor Wayne from New Brunswick. I met also Mayor McCal-lion from Mississauga. I met a lot of people.
But once again I repeat what I said. I think it is time to make a decision. That is what we will do, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, given that regional rail service out of Halifax is gone, given that students and seniors and the sick will have no recourse, and given most particularly that this government has wreaked more havoc on Halifax and Nova Scotia than the explosion of 1917, I ask the Prime Minister why has he singled out Halifax and Nova Scotia to be blown off the rails?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again I ask the hon. member to wait for the decision, wait for the decision and she will have the time to make her comments after. But for now, wait, Mr. Speaker. Wait for the decision, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Michael Harris, Member of the Ontario Legislature and Progressive Conservative House Leader.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, we heard Finance Department officials tell us that the cost of food in Canada could go down by about 2 per cent. We no longer hear such affirmations. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we hear food companies talk about food costs increasing by 10 to 13 per cent, if the GST base is broadened.
My question for the Minister of Finance is this: Given Canadians' concerns and their fierce opposition to any tax on food, can the Minister of Finance tell us today, categorically and clearly, that there will be no food tax in Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have commented on that particular question on a number of occasions in the House. I do not propose to do so again.
I would say that the comments the hon. member is referring to about the possible increase in the cost of food that we referred to yesterday in the committee hearings are based clearly on a guesstimate of what costs might be incurred. I think he will understand that there are offsets to those costs because of the fact that food will not be taxable under the proposal, and that in the proposal there will be credits that food companies will receive. So they will see some of their costs reduced as well.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, a lot things are being said about the cost of food in Canada, but particularly my question to the Minister is this. Senior citizens in this country feel that they have been under attack for the last four or five years. There have been deindexation of pensions, increasing costs across the board and a claw-back scheme.
Now it seems to me only reasonable that the minister could soothe those fears by standing in his place and stating very clearly to Canadians that under no circumstances will his government tax food. That is a very simple plea on the part of Canadians who feel they have been under serious attack by this government over the last four or five years. Can he say clearly in the House, no, there will be no tax on food for Canadians, seniors or otherwise?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have responded to the concern that senior citizens have expressed with the proposal that is before the House today. I want to remind the hon. member of the ways in which we have attempted to design the package with the concerns and the interests of senior citizens very much in mind. There is the exemption of basic groceries. There are the other exemptions on medical devices, prescription drugs, health care services, non-profit homemaker services and meals-on-wheels. All of these things were designed and put specifically in the goods and services tax package to directly address the concerns of senior citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
September 27, 1989
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It has been five months since the announced closing of CFB Portage. With that closure the minister announced that the department was going to secure private pilot training capability. I would like to know if the minister has acted on that promise, and if he is considering Portage La Prairie to train the defence pilots.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and also for his assistance in seeking meaningful economic activity in his community.
With respect to the primary training that is presently done at Portage, we sent out a solicitation of interest to some 260 companies around the world, including several in Canada. We received replies and expressions of interest from some 57. Those are being reviewed now. I can inform the hon. member that several of those expressions of interest included use of existing facilities presently in Canada. After the evaluation has been concluded, I am sure that I will be able to announce to the House and to those interested, the decisions that will be made.


FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a rather sensitive question for the Prime Minister of Canada. I want to know whether or not the chairman of the finance committee was stating government policy when he said yesterday, after seniors appeared before the committee, and I quote, "They, seniors, live at a slower pace and they do not spend money in the same sense that you and I do. Older people don't wear out their clothes, don't wear out their furniture, don't run around, and all that costs money".
I want to know whether or not the chairman of the finance committee was enunciating government policy concerning senior citizens who have built this country and who have paid their taxes. Does he owe them an apology? I want him to get up in this House now and say that he apologizes for this kind of a statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to speak on behalf of the chairman of the finance committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The chairman of the finance Committee may or may not have expressed those views. I do not know whether or not he is quoted out of context.
Clearly, as I indicated to a previous question, the concerns of senior citizens have very much been taken into account as we have designed a package for the goods and services tax. I will not repeat the various ways we have done so. But, clearly, if one takes an objective view of the various ways we have responded to those concerns, I think that senior citizens would say this package is a very solid and very sensitive one for the senior citizens of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this is not a laughing matter. What I want to know from the chairman of the finance committee is whether or not he was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance, whether or not he was speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada when he said that older people don't wear out their clothes, don't wear out their furniture, don't run around, and all that costs money. Will he now apologize to the senior citizens of this country?


Mr. Speaker:: The first question was directed to the government. The second question was directed to the chairman of the committee. That, of course, is out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: It is not!


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. Minister of Finance wishes to respond, I will hear the minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I believe the question the hon. member was putting was, was the chairman of the finance Committee speaking on behalf of me. The answer is simply no.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Many times, the Finance Minister has not kept his word to Canadian small businesses.
In his White Paper on sales tax reform, the Minister said that a good sales tax system should not impose heavy administrative costs on businesses.
According to the Retail Council of Canada, it will cost $2 billion to administer the new tax, Mr. Speaker.
September 27, 1989

Is the Finance Minister ready to listen to small businesses and immediately withdraw this planned tax which will really create a nightmare for Canadian small businesses? We will lose 80 per cent of the jobs created by these same businesses.
[English\


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no, I certainly will not withdraw the proposal that has been put before the House of Commons. I will also say that there are a number of things that have been missed and have not been emphasized by people who have commented on the impact of the GST on small business.
We have put in streamlined accounting proposals that will address some of the complexities that have been raised by the small business community. The invoices that the small business people use for income tax purposes will also be able to be used without any additional accounting for the GST accounting. There will be a one-page tax form for small business to fill out so that virtually everyone in the country will have a one-page tax form to fill out.
In addition, we are providing for less frequent filing, less frequent calculations of the GST for small business. We are going to provide them with up to a $600 offset fee in order to offset some of those compliance costs.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister has been speaking lately to his friend John Bulloch. Ninety-seven per cent of Canadian small businesses are against this new sales tax. Why does the minister not listen to the voice of small business in Canada and withdraw the tax immediately before it is too late?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that over the past five years the small business community has received tremendous support from this government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Small businessmen have said to me that if ever there has been a government
Oral Questions
that understands and has tried to deal with the problems and the challenges that small business face it is this government. We have done so in many ways, in this and other forms of government policy in the last five years.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: My question is for the
Minister of Finance. The GST technical paper has stated that the GST will result in an increase in the price of a $150,000 home of only $480. The Canadian Home Builders' Association has calculated the additional cost to be $3,025. A Vancouver tax consulting firm has calculated the cost to be $11,552, or 24 times the government's estimate.
In view of the obvious inaccuracies in the GST paper, will the minister withdraw the technical paper and tell the Canadian public the real truth about the effect of GST on Canadian homes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think anybody who is listening to this debate will realize that someone who says that the impact that we have stated is out by a factor of 24 times clearly will understand that whoever is using that figure is overstating his case by a significant margin.
I want to comment specifically on where the differences are between the home builders and the figures that we have put in the technical paper. The CHBA has used old data which systematically is understating the existing federal sales tax burden in the price of houses now.


Mr. Pickard:: Use 1989 figures.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says we should be using 1989 data. We are using the most up-to-date data that is available today. The building association is ignoring the changes that have already taken place in the existing sales tax and they do not assume that they are going to pass on the savings that are there from the existing sales tax in the application of the new sales tax. If those savings are passed on, and I call on the building association to pass on those savings, then those figures are way out of line.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I think the person who is naive if he makes the assumption that they are going to be passed on is the Minister of Finance, not the home builders association.

September 27, 1989
Oral Questions
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. When factors like GST induced inflation, higher interest rates and increased taxes are all considered, the average down payment on a Vancouver home of $190,000 will be an increase of $3,658, and the average increase in monthly mortgage payments will be $230. How can the minister say that GST will not affect the affordability of housing with those types of figures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what puzzles me about the hon. member's questions is that with the statements that he is making he is endorsing the home builders not passing on the savings. Surely, it is up to him to press those home builders to pass on those savings so that the consumers in his riding will benefit from the clear economic benefits that are going to accrue from this sales tax reform.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the threat to the Canadian dairy marketing system that we have in this country.
On January 28, 1988, the government passed an Order in Council to transfer ice cream and yoghurt from the tariff list to the import control list in order to protect this industry.
Given the fact that the United States had a total ban on these products coming into their country from Canada, why did the government choose this method to provide protection to the Canadian supply management and marketing board system?
Now there is a challenge by the United States. There was no provision in the free trade deal to do this. Obviously, it has been challenged by the United States and that has been sustained by a GATT panel.
Can the minister say why that method was chosen, and why he has placed in jeopardy the livelihood of some
34,000	dairy farmers across the country; not only their quotas, but their mortgages, their farms, their whole livelihood? Why has he placed them in jeopardy like this?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question yesterday. The action that was taken to put ice cream and yoghurt on the import control list was done fully consistent with the principles of GATT. There has been a GATT panel ruling on the issue.
I am glad he now acknowledges the fact that this is not a free trade issue but rather a GATT issue. It was the GATT panel that brought down the ruling fully consistent with the GATT process. We intend to fight that issue fully consistent with the GATT process.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the approach or the method was wrong because the United States won the first round of that appeal. In view of the fact that we have lost on ice cream and yoghurt and that we were slapped with a pork countervail, will the minister bring the producers and their organizations into future GATT negotiations as active front line participants, rather than trade away their livelihoods in secret negotiations behind closed doors?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate that question, Mr. Speaker. Because the hon. member is usually up to date on agricultural issues, I am surprised that he is not aware of the fact that we established a dairy task force. We are in the process of establishing a poultry task force. The dairy task force has been fully involved in this issue, and they will be fully involved in the action that we take defending their interests at the GATT.


JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, in June of 1985, Charles Ng escaped from the United States, came to Canada, crossed the border at Windsor, travelled to Calgary, and shot a security guard at a Hudson's Bay store.
In August 31, this past month, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case of the Supreme Court appeal on Charles Ng's extradition.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice: Is it now his intention to sign the extradition request, with all due haste, returning Ng to the United States?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that counsel for Mr. Ng has made submissions. We will be taking those submissions into account and
September 27, 1989

discharging our statutory duty as expeditiously as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question from the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of defence. In the spring budget the federal government started the process of killing Manitoba's status as a defence centre by announcing the closure of CFB Portage and the transfer of military personnel from Winnipeg to Edmonton.
In addition to these cuts which would seriously damage Manitoba's economy, it is now reported that Manitoba's militia headquarters will be transferred to the city of Edmonton.
I would like the minister of defence to confirm today whether the militia staff will indeed be transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton and, if so, how many jobs will be a lost in the province of Manitoba.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will review the White Paper he will find that there were four military regions going to be established in the White Paper because of the total force concept. That means that there will be headquarters in his region.
At the present time consideration is being made as to the relocation of the existing militia headquarters. There will be a militia district maintained. Where the headquarters will be located has not been decided, but there will be four mobile force headquarters established for the Total Force concept.
I ask him to review the White Paper so that he can be more familiar with it.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the 1988 Annual Report of Canarctic Shipping Company Ltd.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports. The first is the report of the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the first annual Commonwealth-wide parliamentary seminar in Lusaka, Zambia, from June 18 to June 30, 1989.
The second is the report of the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the twenty-ninth annual regional CPA conference in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta from July 12 to July 17, 1989.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Routine Proceedings



ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR CROPS ACT


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Ralph Ferguson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell me why he is seeking the floor?


Ralph Ferguson: I wish to speak to the motion to withdraw this bill, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could check with his colleagues, because I think the point about which the hon. member is concerned may come up a little later.



CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (spousal agreement).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct an inequity that has developed in the legislation governing the Canada Pension Plan.
As a result of a decision rendered by the Pensions Appeal Board in the case of Preece vs. Preece, many spouses lost the right to the division of pension plan credits in the event of marital breakdown, even though they had been informed that the division of the CPP was an unassignable right.
This bill will restore the law to its original intent before the Preece vj Preece judgment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South- Weston on a point of order.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave notice earlier this day of my intention to table a private member's bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to apologize to the member for York South-Weston who was overlooked. However we can proceed.



CRIMINAL CODE


John V. Nunziata: for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of the unborn).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?
September 27, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been without an abortion law since January 1988. For 21 months there has been a legal vacuum in Canada where the innocent unborn have not been afforded the protection of law.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the last 21 months have caused considerable concern to Canadians across the country with respect to this particular issue. The Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled in a definitive way with respect to this. The government itself has not provided the necessary leadership.
Accordingly I would like to introduce today a bill that would in effect protect the innocent unborn from the moment of conception. This bill would ensure that the unborn of Canada are given the protection of the Criminal Code of Canada from the moment of conception.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the House I would like to revert momentarily to presentation of reports from committees.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure to present to the House the fourth, fifth and sixth reports, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR CROPS ACT


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have two motions both of which have been discussed with the House Leaders of the opposition parties and agreed to. The first one is as follows. I move:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative
committee of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Advance Payments for
Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be
discharged.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Government House Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? The hon. member for Algoma.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this matter because the government House leader has moved to withdraw Bill C-32. The government introduced, as I understand it, a few moments ago-and I objected to it-a new bill to replace Bill C-32.1 think it is highly unusual that the government would be introducing a new bill while the other one is still on the Order Paper.
Clearly Bill C-32 is a cobbled up bill. There were mistakes in it. Apparently the government is withdrawing it and replacing it because of technical problems and so on. There is a great ground swell in the country opposing Bill C-32 as well, not just because of the technical flaws in it but because it removes a very important and essential part of the farming support program, the cash advance program which has brought some $25 million to $27 million worth of benefits in interest-free cash advances to prairie farmers which are desperately needed this fall, and similar kinds of support for eastern farmers for com, grain, and oilseeds.
Although we are glad to be rid of Bill C-32, we are not pleased with the replacement because as far as supporting and assisting Canadian agriculture it is no better than Bill C-32.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to recognize the hon. member who was rising I think on this same point. I must advise the hon. member, though, that this is not the place to argue the merits of the former bill or the one that the Minister of Justice is proposing to introduce. If the hon. member has a point of order of course I will hear it.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that most of the Canadian harvest is already completed and in the bins and that producers are anxiously awaiting the benefits from the current legislation, I would like to suggest that the minister use the current legislation and sign the agreements with the producer organizations for this year. Then, of course, if he wants to reintroduce a bill later on in the year and through negotiations with the producers bring in something more acceptable than previously tabled here today, I think it would be to the credit of the government.
Most of the western Canadian harvest, however, is already completed. The grain is in the bins; com and soybean harvests are under way in Ontario at the present time; the tobacco harvest is already completed; the potato harvest has begun in Atlantic Canada, so I think it

September 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
is an ill-conceived time to try to set aside legislation that has served Canadian farmers for so many years so effectively.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice is rising on the point of order, and of course I am going to hear him. I know the hon. member for Mackenzie wishes to rise, but this is not the place to debate either of the bills. This is just an absolutely procedural move. If the House does not accept it then the House does not accept it, but it is not a place to argue it. The hon. Minister of Justice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the allegations by both members for Algoma and Lambton- Middlesex are unfounded.
As I indicated when I introduced the motion, it was agreed upon by the House leaders in our meeting yesterday that it would go through on the nod. My relationship with the House leaders for the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party is such that I just want the House to know that I attribute none of this to the House leader of the Official Opposition. I think these colleagues are off on a frolic of their own.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated that I would hear the hon. member for Mackenzie. I recognize the hon. member and hope that the hon. member will keep in mind that this is strictly a procedural matter. If the hon. member has a point of order which I have to take into account then I of course will do so, but I am not hearing debate.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House and to yourself that there is some question as to the propriety of the method used by the hon. government House leader today.
I think it would have been a more acceptable practice in this House, had he wished to withdraw the bill, if he had done so before he introduced an alternate bill. Today he did it, I submit, backward.
We have given him the right to withdraw the Bill C-32. It is not an initiative that anyone in agricultural Canada approves of. We are happy to see that being withdrawn, but we think he did it backward in introducing an alternate piece of legislation. He should have waited another day for that, at least.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member's point. I think it is my obligation now to remind the House that the motion of the hon. Minister of Justice reads:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Advance Payment for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be discharged.
Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this motion has also been discussed with the House leaders of the opposition Parties and has been approved by them. I move:
That, effective Monday, October 9, 1989, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be changed as follows:
That Standing Order 104(2) be amended:
1)	by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting the following therefor: "(c) Communications and Culture;"
2)	by adding immediately after paragraph (p) the following new
paragraph:
"(q) Multiculturalism and Citizenship;" and
3)	by relettering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly;
That Standing Order 108(2) be amended by deleting the words "except those set out in sections (3) and (4) of this Standing Order" and substituting the following therefor:
"except those set out in sections 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and (4) of this Standing Order,"; and
That the reference in Standing Order 108(3)(a) to "Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism" be changed to "Multiculturalism"and Citizenship".


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if that should not read October 10. October 9 is a statutory holiday. I do not know if you can do any business that day.
September 27, 1989


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is in order to have it read Monday, October 9. The House will not be sitting so I think the question is moot. However, if my hon. friend wants to be here, I am sure he can read the motion at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this occasion to say how much we appreciate this motion today. When the decision was to consolidate a number of the standing committees we heard from a number of people who indicated an inclination to have a separate committee as this special order indicates. I want to say to the government House leader that we appreciate bringing forward this motion in terms of recognizing the concerns Canadians brought to the government's attention.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians in the London, Woodstock and Windsor areas of the province of Ontario.
It basically is in support of continued VIA Rail service and it concludes: wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound, and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.
Routine Proceedings


OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of Canadians, including many residents of Ottawa-Vanier, who reject the new sales tax on goods and services which the Conservative Government intends to introduce.
Canadians object to a tax that will raise taxes, increase inflation and interest rates and cut jobs. Canadians, in my riding especially, object to this invisible tax that will bring chaos to business and create an administrative nightmare for small businesses. Canadians object to this new Mulroney tax that will hit essential services.
Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of constituents who want to table this petition, and I do so, sadly, on their behalf.


VIA RAIL
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 43 names on a petition from the citizens of Belleville who state that whereas the government has decided to eliminate many of VIA Rail's existing routes and thousands of jobs; that Canadian people deserve a high quality passenger rail service, including modernized equipment throughout the network and a rapid rail system for the corridor, and that rail passenger mode is the safest and most environmentally friendly mode of travel, the petitioners state that the annual subsidies provided by the Government of Canada to VIA Rail are not disproportionate to subsidies required for highway infrastructure or for airports, that many rural communities rely exclusively on rail passenger service, and that the tourism industry in Canada relies on rail passenger service. We have had this since 1885 and it has been an integral part of Canada's public transportation network.
They call on Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger services throughout this country.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Sheila Finestone: Speaker, I have a second petition relating to the goods and services tax, signed by petitioners from Montreal, stating that the Conservative federal government has already imposed 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadians, increased the manufacturers sales tax from 9 per cent to 13.5 per

Routine Proceedings
cent, and now wishes to add a general 9 per cent tax on goods and services. This new tax will be hidden from Canadians and applied to everything they buy, virtually.
The imposition of this new general tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians. They therefore suggest that this will be an onerous burden on small businesses and all the other causes and ask us to oppose this tax with vigour. I therefore deposit these for your consideration.


VIA RAIL
Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadian citizens who call upon Parliament to urge the government not to cancel, in whole or part, rail passenger services in Canada. This petition has been duly certified and signed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to submit two petitions, which have been certified correct, from Canadian citizens from St. Thomas, Brantford, Windsor, London, Toronto, Ottawa, and a host of other places in southern Ontario, in which they petition this House.
Whereas the government has failed to provide the resources necessary to fulfil its promise of improved passenger rail service, the undersigned, your petitioners, pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service. As duty bound, your petitioners will continue to pray.


REVISION OF EXTRADITION LAWS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions today on the same topic, all of which have been certified correct according by the clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first group of petitions containing 3,184 signatures of western Canadians is joined with a second group which is also signed mainly by western Canadians but does include some people from Ontario. It contains an additional 4,163 signatures.
These 7,347 Canadians all express concern that Canada not become recognized as a haven for foreign fugitives and call upon the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws which would allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of fugitives either immediately or after they have been dealt with fully by the Canadian penal system.
If my addition is correct, these signatures bring the total to 79,778 Canadians who have signed petitions and submitted them to the House of Commons.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present two petitions today that have been certified by the clerk of petitions. These petitions are in protest against the mindless activities of the government to decimate VIA Rail.


RCMP DRESS CODE
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present today many petitions. In fact, I have hundreds of petitions containing the signatures of over 9,000 people from Calgary in particular who want to retain the uniformity of the RCMP dress uniform.
These petitioners say that the RCMP has a long and honourable tradition, known and admired around the world. They are not discriminating on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. The uniform of our RCMP is part of our Canadian heritage and our Canadian culture. It must be protected. It must be preserved.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of the dress code with all the recognized colour and trappings that have such great historical value for our country.
All these petitions have been certified.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several dozen Canadians who are very concerned about the goods and services tax. They point out that 31 new taxes have been imposed by the government and that the manufacturers' sales tax has been increased from 9 per cent to 13.5 per

cent. They also point out that the tax will be hidden and that it will be very unfair to low and middle income Canadians. It will impose an onerous burden on small business. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax which this government is trying to impose on Canadians.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several persons from southwest Ontario who are condemning the government for the proposed VIA Rail cuts. They call upon the government not only to restore service but to increase service in an age that is demanding safer and more environmentally friendly modes of transportation, particularly in a part of Canada, southwestern Ontario, where the highways and the airways are becoming increasingly clogged by other modes of transportation.
This petition has been duly certified as correct.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this House from citizens of Toronto, London, Waterloo and Woodstock in the province of Ontario.
These petitioners point out this Conservative government has failed to keep its promise to improve rail passenger service throughout Canada and, in fact, it has gone further in its moves to cut rail passenger service. This is anticipated any time now.
Therefore, these people who have signed the petition call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid and economic, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other forms of transportation.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present to Parliament on behalf of concerned citizens from my area and the surrounding area a petition denouncing the despicable goods and services tax which this Conservative government will be trying to ram through this House.
Routine Proceedings
As this is an unfair tax, it will be relentlessly opposed in the weeks and months ahead as these petitioners want us to do.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as well to present to this honourable House a petition signed by Canadians from the Windsor area who, like my constituents in Beausejour; object to the Government's tax proposal.

The petitioners fear and are concerned that this new invisible tax will create hardship for Canadian families and will also be an additional burden to small businesses.


VIA RAIL-OPPOSITION TO BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which conforms to the requirements under Standing Order 36 and concerns the Tory Government's proposed cutbacks at VIA Rail.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger services in Canada.


RCMP DRESS CODE
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition regarding the RCMP dress code signed by citizens of the riding of Carleton-Gloucester and duly certified by the clerk of the House of Commons.
The petitioners request the Canadian Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of the dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have such great historical value for this country.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of the House of Commons. This petition is signed by several hundred members of the community of Windsor, Ontario which is my adopted city.

Routine Proceedings
They pray that the government change the proposed terms of the goods and services tax.


VIA RAIL
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with respect to the proposed changes to VIA Rail. It is a certified petition signed by the proper number of people. This was presented to us from the good citizens of Belleville, Ontario, while we were on our task force on VIA Rail.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure, honour and duty to present a petition certified according to the accepted rules and procedures. It is on the insensitive goods and services tax, another tax on top of all the other horrendous and insensitive taxes imposed by this government on Canadians. It is one that is particularly harsh,

I table this petition for your consideration.


VIA RAIL
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present to this House petitions from senior citizens, students, tour operators, people in the hospitality industry, who demand that VIA be kept intact so that this country can have a national passenger rail service.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to stand in the House today. I have three petitions to present. The first one has 296 signatories who strongly oppose the imposition of a goods and services tax which they feel is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.
My second petition has 183 signatories and it concerns music education. These petitioners feel that a sales tax on music education will hurt the average family for whose music education would become too costly. The music educators are active participants in the education departments of every province in Canada and their
knowledge and expertise prepare students with qualifications.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider music studies as an educational process and therefore exempt music education from the proposed sales tax.


VIA RAIL
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, my third petition contains 45 signatories. It is protesting the proposed cuts to VIA Rail. These petitioners are from the area of Belleville, Ontario. They feel that the rail passenger services have been an integral part of Canada's public transportation and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel rail passenger services in Canada.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty today to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Canada who oppose the government's goods and services tax. This tax will create a burden on small and medium-sized businesses, senior citizens, all home-owners, tenants, low and middle-income Canadians and many other sectors of our society.
These Canadians are asking this Parliament to reject this unfair tax.


VIA RAIL
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have a petition which has been duly certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It relates to the VIA Rail service in this country.
It has been signed by a group of petitioners who are concerned about the fate of VIA Rail under this government. They want no part of cuts. They want the service retained and they are urging all of us and particularly the government of the day to put a stop to any notion of cutting back on passenger rail service in this country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 46 people from southwestern Ontario who point out that the Government of Canada has failed to provide the necessary resources to fulfil its promise for improved passenger rail service to the region. The government's deregulation of air passenger service has dramatized this even more by pointing out
September 27, 1989

the need for safe, convenient, economical, rapid and environmentally sound alternative passenger service.
The petitioners call upon the government to improve and modernize VIA Rail in the area to provide just those kinds of services.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as well to join with my colleagues to present a petition to this House with respect to the government's intention to impose a goods and services tax. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians oppose this particular tax and it is with pleasure that I present a petition on behalf of a significant number of Canadians who wish to express their opposition to the tax, and to request the Government of Canada to come to its senses and to rescind this particular tax.


VIA RAIL-OPPOSITION TO BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition, in accordance with Standing Order 36, signed by Canadians who object to the cutbacks at VIA Rail, for the simple reason that everywhere else in the world tremendous sums have been invested to update this transportation mode, while we here in Canada are intent on getting rid of it.
It is with feelings of great frustration that people wonder why, at a time when this means of transportation is expanding to an incredible extent everywhere else in the world, we are going in the opposite direction.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: have the honour and privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from citizens from Belleville to Scarborough, Ontario, who are telling us, among other things, that rural communities rely exclusively on passenger rail service. They request that we on this side of the House urge the Government of Canada not to cancel, in whole or in part, rail passenger services in Canada.
Routine Proceedings


OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition, from a small business that is not in my riding but in the neighboring riding, represented by a Government Member, namely Ahuntsic.
The small business expects problems, serious and unfair hardships that this goods and services tax will impose on it and its customers ask us to have Parliament reject this new goods and services tax.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present another petition from the residents of my riding of Sudbury. They wish hereby to register their very strong protest against the proposed goods and service tax. They feel that this proposed tax is unfair, unjust, and will certainly impose a very serious burden on them.
This petition has been registered with the clerk of petitions.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Ibinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the loss of their rail service. Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception lost its rail passenger service in 1967 and indeed, Newfoundland lost the whole Newfoundland railway one year ago. I can certainly empathize with them.
This petition has been duly certified by the clerk and your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger service in Canada.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to rise in the House and present a petition that has been certified by the clerk, and signed by 128 persons, mostly residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands, who protest the closing of VIA Rail in whole or in part and call upon this government to cease and desist from such a policy.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of the people of Canada as it relates to the destruction of VIA Rail. For those members in the House who are not aware, Kenora-

September 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Rainy River has a large history of railroaders because of the railways that run through the northern Ontario district. They are very worried that not only will it reduce service and reduce jobs for the people of Keno-ra-Rainy River but they are also very disturbed that the deficit will increase because of the fact that it will cost more to replace those jobs with other programs than it will to maintain the service that we have now.
I present this to you and humbly hope that the government will pay attention to what Canadians are saying.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who want to draw to the government's attention their disappointment that the government plans to reduce VIA Rail service. It means that a number of jobs will be lost in Kamloops and 55 businesses will be adversely affected as a result of these cutbacks.
They are asking the government to reconsider the decision and upgrade VIA Rail as opposed to downgrading it.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have petition on another matter, the general goods and service tax. It is from people from Kamloops, Chase, Barriere, Little Fort and a variety of places, who point out their concern that this tax will be applied to reading, hair cuts, diapers, coffins, home heating fuels, and many other areas which will increase the cost of living to ordinary Canadians. They point out that it is a regressive form' of taxation and they ask the government to reconsider and abandon the pursuit of the general sales tax.


VIA RAIL
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 and present to the House three petitions calling upon Parliament to maintain, to improve, and to modernize VIA Rail in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient and environmentally sound and
energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


FORESTRY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: have a fourth petition, duly signed and authorized being from petitioners of the province of British Columbia who are requesting the government to continue the Forestry Resource Development Agreement currently in effect in British Columbia.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to renew this important agreement with British Columbia, therefore providing for renewed commitment to restocking our forest lands, advancing forestry research, promoting silviculture and assisting the forest industry in developing the new products and markets that will provide forestry jobs for the future.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present two petitions signed by people from Surrey, British Columbia; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; London, St. Jacob's, Waterloo, Kingston and other Ontario communities. These people are calling on the government to remember the heritage of its party, which includes the building of the railways at the time of Confederation to tie this country together, and not to turn its back on that heritage but to introduce into this country a modem, up-to-date transportation system which shows that the government is taking seriously what it is saying about sustainable development in this country in the future.


David Stupich: It is my
privilege to present a petition duly certified by the clerk. It is supported by some 9,000 people in two ridings on Vancouver Island who have signed petition cards, supported also by motions passed at every municipal council meeting on Vancouver Island. They urge the government to live up to its promises to maintain and to improve VIA Rail and to, at the very least, hold public meetings before any changes are made.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discharge a duty and present this petition to this House of Parliament on behalf of many concerned Canadians, like residents of Winnipeg North. They are concerned that with the cutting of the VIA Rail passen-

ger service we will destroy a cohesive link from coast to coast. The signatories to this petition, certified by the clerk, do humbly pray that this Parliament call upon the government not to cut in whole or in part VIA Rail passenger service in Canada.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Jerry Pickard: I have the privilege to rise today with a petition from people in my riding of Essex-Kent. They are very concerned about the position that has been taken with regard to the goods and services tax and the economic problems it will cause the people of Canada, as well as the disruption of business. They are very concerned about the total impact of it and humbly ask the government to reconsider its position.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I rise today to present a petition from many of the residents of my constituency, Prince Edward-Hastings. They call upon the government not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger service in Canada. I am pleased to say that this is part of a number of now over 5,000 signatures that I have received in my riding alone calling upon the government to take a more serious and real look at rail passenger service in Canada.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition certified correct by the clerk on behalf of residents of Ontario and namely the village of Wellington. The petition deals with the elimination of VIA Rail, their existing routes and thousands of jobs. The people of Wellington urge the Conservative government not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger service in Canada.


RCMP DRESS CODE
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 this afternoon and have the honour to present a petition signed by 146 Canadians, mainly from the city of Calgary and surrounding towns.
The RCMP is a distinctive Canadian institution and these petitioners are asking Parliament to preserve the unique heritage and tradition of the RCMP and to keep it truly uniform.
They are opposed to the proposed changes in the RCMP dress code.
Routine Proceedings VIA RAIL


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition, endorsed by the clerk of petitions, from a number of Canadians obviously possessed of a great deal more vision and foresight and intelligence than can be found from time to time on the benches opposite.
They are calling upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in such areas as Edmonton, which is about to be kicked in the teeth by this government again with its VIA Rail cut-backs, such places as Calgary that similarly will be kicked in the teeth by the government with its cut-backs, and in other such centres of Canada that are, as we increasingly see, so terribly ill-served by this government.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I am honoured to be able to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by a number of Canadians asking that VIA Rail be modernized and improved so that a fast, economical, safe and convenient transportation system can be provided for all Canadians.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are concerned about the future of VIA Rail. They call on the government to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service throughout this country. Canadians are speaking. I do hope that the government is listening.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: It is also my pleasure to rise to present a number of petitions signed by residents from the Ottawa, London, Windsor, and St. Thomas area. They humbly pray that the government will listen to their concerns about the cuts in the VIA Rail. They not only ask the government to stop these cuts but to improve the service.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Cyril (Cid) Samson: I also have a petition from the residents of my riding in Timmins- Chapleau concerning the goods and services tax. They humbly pray that the government will cease with the proposal which taxes diapers and coffins, therefore taxing Canadians from the cradle to the grave.

September 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings BRANCH LINE ABANDONMENT


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour and privilege today to present a large number of petitions certified to be correct by the clerk of petitions. These are petitions signed by most of the citizens of Big River, Saskatchewan, who protest this government's termination of the branch line rehabilitation program and call on the government to renew its commitment to the desperately needed upgrading of the Big River subdivision, a commitment made to the community of Big River prior to the 1984 election and withdrawn shortly thereafter.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['The Chair has considered the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan. The Chair believes that it is a most serious and important matter. However, the Chair does not believe that , at this time it meets the requirements of the standing order.']
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 97, 100, 114 and 115.



Mr. MacWilliam: Has the government taken any action to investigate the activities of United Parcel Service operating in British Columbia?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: As a result of inquiries regarding United Parcel Service operating in British Columbia, I immediately ordered an investigation into this matter. The review began on May 23, 1989 and is now complete. The results indicate that UPS is meeting Customs requirements and I am satisfied with UPS's efforts to comply with the laws and regulations for which I am responsible.


OSCAR AWARDED TO THE NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Kaplan: As of June 6, 1989, with regard to the Oscar awarded earlier this year to the National Film Board (a) is the government aware of its location and, if so, what is it (b) do the government and the National Film Board have plans for its retention and display and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: (a)
The special Oscar presented to the National Film Board is on display in a specially designed cabinet which exhibits all its awards, in the main entrance of the Norman-McLaren Building at 3155, Cote-de-Liesse, Ville Saint-Laurent.
(b) In addition, as part of 50th Anniversary activities, the Oscar has been displayed at certain events outside of NFB Montreal: 1. At the Canadian Library Association Conference in Edmonton from June 21 to 25; 2. At the AMTEC (Association of Media and Technology in Education) in Edmonton from June 18 to 21.
A Canadian tour will be organized from October 1989 to January 1990. Also, the Oscar will be placed in an appropriate area at the House of Commons from May 1990 to December 1990.


PRINCE CHARLES PROJECT IN TORONTO
Mr. Karpoff: As of June 20 1989, has money been recovered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation relating to expenditures on a Toronto housing project known as the Prince Charles project and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what penalties are provided for in regard to monies that must be so recovered?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: (a)
and (b) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation wrote to the National Council of Jewish Women (Toronto) on May 31, 1989 requesting a revised statement of final costs to reflect the sales tax rebate received in the project's capital costs. Audit final costs are required so that CMHC may determine the final amount of federal assistance to be paid out, as it is based on eligible capital costs. The sales tax rebate is not money owed to CMHC, but rather funds to be used for the benefit of the project. It is anticipated that a reduction of the eligible capital costs will also result in a reduction in the level of federal assistance provided.
CMHC continues to press for this statement and for a meeting with the Board of Directors to ensure these funds are used properly.



Mr. Karpoff: Is CMHC conducting investigations into possible criminal activity, in the Prince Charles project, involving (a) granting of management contracts (b) rebating of provincial sales tax (c) rebating of federal sales tax (d) other areas and, if so, what were these activities?


Alan Redway: (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is conducting an internal investigation into all aspects of its review and approval of this project. CMHC has indicated, in writing, to all those conducting their own inquiries that it is prepared to co-operate fully with them. This includes the Ontario Provincial Police, who will be looking at any possible criminal charges.


STARRED QUESTION
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 89.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, due to the length of the response I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.


SALE OF CROWN CORPORATION
Mr. Karygiannis: 1.	Does the government have in its possession the 1986 Agreement of Sale of CN Express to Route Canada Inc. and, if so, is it prepared to table the document and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is the government prepared to provide an undertaking that the future sale of Crown Corporations, such as Air Canada, will not go ahead until a full determination of their true market value is arrived at by an impartial appraiser?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by Transport Canada and the Office of Privatization And Regulatory Affairs as follows:
1. There is no agreement of Sale of CN Express to Route Canada Inc.
In 1983 Canadian National Railway Company merged CN Trucking and CN Express into a company with the legal name Transport Route Canada Inc. In 1986 Transport Route Canada Inc. was sold to Route Canada Holdings Inc. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale is considered to be a commercially confidential document
Routine Proceedings
and neither of the companies involved is prepared to make it public.
2. As a normal part of any privatization undertaken directly by the government, financial advisors are engaged to provide expert commercial advice with a view to protecting the government's financial interest. In some privatizations, notably those of Canadair, de Havilland, Teleglobe Canada, the Canada Development Corporation and the recently completed sale of the government's shareholding in Air Canada, the government also bene-fitted from the advice of the Board of Directors of the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDIC) whose members are drawn from the private sector and have broad experience in commercial transactions.
That same prudent course will be followed in the proposed divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited, for which divestiture legislation is currently before the House. Wood Gundy Inc. has been engaged by CDIC as financial advisors to the government. The CDIC Board of Directors will provide their recommendations to the government as well.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. P-4, in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt and P-5, in the name of the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence are acceptable to the government and the documents are tabled immediately.
Motion No. P-4
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents and impact studies for Success in the Works-A Policy Paper-A Labour Force Development Strategy for Canada.
Motion No. P-5
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all impact studies prepared for the Department of Employment and Immigration regarding the effects of the reallocation of 1.3 billion in Unemployment Insurance expenditures, and specifically regarding the number and provincial break-down of Unemployment Insurance recipients who will no longer qualify for benefits, the number and


S. 0. 52
[Stage Direction]
provincial break-down of Unemployment Insurance recipients whose benefit periods will be reduced, the amount of money saved thereby, both nationally and by province, and the funds to be allocated in each province as a result of the reallocation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. P-4 for the production of papers be deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. P-5 for the production of papers be deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. P-12, in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and P-13, in the name of the hon. member of Okanagan-Shuswap.
Motion No. 12
That an Humble Address be presented to Her excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of Cabinet directives issued by the government in July 1981 and July 1988 which directed the Farm Credit Corporation to provide long-term mortgage credit to Canadian farmers on a cost-recovery basis.
Motion No. 13
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents and correspondence pertaining to the decision by Revenue Canada (Customs and Excise) to suspend the renewal of the customs brokerage licence of United Parcel Service operating in the Province of British Columbia.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Notice of motion for the production of papers P-12, in the name of the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested are cabinet confidences that cannot be laid before the House and I, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are for directives of cabinet issued to a Crown corporation which, under the statute that permits such directives, in my view ought to be made public. While the cabinet document upon which the recommendation would be based, I would agree, is a cabinet confidence, the other documents, in my view, are not or ought not to be. I would request, therefore, if the Parliamentary
Secretary will not accede to my request, that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Notice of motion for the production of papers No. P-13, in the name of the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Shuswap.
Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, the documents requested cannot be released pursuant to Sections 21(b) and 21(c) of the Access to Information Act. I, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, the information requested pertains to the decision by Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, to suspend the renewal of the customs brokerage licence for United Parcel Service, the reason for suspension apparently being some rather questionable activities of this major international corporation. In light of the decision made by representatives of Revenue Canada and in light of the impact that the refusal of the government to honour this request has brought upon the House, I would ask with your leave, Your Honour, that this request be transferred to Private Members' Business so that it may be debated further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. 0. 52 VIA RAIL
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 'Hie Chair has received a notice of motion for an emergency debate from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52,1 have advised you in writing that I seek leave to move that the House adjourn for the purpose of debating an important and urgent matter, namely the imminent dismantling of VIA Rail.
In my letter to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to read it, I make the point that the Minister of Transport has indicated that there will be no public hearings. He has refused to meet further with delegations from Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. We know that the cabinet will, within days if not hours, be asked to consider the recommendations coming from either the

Government Orders
Minister of Transport or the Planning and Priorities Committee of cabinet, and I would ask that you grant us leave to hold an emergency debate in order that the House, on behalf of the people of Canada, can provide specific input to the cabinet as to the decisions that it may make with regard to the future of VIA Rail.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has considered the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan. The Chair believes that it is a most serious and important matter. However, the Chair does not believe that , at this time it meets the requirements of the standing order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The debate on Bill C-18 has taken some of the House's time so far and seven hours and five minutes of debate remain before we use up the eight hours allowed in the Standing Orders. After that, each Member has ten minutes to speak. In order to speed things up and to give more members of my party an opportunity to speak and take part in the debate, I would like to tell the House that we would want to divide our time occasionally, when our turn comes, from 20-minute speeches and 10 minutes for questions, to two periods of 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, of course we would be more than happy to co-operate with the Official Opposition in this eminently sensible move.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I notice the record indicates that to date, we in the New Democratic Party have had a chance to speak for 23 minutes on this very important piece of legislation. Perhaps some people would like us not to speak at all, ever, and run the House as a dictatorial arm of the government, but that is not the way our parliamentary system operates.
I simply want to say that we have a number of speakers who have a number of comments that they wish to make on this piece of legislation and I would like to see that they have an opportunity to speak for 20 minutes. I would certainly entertain the suggestion, however, once we have heard a number of speakers who feel very strongly about this legislation. Beyond that, we are quite prepared to also consider breaking down the 20 minutes into tens and fives. For the moment, as the standing orders provide, we would like to retain the 20 minute speeches and 10 minute questions and comments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, we understand that decision of the NDP. May I also then, in the same spirit, since everyone seems quite anxious to participate in the debate, an important debate for the House of Commons, ask if there would be unanimous consent of the House to add the time that we have just taken for the presentation of the petitions and add that to the clock tonight to make sure that we have adequate debating time for all of our colleagues.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think the term is "crocodile tears". The Parliamentary Secretary who just made that proposition should know that the House has not sat for 64 days since the last election, not because of the opposition, but because the government was unable to call this House together. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary would like to have the House sit a little longer. It is up to him to talk to government members and tell the cabinet to get this House sitting a little longer. I am not in agreement at all with prolonging this day's sitting. At six o'clock, I think we should adjourn as usual.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the very thoughtful comments made by colleague. This is a Parliament. This is a House of Commons where, in our parliamentary system, the opposition also has access to

September 27, 1989
Government Orders
time in this chamber, and part of that time is used presenting petitions. The minister responsible for VIA Rail has refused to allow Canadians to speak out on this issue. Presenting petitions is one way for ordinary Canadians to register their concerns.
I also want to suggest, however, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader knows, that the government made a gross error on Bill C-32, the advance grain payments bill. It introduced legislation some time ago and then realized that the legislation made no sense whatsoever, that it was silly, stupid, not very thoughtful, irresponsible, a mistake to say the least. Now government members have asked us to forget all of the speeches that were made and all that was done. They are going to retract the bill and bring in a new one.
I would like to remind my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, that if the government understood how to do business, if the government understood how to conduct the affairs of the country, it would not introduce bills without first thinking them through carefully. I would ask him to ask his minister to give more thought-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands that there is not unanimous consent to proceed after six o'clock. We shall, therefore, resume debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker. I last had the opportunity to speak on this particular bill on June 22 before the House adjourned for the summer break. I understand that I have some 10 or 12 minutes to conclude my remarks. In order to put my concluding remarks into perspective, permit me to repeat some of the submissions I made on June 22, 1989.
We are here today as we were then to discuss in principle Bill C-18. The purpose of second reading debate is to determine whether, in a general way, in principle, this House ought to endorse and support a particular piece of legislation. This piece of legislation, Bill. C-18, is an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in relation thereto.
Let me say in no uncertain terms that I believe very fundamentally that this bill ought not to be approved in principle. I would like to explain the reasons why. I do
not believe that the Government of Canada should be establishing a Department of Multiculturalism.
Up until now, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada, from 1971, that Canada would be a bilingual and multicultural country. The policy of multiculturalism was introduced by a previous Liberal administration in 1972. While at the time and in the subsequent years that particular policy may have been of benefit to immigrant Canadians and to Canada generally, I believe very strongly that the policy is no longer appropriate or valid today. In effect, the present policy of multiculturalism is divisive. It divides Canadians. It is unfair in that it treats Canadians in a different fashion. It is regressive and at times discriminatory. Let me explain why I feel that way. If one were to ask Canadians generally what they thought multiculturalism was and if one were to ask members of Parliament to explain what multiculturalism means, they would say, I suspect, that it means everything other than French or English. If you are a French Canadian and you are not part of the multicultural community, or if you are an English Canadian or an anglophone, you are not part of the multicultural community. However, if you have origins that are Italian, Greek, German, East Indian or South American, then somehow you are part of that multicultural community. You are "an ethnic".
In the true sense of the word, multicultural means everybody. My French Canadian colleagues here in the House of Commons are just as much a part of the multicultural community as I am as a Canadian of Italian origin. That is not the mindset here in Ottawa today and indeed throughout the country. When one speaks of multiculturalism in this House of Commons, one is speaking of Canadians who have origins other than French or English. In many ways, that is discriminatory because there is almost a suggestion that because one is part of the multicultural community, somehow one is inferior, is of a different class, is of inferior quality to Canadians who have origins that are French or English.
I was bom in Canada. My parents are immigrants to this country. They came to Canada in 1950 from Italy. I was bom in Revelstoke, British Columbia. I do not consider myself a francophone. I do not consider French to be my mother tongue. I have no origins that relate to things French. I do not consider myself an anglophone
September 27, 1989

even though I speak English fluently and English was the language of my education. So I ask myself, what am I?
If I am not a francophone and not an anglophone and the Government of Canada seems to suggest in its policies and legislation that it is either one or the other, then I am in a category which is multicultural. I am in the basket over here that consists of everyone with roots other than French or English.
We are bilingual because of history and because the English and the French were the first settlers. Far be it from me to give a history lesson today, but that is why we are bilingual and have a policy of bilingualism in Canada. The arguments for bilingualism are strong.
One also has to accept what Canada is today and what Canada is becoming. What will the Canada of the future be? Statistics Canada recently reported that 34 per cent of Canadians have origins that are British, and that number is diminishing. Twenty-four per cent of Canadians have origins that are French, so 58 per cent of Canadians have origins that are French or English. Of the remainder, 25 per cent have origins other than French or English and 5 per cent have origins that are a mixture of French, British and some other origin. The reality today is that the country is more diverse than it ever was.
Of the immigrant population in Canada, people who migrated to Canada, one-half arrived in Canada before 1967 and one-third arrived between 1967 and 1977. Less than 20 per cent arrived in Canada since 1977.
The reality is that those of us who have origins other than French or English have just as much right, just as much entitlement to equal protection and equal benefit of the law as defined by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that my time is nearly up. I will appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions that my colleagues might have.
It is a step backward to start entrenching multicultur-alism. We ought to be moving to the next phase, to recognize what Canada is today and what Canada will be in the future for our children and grandchildren. We as Canadians have to start talking about a new national spirit, a spirit that says that we are all Canadians.
Government Orders
I frankly am tired of being a hyphenated Canadian. I am not a hyphenated Canadian. I am fiercely proud of my heritage. I will defend my heritage and promote my heritage, but I am a Canadian. I am not an Italian-Cana-dian or a Canadian-Italian. I happen to be a Canadian of Italian origin. I am very proud of my heritage and I am proud of the fact that I am Canadian. I suspect that the one-third of Canadians who have origins other than French or English feel as I do.
I think it is time that we stopped segregating and ghettoizing Canadians of origins other than French or English and that we all start talking about and promoting what we all have in common and that is the fact that we are Canadian. Whether we come from Quebec, whether we have origins that are British, Japanese, German, Italian, Greek, or whatever, we are all Canadians. To support this bill in principle is to take a tremendous step backward. I urge colleagues not to support this bill in principle and to refer it back to the government to bring in a piece of legislation that will recognize the equality of all Canadians.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for York South-Weston on his deep concern for the multicultural communities of Canada and for the country that Canada has become. I would like him to elaborate for this House on one of the matters that he has raised most forcefully with us, his colleagues on this side of the House. It is the question of the redress to the Japanese-Canadians and the way it was handled by the government.
He has brought forth to us the point that this matter was considered a multicultural issue. It was handled by the minister responsible for multiculturalism as opposed to other ministers who are more properly charged with questions of fundamental justice, fundamental human rights and the way we treat people, not because of their ethnic origin or their background or their language but simply because they are Canadians, simply because they are human beings. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to elaborate on this point and to continue his remarks.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my remarks, the policy of multiculturalism as embraced by this government and as introduced by the previous Liberal administration is discriminatory. I use as an example the way the Japanese Canadian redress ques-

September 27, 1989
Government Orders
tion was handled by the House of Commons and by the government in particular over the last number of years.
Because Canadians of Japanese origin are not anglophones or francophones and because they are a visible minority, the mindset in this Parliament and the mindset on the government side was that anything having to with Canadians of Japanese origin must be an issue involving multiculturalism.
If that is not the ultimate insult and the classic example of how discriminatory the policy of multiculturalism is, I do not know what is.
That issue ought to have been dealt with by the Minister of Justice. As my colleague quite eloquently pointed out, it was an issue of natural justice and a matter that ought to have been dealt with by the government as a policy not having to do with ethnic origin but having everything to do with justice.
The mindset on that side of the House was because they have origins that are Japanese, hand the issue over to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. I ask rhetorically what the reaction would have been in Canada if the Government of Canada had handed over the issue of Nazi war criminals to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. I do not believe that would have been acceptable.
I do not make these submissions in order to place blame but simply to reflect the negative mindset that exists in Ottawa with respect to the policy of multiculturalism.
I will use one more example, and again I do not mean to be critical. When Air India flight 182 was bombed off the coast of Ireland some five years ago, the initial reaction of the Government of Canada was to phone Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, to offer condolences to the families of the deceased.
It is necessary to ask why the Government of Canada called Rajiv Gandhi and the Government of India. The reason was that it was an Air India flight and because those on board wore turbans; some were Sikhs, others were darker in complexion because they were Hindus. There was a mindset that because these people were visible minorities, somehow they were not Canadian. The fact is that the overwhelming majority, in fact almost
all of those people who perished, were Canadian, but the government's multicultural mindset led it to call Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India.
In answer to my colleague, I am saying that this policy of multiculturalism, not in a deliberate way but in an insidious way, is extremely discriminatory and insulting to those of us who have origins other than French or English. For that reason, I do not believe we ought to be supporting the perpetuation of a policy that treats our fellow Canadians as being inferior.


Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have reviewed the speeches made when Bill C-18 was debated first. I noted that the first three speakers for the Liberal party spoke in favour of the principle of this bill and supported this bill. The NDP critic supported this bill. I am absolutely astounded that this member would be speaking against a multicultural bill to establish a new department which is going to oversee the Multiculturalism Act.
I would like to point out to the House that the Multiculturalism Act is multiculturalism for all Canadians, and that is part of the preamble of that act. I would like to say that the hon. member for York South-Weston voted for that act. The Multiculturalism Act states that it is for all Canadians and he voted for it. Now he is standing up here saying that the Multiculturalism Act divides Canadians.
I know that the Liberal party is having a great deal of difficulty with unity, but it is absolutely unbelievable that a group of people who have spent some time governing this country is now in total shambles in terms of its multiculturalism policy.
I would like to know from this member of Parliament how he can possibly be against this bill. I know that there is going to be a tremendous number of people in our city of metro Toronto who are going to be astounded at these comments.
I just read in one of the newspapers that the member said that multiculturalism is a fraud perpetrated on groups of ethnics other than French or English in order to appease them. Is that the policy of the Liberal party? He said that our current multicultural policy actually breeds racism in Canada because we are telling them they are different.
September 27, 1989

The Multiculturalism Act is about bringing people together, uniting people and I am positively astounded. I am sure there is embarrassment in the Liberal Party of Canada today because of this member's comments.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the member is so easily astounded. It is obvious that the member was not listening to my submissions and that she does not have a full and complete understanding of the issue.
Yes, indeed, there may be members on my side of the House who support in principle this particular piece of legislation. I am telling you in no uncertain terms how I feel about this particular bill.
I was elected by the people of York South-Weston to come to this House of Parliament to express my point of view and I have done that. I have told you how I feel regardless of how the government feels, how the New Democratic Party feels or how other people feel about this particular legislation.
Rather than talking about the merits of my submissions, the member from Toronto is more interested in making a personal attack. I am prepared to debate with the member and she can establish the venue. If she wants to organize a meeting in metropolitan Toronto, I am prepared to debate her or anybody else who supports the bill on the merits of this particular piece of legislation.
The member for Scarborough Centre is sadly mistaken in her submissions. I have always expressed this particular point of view that I have expressed today. I am prepared to debate with the hon. member at any place, at any time, this particular issue on its merits. I would like the member to explain to the people of Canada why she supports, for example, the establishment of two separate ministries, two separate departments, one of culture and communications and another of multiculturalism.
She said a few moments ago that multiculturalism means everybody, that it tends to unite. Why then would you have one ministry of multiculturalism and another of culture and communications? Surely, if one talks about culture, that means everybody, all of Canadian culture. The member finds it necessary to distinguish between Canadian culture and multiculturalism. For that reason,
Government Orders
I would suggest to the hon. member that she is not totally aware of and sensitive to this important issue.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
I was pleased today when the House leader brought forth the motion to have the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship established, and we look forward to the participation of the members of the House of Commons on that committee. In the debate last June the Secretary of State outlined the important principle behind this legislation. Both opposition critics have also expressed their support for the bill and I believe it is important now, Mr. Speaker, to move this legislation from this chamber into committee where we can study it and have further discussion and examination.
As the minister noted when he introduced this bill, C-18 speaks to the future of Canada, a future where all Canadians are free to participate and to succeed in our society, a future that recognizes the words of Canada's first Canadian-born Governor General, Vincent Massey, when he said: "This country is more than a chain of wheat fields and mineral mines and pulpwood forests, it is more than even the union of ten provinces, it is the expression of a certain idea."
The bill before us today is the reaffirmation of that idea. C-18 establishes a new department of multiculturalism and citizenship that will administer the Multiculturalism Act, the Citizenship Act, and will also incorporate into one department a number of programs that are vital to the future of Canada, programs such as the national literacy strategy, a partnership program that is designed to address the tragedy of illiteracy in our society. Our government has set forth $110 million and through the literacy secretariat thousands of Canadian businesses, community organizations, and non-profit groups are becoming involved in fighting the problem of illiteracy.
I was honoured recently to attend a performance entitled Reading the Signs which is a play produced by a group of young actors that is touring schools and commu-

September 27, 1989
Government Orders
nity centres to promote literacy. This play, Reading the Signs, is being sponsored by both the federal government and a variety of business organizations.
Another aspect of this department will be voluntary action programs which support the outstanding work of hundreds of thousands of volunteers in Canada. Another will be human rights, and especially race relations which is becoming such an important issue in cities like metropolitan Toronto. The new department will also focus on citizenship registration and citizenship promotion. Recently there was a citizenship court ceremony which was attended by a group of Girl Guides who took out their citizenship registration as their way of promoting the vital aspects of citizenship.
Citizenship promotion is a central feature of C-18. Being Canadian is both an honour and a responsibility and the oath which every new citizen takes reads as follows:
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
As citizens we have the right and the duty to participate fully in every aspect of our society. We have the right to vote, to stand for public office, to travel abroad as Canadians and to enjoy the full economic benefits of our country. This year some 94,000 people will take the oath of Canadian citizenship with tremendous pride and declare themselves Canadians.
Recently I had the opportunity of opening the new citizenship court in Scarborough and it was such as privilege for me to speak at that ceremony. What a joy it is to participate in ceremonies where hundreds of people become Canadian citizens as a matter of choice. Later this week, Mr. Speaker, a very special citizenship ceremony will be held in Toronto for over 600 new Canadians of Chinese heritage who will take their Canadian citizenship.
The Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship created by this bill will help these new citizens and thousands like them as they move through the citizenship process. Clauses 4 and 5 of the bill outline the role of the minister in the department. The minister shall:
- promole among all members of Canadian society an understanding of the values inherent in Canadian citizenship and encourage participation in the social, cultural, political and economic life of Canada; and
(d)-promote among all members of Canadian society a greater awareness and understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values.
Those duties reflect on how we see ourselves as Canadians and this bill speaks to how we see our future as a dynamic and forward-looking society. This is not a bill merely to support organizations or to authorize existing programs of a government department. This is a bill that speaks for the value of our country.
Just over a year ago this chamber gave consent to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. That act established in Canadian law the principle that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society. The Multiculturalism Act also declared that the policy of the Government of Canada is to recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage.
Bill C-18 builds on the Multiculturalism Act by establishing a department to co-ordinate Canada's multiculturalism and citizenship programs. That co-ordination, however, is not exclusive to this department. The central principle of the Multiculturalism Act is that all government departments must be involved in the promotion of the pluralistic, free and open society.
The new department created by Bill C-18 is only part of the process. This is not a department of ethnicity, nor should it be. This is the department of being Canadian. This is a department that speaks to Canada's future and to the way that we see ourselves. This is a department that recognizes the richness and the benefits of Canadian life.
As a Conservative I believe very strongly in the importance of individual freedom; freedom for every woman and man in our society, regardless of race, religion, ethnic background or age, to succeed and prosper. Individual liberties and freedoms are the very essence of Conservative philosophy. Perhaps that philosophy is best expressed in the words of Prime Minister
September 27, 1989

John Diefenbaker when he said in the establishment of Canada's first Bill of Rights:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
Bill C-18 supports and advances these principles. This bill creates a department that speaks to the very essence of what we are as a people and what we want to become as a people, looking forward to the promise of our shared future.
On July 1, Canadians celebrated the one hundred and twenty-second birthday of Confederation. In 1867 confederation brought together four disparate provinces to form Canada. Today we are forming a new confederation, a confederation of people who share a different culture and one future as a nation. The establishment of this new confederation of cultures was perhaps best expressed by a resident of Scarborough, an 11 year old boy, a recent immigrant to Canada. His name is Samuel Yip. He designed this year's Canada Day poster which read "Together we build Canada. Tous ensemble Canada.


John V. Nunziata: I would just like to put some very simple and straightforward questions to the Hon. Member from Scarborough Centre. First, I would like her to define in clear terms what multiculturalism means. I would like her to explain why citizenship is such an integral part of this particular bill. She referred to it as essential. What is the relationship between multiculturalism and citizenship. Could she clearly define that relationship?
I would also like her to explain why when becoming a Canadian citizen it is important to swear allegiance to the Queen. She read the oath that must be sworn in order to become a Canadian citizen. I would like her to explain why someone coming from a non-Commonwealth country or someone who perhaps does not believe in the monarchy must swear allegiance to a non-Canadian of British origin before they become a Canadian.
Can I ask her finally to advise the House whether she considers herself an anglophone or a francophone or something else?
Government Orders


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. It gives me an opportunity to expand a little further on this issue-I suppose the issue of multiculturalism and citizenship. Why we need this department was probably best set out on September 15, 1988 when the Prime Minister stated that we would be establishing a new department of multiculturalism and citizenship. At that time he said "The decision to create a department of multiculturalism and citizenship recognizes that multiculturalism is a central feature of Canadian citizenship. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms entitles citizens from every ethnic and cultural background to exercise their freedom of choice, to retain their customs and honour their traditions while at the same time entering the mainstream of Canadian identity".
I think that sets out very well what we as a government are setting forth in terms of linking multiculturalism with citizenship.
In relation to the oath of office, each time I attend a citizenship court-and I have recently been attending quite a few across the country serving as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State-and each time that oath of citizenship is taken a special pride wells up in each of us about how fortunate we are to live in this great freedom-loving country. Our traditions and our history are based on that oath. If this member is indicating to the Canadian public that the Liberal party would not be wanting to swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada, I would like him to get in his place and say that because I think there would be a great many people across this country who would be most disturbed at that comment of the member.
I am sorry time is up and I cannot answer the rest of the questions but I would be pleased to discuss the matter further with the member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret having to cut off the hon. member. The Progressive Conservative Party, on this round, has decided to have two speakers within the 20-minutes and that is why I am cutting the question and comment period to five minutes.
Now we will resume debate with the second member from the Progressive Conservative Party who will have a 10-minute speech followed by a five-minute question

Government Orders
period. Then the next speaker will be a member from the New Democratic Party.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I also feel proud and privileged to rise and speak today about this Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
I would like to say at the outset in response to the remarks by the hon. member for York South-Weston that I too would, if I were of his mindset, be concerned. I think that it is a case of mindset, our attitude to citizenship, our attitude to cultures, our attitude to being a Canadian. We can take a mindset; in which we are concerned with discrimination, racism and bigotry but I do not think the hon. member's intentions are in that direction. I take the hon. member's intentions as being honourable and I regret that he is looking at this bill in what I would perceive to be a negative context. Of course because he is an elected public official, he is liable to lead in this negative context and that would be unfortunate because this is a bill to which you can attach a negative context if you wish, or it is one to which you can attach a very positive context.
I would prefer, frankly, to see this department called the department of Canadianism and citizenship. But I suppose there is a first step in this process. This country of ours, I am surprised to learn, is the first country in the world with a national multiculturalism piece of legislation. And so we are pioneering a process in Canada. We are pioneering a process, to some degree with our official languages policy which has been in place now both in New Brunswick and in Canada for 20 years or more. With the establishment of our Multiculturalism Act a year ago we have pioneered a piece of legislation on a world scale.
With respect to the linkage to our two official languages, to our English and our French, Bill C-93 last year, the act pertaining to Canadian multiculturalism states specifically in the recital that whereas the Constitution of Canada and the Official Languages Act provide that English and French are the official languages of Canada and neither abrogates nor derogates from any rights or privileges acquired or enjoyed with respect to any other language. It goes on to say in the purposes of the multicultural policy which that act describes: "(i) to preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and
use of the official languages of Canada". It further states: "(j) to advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada".
And so I have to reject vigorously the assertion by the hon. member from York South-Weston that this multiculturalism act is an isolation kind of an act that excludes anglophones and francophones or isolates those who are new Canadians and the like, as he has described them.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill is timely. There is great evidence of racism and bigotry in our nation and it is time that we as a Parliament addressed ourselves firmly and constructively to new visions in those directions.
In my home province of New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, there are challenges today to the official languages policy of our province. There is an established party that has a specific, clear policy of unilingualism. And that same party has a policy of what it describes as selective immigration. It is not clear whether that selectivity excludes blacks, English, French, Chinese, or just exactly how selective it should be. They are the kinds of words that I find extremely troublesome.
As I say, while I sincerely do accept the honourable intentions from the member for York South-Weston, I would encourage him to apply his most positive perspective to this bill and to try to lead his constituents and to help us lead this country in a recognition of the purposes of this bill for the national unity which it intends to pursue.
It was about 20 years ago when New Brunswick officially adopted its policies of bilingualism making us then and now Canada's only such province. We have been distinctive and enriched by those policies over the years. It was not long after that, in 1973, that the New Brunswick Multicultural Association was bom in my city of Fredericton. It has flourished and it has also helped to make our society distinctive and enriched in New Brunswick.
Today, as I have said, there are challenges and we must defend against those challenges and we must inspire and lead our citizens to tolerance and recognition of the richness which the diversity of Canada brings to all Canadians. The bill before us today will bring to fruition
September 27, 1989

the promise made by the Prime Minister last September, as my colleague has said.
I have read this bill and considered it very closely. It is a bill about the future of Canada. It is a bill about where we as a society want to go and what we must do to achieve our objectives. This new department of multicul-turalism and citizenship will be a department about bringing Canadians together, about strengthening the values which we hold in common.

Mr. Speaker, two important factors that make us a distinct nation are our recognition of multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of our society and our recognition of two official languages.

Another factor is our generous and humane immigration policy, our willingness to share our homeland in intelligent and compassionate ways with the rest of the world.
In 1987 the projected level of 125,000 immigrants was exceeded and reached 152,098. Immigration levels under the Progressive Conservative Government policy in 1989 will be almost twice as high as those under the Liberals in 1984.
This department of multiculturalism and citizenship is intended to address those new Canadians. It is intended to give them a special attention, a special opportunity, a special interest by the Government of Canada and to bring to the attention of all Canadians the distinctive and enriching values which these new Canadians bring to our country, to ingrain them with the spirit of Canadianism while permitting and encouraging them to retain their original identities and the richness of their individual cultures and languages.
My point is that the government has demonstrated the will, the commitment and the determination to face contemporary social issues affecting all Canadians. This government has demonstrated the will to meet the challenges that are afforded by a multicultural society and to meet the challenges that are afforded by a bilingual Canada.
In closing I would like to say that preserving freedom is not an easy process. It is a process of give and take and it is a process of spirit and vision and leadership. The rights
Government Orders
of all Canadians to cultural identity and official language services are basic freedoms of Canadianism. They have been hard-fought and hard-won. We have an enormous responsibility to defend, to sustain, to lead and to enhance those freedoms which make our country so respected and so admired throughout the world.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the essence of citizenship and multiculturalism is truly equality and dignity among all Canadians. In the non-ideal world of today we need a department that will make this world a bit more perfect. The hon. member for York South-Weston thinks of the ideal world today and of course we have to respect his views.
At this juncture however I would like to call the attention of the government because the member for Scarborough Centre did say that our hon. member is an embarrassment. Well, the Minister for Multiculturalism last August in the Conservative Party convention did in essence say that his party, the Conservative Party, treats ethnic minorities with distrust and disdain. I saw the Minister for Multiculturalism was earlier in the House and I am a little unhappy that he had to leave. Of course I understand he may have to attend to another schedule. I would like him to explain how he came to his conclusion. It is proving to me that we are not living in an ideal world when the Conservative Party treats ethnic minorities with distrust and disdain. He said further that unless the Conservative Party cultivates the ethnic votes it could lose all the major metropolitan ridings in Canada in the next election. Is the Conservative party truly for multiculturalism or is it truly only for election votes? Is it an election ploy? He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, it has been said.
Also, the member for Scarborough Centre said today, "We are forming a new confederation". Well, the ideal is excellent but if it is only today that we are beginning to form this new confederation we have missed the boat, we have missed history. The Liberal Party of Canada must be given credit for taking the initiative to institute the multiculturalism policy. Of course we have to continue to improve. That is the challenge to humanity all the time.
I agree with the member for Fredericton-York Sun-bury that the timeliness of this topic is here for reasons of racism, of unfair hiring practices, and of selected immigration. I am glad that the member for Frederic-

Government Orders
ton-York Sunbuiy did make those observations and I congratulate him for that.
So I support this bill. The Liberal Party of Canada supports this bill. Multiculturalism is here to stay in a non-ideal world and I only hope that the government, by enacting this bill, will truly give teeth to its proclamations, that henceforth there will be racial equality in this country, that there will be respect and dignity, that there will be jobs for all, and that the bill will not only be used as an election ploy.
As a new Canadian citizen, as a new member of Parliament, now I can feel very proud with all humility to participate in the debate of this honoured House. To contribute to this debate is my honour and I hope that the government will continue this policy of equality for all.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, it is with a lot of feeling that I get up to support the government on this bill. This bill is to establish a department of multiculturalism and citizenship. I think we should look at some of the specific duties that are outlined in it. I would like to take the liberty of reading some of them.
The bill's specific duties are to initiate, recommend, co-ordinate, implement and promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship; to provide services for the acquisition and proof of citizenship; to promote among all members of Canadian society an understanding of the values inherent in Canadian citizenship and encourage participation in the social, cultural, political and economic life of Canada; as well as to promote among all members of Canadian society a greater awareness and understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values.
Canada has a proud history in relation to multiculturalism and religious, political and racial freedom. It also has some very bleak history. I think there are many things that are significant within my own personal life that meet the implementation of this type of bill.
First of all, my father was an immigrant. He left Russia because of political and religious persecution. He came to Canada because he felt as a Canadian citizen he could follow his religious beliefs, that he would have the rights of a citizen to pursue his own way of life to gain
economic security and to raise a family. These promises were fulfilled. He was proud to be a Canadian citizen. He always treasured the fact that he was able to go to a citizenship court and take out his citizenship.
However, my wife is Canadian bom but of Japanese ancestry. She experienced as a young child that her Canadian citizenship was not worth anything. She was uprooted from her home, taken with her family and interned in the horse bams at the exhibition grounds in Vancouver-so much for her Canadian citizenship. Yet her father, in spite of those things, was always proud that he became Canadian. He valued the things that Canada stood for and valued the ideals that we have.
I live in the riding of Surrey North which is very much a multicultural riding. It is a riding which has a large number of immigrants. It has Portuguese, Scandinavians, Germans, people from the Latin American countries and people from India. I am now holding teas to welcome new immigrants. It is really a multicultural mosaic afternoon.
Many of my constituents, particularly those from the Punjab, do not have happy memories about the way they have been treated in Canada. Many of their relatives remember that in 1914 the Komagata Maru, containing 376 passengers, 340 of whom were Sikh, arrived in Vancouver. As they were all British subjects, they were entitled under Canadian law to enter Canada. However, when the ship arrived in Vancouver harbour, Canadian immigration officials denied them landing rights, severed communications to shore and denied permission to replenish their food and water, finally forcing the ship to leave and return to Indian waters. Needless to say, this incident deeply humiliated the Sikh community. It continues to be a source of national shame for Canada.
Surrey North is fortunate to have a significant Sikh population which has greatly enhanced our community. The Indian-Canadian community throughout Canada today is one of the communities that is very hard working, has a tremendous commitment to their families, to the community, to their religion, and to strengthening all of Canada.
But even now, today, in this House, I become perturbed when members of Parliament rise to present petitions that are deliberately aimed at preventing Sikhs and other minorities from joining the RCMP, because in order for them to join we might have to change a minor dress code to allow them to wear turbans as part of their religious faith. Sometimes I think we have come a long
September 27, 1989

way since 1914, and sometimes I wonder whether we have come very far at all.
I think we should look right now at some of the background of multiculturalism and the problems within our ethnic, multiracial and racial minorities in Canada. According to figures given by bureaucrats in the race relations sectors of Secretary of State, an attitudinal survey conducted in 1986 found that between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of Canadians were intolerant of visible minorities. Yet, at the same time, we know that between 1981 and 1986, 64 per cent of immigrants to this country were visible minorities. Fifty-four per cent of Canadians perceived an increase in racism. I think we have seen that in the last year in some of our metropolitan cities, particularly when we have problems like increased unemployment, problems of affordable housing, concerns that are expressed by many people about ethnic minorities and as immigration increases.
There is still systemic discrimination against visible minorities in employment. The government has set a low target of only 3.2 per cent for the hiring of visible minorities in the public service compared with an actual figure of 6.3 per cent in the work force. In actual percentages only 1.58 per cent were employed.
In language training and settlement programs, funding has been erratic. I shall be talking about that a little bit more. I want to talk about some of the weaknesses inherent in this act.
We are very quick to spout nice platitudes, but when it comes to putting in dollars to assist new immigrants to obtain some of the things that this bill sets out in terms of understanding the values inherent in Canadian citizenship and encouraging them to participate in the social, cultural, political, and economic life of Canada, the resources are not provided. Therefore I think we have to take a look at that.
Multicultural health care is now an issue. Governments and professionals are only beginning to recognize that different diets, lifestyles, and culture perspectives affect the type of illness a person may contract and the treatment they may opt for. Very little attention has
Government Orders
been paid to medical practice as it applies to other cultures.
There has been insensitivity shown by the media in covering causes that are overtly racist. In some of the programs that depict crimes, particularly in the city of Vancouver, the media has not brought attention to the fact that just as when I first started working in Vancouver in the social services in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there were worse gangs. They were not Oriental gangs. The problems with gangs in Vancouver is nothing new. They have nothing to do with immigration. They have to do with unemployment, dislocation of youth, poverty and lack of housing.
We have seen concerns being raised about the whole question of the notwithstanding clause as it might affect the rights of minorities, particularly as it might affect the rights of visible minorities. I think this is something we are going to have to take a look at in Canada. We feel that that clause, and where there are some reasons to continue with it, can be used by government to perpetuate injustice on minorities. We must remember that in the two incidents that I cited with the Sikhs and with the Japanese, it was the governments that were behind them with the support of the general public.
The New Democratic Party certainly supports this bill, but there are some shortcomings that I think must be addressed. One of the first shortcomings is that there is no increase in staff. There may be sharing of staff and facilities from Department of Secretary of State, especially in regional offices. That new department has serious responsibilities to monitor federal departments and institutions. Therefore, we anticipate that there is going to be a shortfall or insufficient staffing. It is very nice to have a bill, but if you do not provide the resources, it is not possible for a department to carry out its responsibilities.
This government has cut back on the Citizenship Instruction and Language Training programs. Since 1987, they have been reduced by 50 per cent. Now we understand that they are to be totally eliminated by 1990. Again, what is the purpose of having a department if you do not provide it with any resources? These Citizenship Instruction and Language Training programs are the backbone of getting new citizens integrated into Canadian society. That is the way you accomplish the goals that are set out in the act. To simply state goals is of very little value if you cannot, in fact, provide the resources. The bill says it is to provide "services for the acquisition and proof of citizenship". If you delete the ability and the resources to provide those services, what do you

Government Orders
have? You have a piece of paper. I think that is a weakness.
We are concerned still that there is not a commissioner or an ombudsperson as there is with official languages. We are delighted to see that the House leader for the government has today announced, mainly at the urging of my fellow New Democrat from Vancouver East, a separate standing committee on multiculturalism.
There is also a problem of overlapping with other areas, particularly in the area of immigrant women, that may allow departments to play games and may allow both this department and some of the other departments to take the "it's your problem" attitude, while at the same time neither of them providing the services and resources.
In summary, I would like to make two or three points. This is an important piece of legislation. It sets up a department that will have significance for the lives of most Canadians. It is worthy of support because at least it sets out some goals and some purposes. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure that those without resources are going to be enough. I think all Canadians have a vital stake in making Canadian multiculturalism work. Certainly, for people like myself, with my family background, it is vital.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his submissions, but he, along with the previous Conservative member who spoke seem to suggest that by passing an act to create a department of multiculturalism that somehow immigrants, new Canadians, will acquire new rights, that they will get something that they do not already have. That begs the question: does a policy of multiculturalism give to new Canadians and Canadians of ethnic origins something, or anything that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not give them? Surely the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was passed by this House and embraced by this Parliament gives every Canadian, whether they were bom in Canada or elsewhere, similar rights. Therefore I think it is a mistake, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that this policy of multiculturalism and the
creation of a department of multiculturalism will somehow bestow new rights on certain Canadians.
The Conservative member who spoke said that it was intended to give new Canadians a special interest. Well, the simple answer to that is, no thanks. New Canadians, and the sons and daughters of immigrants, do not want special recognition. All they want is to be treated like every other Canadian.
The member talked about immigrants. Yes, special programs ought to be in place to ensure that new Canadians, immigrants to Canada, are assisted in their integration into Canadian life. But surely you do not need a policy of multiculturalism to achieve that. Surely that should be the responsibility of the Department of Immigration, the immigration policy of the Government of Canada, not only to establish the criteria for admission into Canada of new Canadians but also to assist them in their integration into Canada.
What this particular piece of legislation will do is this, and I think it is important to look at it in context. It will create a minister of multiculturalism, there will be a separate department of multiculturalism and then there will be a department of culture which again begs this question: What is the difference between Canadian culture and multiculturalism, and why would you need the two? Surely multiculturalism is part of Canadian culture.
I will put this question to the hon. member who just spoke: He was speaking about certain barriers that exist with respect to visible minorities in Canada. Does he not truly believe in his heart of hearts that this particular move by the government, rather than breaking down the barriers that exist in order to achieve full equality in Canada, will in effect create barriers in that it will distinguish Canadians based on their heritage? This is at a time when we ought to be promoting what we have in common. We ought not to be creating new barriers which will, in my view, exacerbate the already sensitive situation we have in Canada with respect to racial harmony.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The member feels that the introduction of this type of a department is a backward step. I cannot agree with him. I think that to focus within one ministry
September 27, 1989

the responsibility for citizenship and multiculturalism, including some of the other things that it is responsible for in terms of the promotion of race relations, is positive.
Canada is now going through another period where there is concern within the ethnic communities and particularly within the visible minorities. One of the things that I think Canada does that is different from some other countries that promote or accept large numbers of immigrants is that it values their diversity, it values their culture. We have undertaken not only to allow but to assist people from different nationalities to maintain their cultural identity.
The mosaic of Canada is, therefore, quite different from that of the United States where the intent there is to integrate and to play down any differences, to drop your background, your religion, your culture and your ethnicity when you become an American. Here in Canada I think we have done the opposite, much to the enrichment of our country.
Therefore, I think it is important to have a department that not only promotes multiculturalism and race relations but one which also ties them in with citizenship. What that basically says is that those are the things that go with being a Canadian citizen. I think that is where we have broken down in the past, in terms of our mistreatment or lack of equality for ethnic groups. What we have not done is say to the Japanese or to the Sikhs: "You have certain rights because you are a Canadian citizen and with that citizenship go these rights". I think that there is an importance in linking it within this type of ministry.
I would agree, however, with one thing that the member seems to be alluding to, that is, if there is not some substance and some resources provided then what we have is an empty shell. If what the government intends is to provide a department for window-dressing with no resources to carry out the goals that are stated in that bill, I will be the first one up on my feet to condemn it. If that is its intent, not only will the New Democratic Party but other Canadians very quickly see through it and condemn it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the member seemed to suggest that in order to acquire certain rights and freedoms, citizenship is a prerequisite. Just to correct the record, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not require citizenship as a prerequisite in order to be afforded the rights and privileges that attach to the
Government Orders
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to make that absolutely clear. The Conservative members seem to be suggesting the same thing, that in order to have certain rights to equality and the right not to be discriminated against, Canadian citizenship is a prerequisite. In fact, it is deliberately not a prerequisite in that when parliamentarians decided on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they specifically decided not to make it a prerequisite.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate today in this debate. It is an historic debate which establishes a new federal government department responsible for multiculturalism and citizenship.
These are important steps which flow from a landmark study done in 1960, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which is properly known as the Laurendeau-Danton report. It noted at that time in recognition of the diversity of the cultural groups found in Canada that "Canadian society, open and modem, should be able to integrate heterogeneous elements into a harmonious system to achieve unity in diversity".
I think much of the debate and differing points of view here relate to the fact that fundamentally, in adding this rich cultural diversity and recognizing it, we add to the fundamental characteristic which is in our constitution officially, the bilingual and bicultural nature of Canada. We are talking about the right for equal treatment and consideration under the laws of Canada.
I am very pleased because this government took an initiative that was started with Laurendeau-Danton in 1971 to establish a policy marking multiculturalism. This department becomes official through this act and I believe, if given adequate resources, can become a great symbol of the reality of our multicultural heritage and of the grandeur of our diverse ethnic mix, something that the people of Canada are becoming more and more aware of every day. We hope that this department can enrich the unique multicultural tapestry that is the Canadian society, enabling us to forge a new era of goodwill in the relationships among our people, notably respect, understanding and tolerance, which is the hallmark of Canadians with very few aberrant moments in our history.
As a new arm of the national government, this department should work to preserve and enhance the fundamental characteristics of Canada which I stated as being tolerant, open, peaceful and democratic. But let us not fool ourselves. The creation of this department is but

September 27, 1989
Government Orders
one step in the long process of integrating the ethnic, linguistic and multicultural aspects of our people with the day to day reality of life in this country. There is racism and those of us who do not care to acknowledge it move with a blind eye. If this department takes us one step toward the goal of eradicating that sense and undercurrent in society, we will have been successful with this move.
This department and this minister must be prepared to do battle against that growing undercurrent which I have talked about, and which I sense underneath this society. If we are to avoid major steps backward as a society, this trend must be stopped, and I hope this will be a major goal of the new department. If we are not more tolerant, then we fail the most democratic test of our modem society and of a modem democracy.
The challenge goes beyond institutions. I hope that this new department will be able to provide a leadership role so that its efforts, research and findings will become a guiding framework all across government and through this touch all aspects of Canadian life. The challenge is to direct our whole range of national programs toward integrating new Canadians and those who have been here for generations into all aspects of Canadian life in a coherent and proper manner.
It is not enough to support individual groups in society, visible minorities or others just in the enhancement of their own cultural expression. Song, dance and cultural festivals are important and serve to preserve individuality in society.
But we must, at the same time, seek integration through maximum participation in Canadian life. It should be considered a Canadian reality that a certain distinctiveness can be preserved while the process of integration is also put into practice. This is one role that I can see for this new department. Pursuing the dual objective: enhancement of cultural uniqueness coupled with a great emphasis on integration. The old maxim remains true: the whole of this country is far greater than the sum of its parts, as exciting and as rewarding as each of those parts can be.
The so-called politics of inclusion must be used here in Canada, not with the aim of forgetting the past, but integrating it into the present and the future as we build together a cohesive society able to address the challenges the next decades will bring.
I think this department, Mr. Speaker, should broaden our perspective. As we embark on establishing a new institution in this country it will gain its place around the cabinet table and in the political life of the country. We must use the opportunity to begin letting our cultural sensitivities pervade other aspects of government, of public discussion, and of our daily lives. Perhaps the visibility of this department will now ensure that education, job training, employment accessibility programs and law enforcement agencies all have a multicultural component to recognize differences, respect and reflect these differences, and see them as a positive aspect of our Canadian mosaic. And though perhaps a contradiction in terms, the creation of this new department may just help us meet our goal of seeing multiculturalism merged with all general cultural policies and thinking rather than being introduced and addressed in isolation.
Would it not be a wonderful irony if, by separating multiculturalism and citizenship off on their own, from a government perspective, it would achieve the goal of integrating them more from a human perspective, making them part and parcel of the Canadian way of thinking.
I said earlier that governments must go further than supporting multiculturalism through cultural expression, such as song, dance and folk festivals, and through other ministries and institutional fora. I believe that on the basis of mutual knowledge of cultures and opportunities to seek, establish and develop links, Canadians can be enriched by each other.
The view articulated in the charge to the 1984 Equality Now! committee task force, which was looking at the question of visible minorities in our Canadian society showed that while progress has been made, there are still many miles to go. I quote what was stated in the preamble: "Canada stands on the threshold of a new era. In a country with a long history of innovation, accommodation and tolerance, the challenge of an increasingly multicultural and multiracial society is one which can and should be met head on- The government must now
September 27, 1989

consciously choose a course of action which will ensure that there are no roadblocks preventing the full participation of all citizens in the cultural, social, economic and political life of this country".
Therefore, how is such enrichment to be achieved? There are many ways but time does not allow me to elaborate or be creative. However, let me suggest that we look at our law enforcement agencies and our employment-equity policies, they are the best places to start. I would also suggest one of the other ways that is all pervasive is the medium of broadcasting, television and radio, which are fundamentally a part of all of our lives and can serve the cause of strengthening sensitivities in the multilingual, multicultural racial areas of this country. Let us not forget that watching television is the number one leisure activity for Canadians. We spend more than 24 hours a week, on average, in front of the television set. Each year, Canadian children watch almost 1,000 hours of television compared to 800 hours spent in school.
As well, more than 50 per cent of Canadians say that radio and television is their principal source of news and information. That is the medium that can carry the message of who we are, what we are, and can reflect the exact colour, shape, dialogue and dialect that we use as Canadians.
I gave you these facts and figures because I believe it to be clear that Canadians of all races, all creeds, and all colours can find out what their society is like and what society thinks of them in part by the way they are portrayed through the media.
With the growth of television, media images have become a very important substitute for social integration. Therefore, we must ensure that broadcasting does not represent individuals and groups as a single North American type for we are not all the same and that must be recognized when we see ourselves on the screen.
Now Parliament has a golden opportunity with the imminent introduction of a new broadcasting bill to make sure that our broadcasting system through its programming is more reflective of the multicultural nature of Canada helping to meet the goals of society
Government Orders
and the objectives of the new department of multicultur-alism.
A new bill must not stop there. It must address, as I have said, employment equity and the absence of visible minorities in the media, not just on the screen but those behind the cameras, those on the media boards, the commissions and self-regulating bodies.
The government in its legislation must encourage the broadcasters in their hiring practices to be more reflective of the multicultural nature of Canadian society. This is just an example which could be extended to all phases of business activity in our country.
I would like to suggest that there are a few problems in this bill. My hon. colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent, pointed out that the definition section needs to clearly link this bill with Bill C-93, the Multiculturalism Act. There is a need for clarity as to who the minister really is, who will speak with the most force and authority at the cabinet table to bring to reality our vison of Canada for tomorrow.
The question has been raised by her as well about whether the bill adequately focuses on the separate areas sufficiently, that is, the area of responsibility for citizenship separate from that of multiculturalism. There must be a distinct description of the responsibilities in each of these areas.
I would hope that in legislative committee partisan politics will not be played out in this very sensitive area of our Canadian vision for a Canadian way of life, and that thoughtful amendments from any side of this House to improve the operative sections of the bill will be warmly appreciated and the needed changes made.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention that the United Nations has proclaimed this period, 1987 to 1997, the world decade for cultural development. One of the objectives of this decade is the international recognition of equal dignity for and of all cultures. It is my hope that within Canada we could achieve this objective.
I think we can be a role model for the nations of the world. We must be confident that we can become more accepting, more aware of the true value of our diversity, but also realize how fortunate we are to be so diverse in the first place.

September 27, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member on her speech. I have had an opportunity over the last five years to work with her .1 want to say that in those five years I have enjoyed the opportunity of working on a very special committee of the Equality Rights Committee that reported to the Parliament of Canada in the form of a report called Equality For All.
I know that her comments come from a position of knowledge of the importance of this issue of citizenship and multiculturalism, the pluralistic aspect of this bill that is so important at this time in our history.
I want to say that I was pleased to see her emphasize in her comments the importance of tolerance in our communities. Every once in a while this issue of racism raises its head and I think we are all outraged with it. Her comments on tolerance were so very important and well taken today, as well as the understanding that we must have between the various communities.
I would like to ask the member what her advice would be to other colleagues in her Party who oppose this bill.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the member for Scarborough. I have very pleasant memories of the almost year we spent together on a daily schedule which was rather rugged travelling across this land. I see one of her other colleagues is the Associate Minister of National Defence. Certainly, the area of defence was one to which we paid a great deal of attention.

The misogynists are there in force.

Equality now, equality for all; respect, tolerance and understanding, and you asked me about differences of points of view. That is one of the great qualities of Canadians. All Canadians, hopefully on your side or my side of this house, are open, tolerant and understanding of differences. This difference that you are alluding to is perhaps a difference of time line. It is my hope that in
the future we will not need to have a committee, department, minister or bill to address multiculturalism per se. I hope it will disappear in terms of its need over time. I would eventually agree with the member's colleague sitting behind you that we will eventually have the department of Canadianism or the department of culture. However, we have not reached that stage yet. I think I mentioned there is this ongoing need to recognize that there is racism just below the skin and we really must address it.
It is an unfortunate reality that we have not built a system of integration into the Canadian way of life as we receive and absorb new immigrants. I would hope that the minister will find a way to improve the integration and acceptance of new Canadians, and find mechanisms within our law enforcement agencies. In my city the level of racism between the various visible minority groups is of great concern. There have been some unfortunate incidents of late which only underscore the need to work at many levels in our society to reach nirvana, that point in the history of development of Canada where we will not need multiculturalism. In that regard, I would say that he is perhaps 10 steps ahead of where we are right now. Let us hope that we reach where he is some day.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a comment, since as you probably all know, I was very busy with the election campaign which has just ended in Quebec. I took part in the campaign as a Liberal militant. I worked very hard for Liberal candidates and I offer no apologies for the fact. Certainly not! I am very proud of the fact.
During the campaign, some very unfortunate comments were made about the majority in Quebec by a new party which calls itself the Equality Party. Strange that a party called the Equality Party would, through its founding president, practically spit in the face of those of us people in Quebec who try to explain what it means for a people to survive. I just couldn't why. Perhaps some day here in the House we could have a debate in which we could express the feelings of the majority in Quebec that sees its numbers dwindling at an incredible rate because of the low birth rate and an aging population.
September 27, 1989

If this bill could bring us to a better understanding of what racism is, perhaps some of the unfortunate statements we heard in Quebec, references to fascists and nazis and comparisons of the Quebec situation with what is going on in South Africa, in that case I believe this bill will have been tremendously useful. I say this, and I am sorry that I have to say it, and I hope, in the weeks and months to come, that here in the House we will reflect and draw the necessary conclusions before we make a final decision about other political events that are expected to take place next June, and I am not referring to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, I am referring to Meech Lake. So I hope we will have a chance to get back to this question.
I also hope we will have a chance to explain how, when people speak without thinking, and this also applies to the people who made those unfortunate statements, whoever they happen to be, and I am not naming names- I don't want to get into particulars, because today I especially wanted to say how happy I was to be able to take part in this campaign. If you really want to know the issues, an election campaign is the place to be. I also want to congratulate those who were elected and who are not of the same political stripe as we are. We cannot blame people for voting for a party that calls itself the Equality Party. After all, this is a democracy. In fact, I am almost glad this party exists, because as a result, the party for which I worked may move to the centre between two extremes, which should improve our relations in the future.
But if this particular bill, and here I agree with the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), could help us to fight all forms of racism-but when we talk about fighting all forms of racism, we must not be selective. It's like when we fight for human rights, we don't have the right to be selective. We either believe in human rights or we don't. We can't pick and choose. We can't select some people rather than others because they are more important, better organized, richer, and ignore the destitute. Either we believe in this principle or we don't. Either we fight racism or we don't.
And that is why, without being directly involved today in the debate on second reading of this bill, I nevertheless intend to take a close look at the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and to become actively involved, because I have a lot to say about the development of multiculturalism in Canada. I believe that together, we can make this a
Government Orders
better bill, as long as the Government doesn't insist on believing that the bill is perfect. There have been a number of developments since multiculturalism was first introduced under Mr. Trudeau. A lot has happened and much experience has been gained.
I listened to what was said by the Hon. Member from Toronto, and I must say it made me think. I feel I ought to give due consideration to what the Hon. Member,for whom I have a great deal of respect, had to say. He may belong to a minority group, he may feel like a minority, but as you know, minorities are not always wrong.
The Hon. Member asked us to think carefully before we pass this bill, and I want to thank him for that. I also wish to thank my other colleague who reminded us that we should have an absolute horror of racism in all its forms. I hope that in future elections, people will be more careful and refrain from distasteful comments of this kind, especially when addressed to an entire population. I realize no one is absolutely blameless, but we cannot attack a group as such just because we don't like them.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I share my colleague's view and hope for the eradication of racism and bigotry and that sane heads and careful language will guide our direction, wherever we are in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent (Mrs. Maheu) on a point of order.


Shirley Maheu: We had planned for 20 minutes, with two 10-minute speeches, and the period for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) had the first 10 minutes. It should therefore be Ms. Guamieri's turn to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When there are such agreements, the Hon. Member who has the floor must speak for 10 minutes. To my knowledge, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal spoke for 15 minutes. If someone speaks for more than 10 minutes, I leave 10 minutes for questions and comments.
So if such a decision is made in future, I should certainly be informed. I would then stop the Member after 10 minutes.

September 27, 1989
Government Orders
In this case, I did not know and that is why I did not interrupt the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. I let her speak for 15 minutes and after that, I allowed 10 minutes for questions.


Shirley Maheu: We reached an agreement before whereby each of us would speak for 10 minutes, and our whip referred to it before the debate started.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will help the Chair, as usual.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we do not have a better system to tell Members who are speaking how much time they have taken and especially how much time they have left to speak.
I recognize the difficulty, because in the heat of action, it is not always easy for us to think about time constraints.
A suggestion that I might make to the Chair would be to have a small dial under each clock showing the time left to speak. For a 10-minute speech, it would start at 10 and go down to zero.
But I think that we will have to improve the system the House uses to control the time allowed. Otherwise the Chair has trouble knowing whether it is 10 minutes, 5 or 20.
Personally, I gave notice, but I told the Speaker that occasionally during the debate the Opposition would like to divide its periods of 20 and 10 minutes into two periods of 10 and 5 minutes.
In any case, for reasons that can be easily explained, there was a misunderstanding here, for which I apologize.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In future, the Chair will check when there is this kind of agreement. I will check when Hon. Members start their speeches.
So, for now, the Hon. Member for Ahuntsic (Ms. Roy-Arcelin).


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to offer my contribution to the debate on Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
The Bill before the House today, Mr. Speaker, is about what makes Canada special.
Last year in the House we considered the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and as a Parliament consisting of people speaking both official languages and coming from the four comers of this country, we endorsed this very important aspect of our Canadian identity.
The department will play a major role during this last decade of the twentieth century. At its core lies our constitutional commitment to two official languages, and our recognition of our cultural and racial diversity. The department has three crucial missions.
The first consists in further consolidating our unique position among the nations of the American continent. To a large extent, this position derives from our recognition of two official languages and the store we set by the various cultures of all Canadians.
This position also derives from the means we have chosen to reflect these realities and respect them.
Although it would be misrepresentation of the facts that we have always lived in harmony, our history proves that as Canadians we have a special aptitude for compromise, for seeking reasonable solutions and for acting as mediators in case of conflict.
These aptitudes, together with the flexibility of our institutions, are so many characteristics that are the envy of other nations. It is characteristics like these that are judged essential in a world that demands an increasing ability to adapt to change.
The department's second mission is to ensure that no one in our society is deprived of the ability to participate in that society as a result of constraints such as illiteracy or cultural or racial background.
In cases where our society has been unable to give its citizens a satisfactory level of proficiency in reading, writing and arithmetic, we have failed. Where our society perpetuates discrimination in any form, including discrimination based on the misconception that a particular race or group of persons is superior to others, we have failed. We cannot claim to be that generous and compassionate society we aspire to be, as long as this kind of situation is allowed to exist.
The third mission of the department is to create a climate and conditions which will enable all Canadians to contribute to building our future. By pooling the various assets of our fellow citizens we have at our disposal the combined knowledge, experience and wisdom of all the world's cultures. This is a tremendous wealth which is our very own. It is a wealth which must be put to good use if we want to face up to the challenges that can be expected in the near future. It is a wealth which is
September 27, 1989

absolutely essential to the fulfilment of our promising future.
Mr. Speaker, this department will not be a regulating or controling agency. It will not attempt to maintain the statu quo, nor will it be chained to the past. It will look to the future and actively seek to eliminate whatever obstacles might limit our aspirations. Its mission will be to convince us, make us aware of the reality, throw us challenges, and urge us to become simple society which will grow and command the respect of all nations the world over.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill under study is the logical continuation of the work done by the House last year, but as my Quebec colleague said, the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship (Mr. Weiner), it is much more than simple legislation to establish a federal department. As I see it, a department such as we want to establish today deals with the many issues and values we all share. I am convinced that the object of the Bill is more than a mere consolidation of Government programs. It conveys the vision
Government Orders
strong Canada looking to the future. That is why I am proud to take part in this debate.
The existence of a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will be significant for the people of Montreal, Moncton, Trois-Rivieres, as well as Toronto, Winnipeg and Saskatoon. It will be just as significant for Quebecers as it will be for all other Canadians' groups, for our native people as for our citizens whose forefathers came here with Champlain or with the Loyalists.
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill to establish a new Department. This bill follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on September 25, 1988, confirmed on election night, and reiterated in the Speach from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, in studying this bill, we will realize its importance for all Canadians. With this bill, we will bring Canadians closer together, and establish a government agency mandated to encourage our people to build a stronger Canada for the future.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 28,1989