1990-10-19

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, for the last few days I have been busy working in my constituency. It has been brought to my attention that on every day in my absence the government Whip, the hon. member for Calgary West, has mentioned my absence from the House of Commons. He knows, as we all know, that this is a practice that we do not follow. I notice that the Chair has permitted that at every occasion and has not reminded the government Whip of that fact.
I understand that today is not the day to pursue the question and the allegations that the hon. member has made against me. I look forward to Monday when presumably we will get into an Albertan version of a parliamentary shootout. I do not plan to bow to any pressure from the government or from the hon. member for Calgary West in terms of supporting a special justice system for members of Parliament or a two-tier justice system. I do not plan to support that in any way or ever, regardless of the pressure brought against myself or my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.
I understand that today we will not be proceeding with the matter that has been raised every day in my absence. However, I want to say I am looking forward with a great deal of anticipation to Monday where I can reveal, presumably with my other colleagues, all of the story behind this initiative by the government to create a two-tier justice system, giving special privileges to members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can respond to the hon. member for Kamloops and assure him that I made it very clear that we would not proceed with the question of privilege which was raised some days ago.
It is true there has been some mention of the absence of the hon. member from this Chamber. I think the hon. member would bear with the Speaker in understanding that at the insistence of the Chair, when an hon. member is unavoidably detained on business elsewhere, it is not appropriate to continue with the question of privilege. The hon. member will know that I made it very clear I did not think it appropriate to continue in the absence of an hon. member.
We do have a rule that we do not refer to the absence of hon. members. Sometimes, though, in the interests of fairness and in the interests of the proceeding it was necessary to make that point.
I would anticipate, as I indicated the hon. member for Calgary West yesterday, that at the very first opportunity we would continue with the question of privilege and, if it is convenient to both members and to the House, I would be prepared of course to hear that on Monday.
The hon. member might be able to contact my office and give me some indication. I will make similar inquiries with respect to the hon. member for Calgary West.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
October 19, 1990
Government Orders
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk on this bill this morning. I am very sincere when I say I do want to speak on it because it is a bill that affects most of my constituents. I know that it affects a lot of Newfoundlanders and all other Canadians involved in the fisheries.
What I plan to do this morning is give a bit of the background as to precisely what is happening with Bill C-74. I want to give the details of precisely what is happening with respect to the guts of the legislation. Then I want to provide a few editorial comments bearing in mind that this is the second reading and from here it goes on to committee. If we are anticipating hearings at the commitee stage, I would certainly believe and hope that my points would be taken account of in the commitee work.
At the outset I would like to say that his bill is essentially made or devised to increase the penalties for the incursions of fish habitat, essentially to make it more difficult with stiffer fines and longer jail sentences for those people who do not obey the Fisheries Act.
The Fisheries Act has been around for a long time. It was passed by Parliament in 1868 and, in short, it is a legal authority for the government to conserve and protect fish habitat where the fish live, swim, spawn, grow and are caught, and to control and manage Canada's fisheries.
To keep pace with the changing conditions the act has been amended more than 40 times in the past 122 years.
I think every member in this House is aware that the fisheries has undergone a tremendous amount of change in the past 10 years. It seems to me that it is always going through change, but I think more dramatically since the early eighties. We have had the Kirby report, the Harris report, the Hache report, and adjustment programs. The Senate has studied it and put out two reports. There has been a tremendous amount of change in the fisheries programs, in the licensing and in the regulations. This is just another attempt to improve. How perfect and how much of an improvement it will achieve, that will be the subject of my remarks.
The proposed changes, as I suggested earlier, will make the scale of fines and penalties for fisheries violations consistent with those that are contained in other legislation. This is the Fisheries Act. There is also the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, which essentially looks after foreign fishing, and there is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are certain fines and measures in these acts that were inconsistent with the Fisheries Act, which as I understand contains the domestic fisheries.
One of the reasons this bill has been put forward is to put the domestic fisheries on a par with and to make it equivalent or equal to the environmental business and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that pertain to foreigners. I will speak more about that later.
It is not a cure-all, but it will provide a part of the solution. There is serious need in the fishing community, as a whole, to be protected from any activities, especially illegal activities that increase the stress on Canada's fishery and may even endanger the livelihood of entire communities, the examples of which we have unfortunately have seen more and more in the past three or four years.
Of equal priority, those responsible for altering or damaging the fish habitat will face much stiffer deterrents under the proposed legislation for violations. Some activities that have the potential for harming fish habitat areas include logging, pulp and paper processing, industrial emissions that enter fish habitat areas, and bridge and rural construction.
The bill also responds to real concerns about the unreliability of the data that can be obtained under the current act, since both the sources of the information and the ability to verify it are very limited.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that one of the difficulties as exposed in the Harris report and one of the difficulties that has emerged between the optimistic projections of the Kirby report of a 400,000 tonne total allowable catch and the present less than 100,000 or in the 90,000 tonne range which is essentially one-quarter of what we had been looking at less than a decade ago, has been the scientific data. While it is not my intention here nor will I castigate scientists, fish science like predicting the weather is a very inexact science. It relies on a tremendous amount of data for which we have not had the resources, either in manpower, in collection vehicles or
October 19, 1990

the records, to be able to support it. This bill does address the data collection aspect, and hopefully will improve the fairness and predictability for all concerned.
I was given to understand that these amendments reflect the concerns and the comments, both oral and written, of individual fishermen and their association. I must confess at the outset to having some reservations about that myself. I got off the phone as recently as 25 minutes ago to fishermen in my riding. None of them are too familiar with Bill C-74.
While I believe the Atlantic Fisheries Council and other organizations were briefed on the progress of what was going on, I consider a briefing somewhat different than a consultation. A briefing is: "This is what is happening", and consultation is: "This is what we are proposing. What would you like to see put into this?"
I regret to announce that once more I do not believe the considerable knowledge of the fishermen experts, who really after all are the best scientists when it comes to who are most involved and who are most affected by this, once again has not really been accounted for as much as I would be given to believe, had I read the propaganda that was put out by the government. However, I will say, on the other side of the coin, that those to whom I spoke believe that there is a need for stiffer fines for those people who are out to break the laws and, because of the need to conserve fish stocks, that is of tremendous concern to everyone.
I think this year I have attended a total of five conferences with a great number of fishermen and, if there is any such thing as the pendulum turning, my understanding as a politician from probably the largest fishing riding in Canada, the 295, is that fishermen are now saying: "Let us do what we need to do to conserve the stocks so that our total allowable catch will improve and that the fish stocks will improve over time". Mr. Speaker, that is the background. I am not going to go through all the details but I will give you some examples of what we are looking at.
Right now, we have a maximum fine of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction for a general fisheries offence. That is going up to $100,000 on summary conviction and to $500,000 on indictment, with the court option of up to one year imprisonment on summary conviction, that is a summary trial, and two
Government Orders
years on indictment. What we are looking at is a tremendous, quantum jump in fines and in jail terms.
For the obstruction of a fishery officer, the fine is now $100 or six months. It is going up to $100,000 on summary conviction and, again, $500,000 on indictment. For the alteration of fish habitat, and I spoke to this in my introductory comments, there is a fine of up to $5,000 now and it is going up to $300,000 on summary conviction and on indictment it could go up to $1 million. One million dollars seems awfully high but when we look at what is involved, the loss of people's livelihoods as well as whole communities, then I do not think it is that unreasonable. However, I will speak to those points in a few moments.
Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the Hache report and the Harris report. In the Hache report, which came out about four or five months ago, it was noted that the maximum fine of $5,000 for illegal groundfishing is looked on by the industry as the cost of doing business. In other words, one gets fined, pays the fine and gets on with it. I do not think that is right, quite frankly, and I think I am supported by most of the fishermen who will be watching this and who will read the presentation which I am making.
The report also noted that enforcement can be made more effective and less costly by focusing on the consequence of breaking the rules. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did a statistical analysis and they show that the levels of fines, on conviction, average about 5 per cent of the maximum. Thus, while the maximum was $5,000 the fines often averaged $250.
The Hache report also observed that the motivation to misreport the areas and species fished was high. I do not have first-hand knowledge of that, I have to take into consideration what the report says.
The task force was told repeatedly by industry participants that they believed the data was flawed and, in the case of commercial data, the accuracy of the information received by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was considered questionable, due to the large-scale misre-porting and enforcement problems. Recommendations were made that would, essentially, amend the fisheries regulations in such a way that this would be redressed and, in effect, this is what we are seeing right now.

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, the Hache report essentially referred to the Gulf and Fundy areas, as I understand it. I am much more familiar with the Harris report. It noted the misreporting of catches, bycatches, discard rates, and other significant inaccuracies in the commercial catch data. Dr. Harris emphasized that a vital aspect of management strategy must be the improvement of the quality of data used in the assessment.
Dr. Harris made two recommendations that pertain directly to this bill. The first one was that the Government of Canada should urge the appropriate authorities to treat violations of fisheries regulations, aimed at conservation, as a serious offence and to ensure that penalties imposed upon convicted violators be sufficiently onerous to fully offset any potential gains from violation. The second point was that the department should expand its data collection to improve the knowledge of effort levels and factors influencing the data of inshore fisheries and landing records.
I am going to give the House a record of the fisheries violation summary. 1988 is the last year for which complete statistics are available. The total number of convictions for fisheries violations in Canada were 3,325 which was an increase of 28 per cent over the previous years. The fines totalled $810,242, which was an increase of 91 per cent during that period.
In the Atlantic region that I am particularly concerned about, Mr. Speaker, the convictions totalled 1,366 with fines amounting to $489,759, an average of $358 per violation, as compared to the average, which I mentioned earlier, of $250.
For the record, in the Pacific region, the convictions were 1,959, amounting to $320,483 in fines, making an average fine of $266 and for sports fishing it turns out to be $90. Habitat convictions total 11, with an average fine of $3,135. That is all very well and it gives the background, some facts and figures.
I again note that we are at second reading. I have a number of reservations about this bill. The first one is that the present surveillance area and the increase in the surveillance area are both centred in the inshore sector.
I had a look at the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program last night. As noted by the hon. member for St. John's East some time ago when speaking on this bill,
surveillance has been allocated $57.5 million. I certainly laud that greatly because I have spoken in this House many times concerning the lack of surveillance. I laud this, but I still have some concerns for reasons that I will point in a few moments.
The government is chartering one offshore vessel in Newfoundland and five inshore vessels, so once again, Mr. Speaker, the focus of the activities is going to be on the inshore. I would be less than totally honest if I did not point out that I am aware of the observer program in the offshore which kind of makes up for the lack of patrol vessels. It is not all of one or nothing of the other, but it is my judgment that we should still strive to have a better balance for the offshore control in surveillance against the inshore.
The second point I have is that while the industry and fishermen have generally supported tougher legislation, I have a reservation that at least in my riding and for areas that I have spoken about, fishermen associations, have not really been consulted in the final form of the legislation. I do hope that during the committee stage that fishermen associations and the unions will be heard of to give their experience and their considerable knowledge so that we can tighten up the regulations even in a more just manner.
The question we really have to ask ourselves is that while tougher penalties are necessary, will the proposed legislation accomplish what it is intended to do, which essentially is to help the stocks be preserved, and, in our case, to grow.
The third reservation I have is that I think the government still lacks a comprehensive strategy to apprehend foreign violators, particularly American fishermen on the Canadian side of Georges Bank.
I do not want to relive the incident again, but I am sure that members of the House and anybody involved in fishing and enforcement recalls the very sad incident on December 11 last year when the U.S. scallop dragger, The Concordia, having been chased by the warship Saguenay, turned around and rammed the Saguenay. It is not the way it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be the warship that is supposed to ram the fishing vessel but it did not quite work out that way.
This is one example where we really need to have a look at the foreign fishing-
October 19, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


INVASION OF KUWAIT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the member, but there have been discussions among the parties and there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That Government Business No. 16 and all amendments thereto, be withdrawn and the order for deferred division of October 18, 1990, thereon be applied to the following proposed motion which would be moved by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Andre.
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and, encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2, and for the sending of members, vessels and aircraft to the Canadian Forces to participate in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula, and in recognition of the seriousness of this matter, accept the undertaking of the Government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of the outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian Forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and
That upon adoption of this Motion, the said Motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, we concur with that motion.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, yes, we too concur with the motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Government Orders FISHERIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Valcourt that Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to do for a follow-on act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Perhaps the hon. member would like to move to questions and comments.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of other punch lines I would like to invoke at this time. If I could be permitted an editorial comment, it is the finest Friday I have spent in this House in the two short years I have been in politics.


Mr. Manley:: The first Friday.


Fred J. Mifflin: Not the first one, John, no. I have spent the odd one.
I return to my concerns. When the hon. House leader interrupted, I was talking about an area with which I am very familiar, the ramming of vessels at sea in the pursuit of their duties.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to use warships to chase draggers, we have to be sure we do not lose the business. We have to make sure we are fully equipped, we need a good set-up and good communications. No one is laying blame in this case. I think if we had to relive the thing over, perhaps we would have done it differently. I have been in these conditions and circumstances myself.
I think the whole business of foreign overfishing and legitimate foreign fishing-and I will speak to this for one minute-inside the 200-mile limit, the other side of the House, and for a reason that I can understand, say: "Well, look, you Liberals are the ones that actually allowed the foreign fishing. You are the ones that gave the licences". I cannot deny that. I was not here at the time but that is fair enough. I accept that sort of criticism. When those foreign licences were given the total allowable catch was in the vicinity of 400,000

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
tonnes. Today, it is one-quarter that. I could not logically agree that we should continue to maintain the same foreign legitimate fishing inside our 200-mile limit while people cannot catch fish in their own home territories.
We are the only country in the world that gives away our main source of industry to other countries and watches them actually catch it. All I am asking is for a reduction commensurate with the total allowable catch, and it should follow some kind of a parallel graph. I do not think that is too much to ask.
My point is that when we talk about enforcing regulations on our own fishermen in our own domestic waters and fines up to $100,000, then we have to look at the whole picture.
There is another aspect here about which I am concerned. The bookkeeping requirements are extremely stringent. I put this to any reasonable member of the House: In Section 61, which I looked at last night, it states that fishermen and purchasers will be required to keep records of the number, the size, the weight, the sex, the species, the product form, or other particulars of any fish caught. Mr. Speaker, if you can imagine an open boat on a stormy day, and a fisherman in his oilskins with three or four crew members catching 30,000 pounds- they are quite capable of catching 30,000 pounds of fish, that is from 8,000 to 10,000 codfish-and they have to go through the sex, the size, the colour, the description, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is too stringent. I really do.
Are you calling time, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will give the hon. member another 30 seconds.


Fred J. Mifflin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other point I want to make before I come to a conclusion is that I would not want to see a salmon, not being tagged or being tagged improperly, have the maximum fine invoked. We have got to ensure that some kind of judgment is applied by these well intentioned fisheries officers. How do we legislate for judgment? In the committee hearings, I think we will have to look at that.
Again, on the business of surveillance, I would have to point out that, if we are looking at the over-all picture of surveillance in Canada., we use 23 maritime aircraft for 60,000 linear miles of coast. The Japanese use 250
aircraft for 228 miles of coastline and the Dutch use 17 aircraft for 5,000 miles. What that amounts to is that the Dutch use the fewer aircraft to look at 5,000 linear miles compared to our 60,000 linear miles, and the Japanese use ten times as many aircraft to look after somewhere in the vicinity of less than 1 per cent of the mileage that we have.
It is an indication of what we need to do to tighten up our surveillance. I am hoping that this will be looked at in the committee stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception on this legislation which we debated about two weeks ago.
I have two quick questions for him, because we want to be a little tighter than his speeches have been as of late in the House.
First, would he support our party's recommendation that, when this bill is referred to committee, we should have an opportunity to travel a bit? Perhaps we should have just a few quick visits on either coast to get a chance to hear people's concerns on this legislation. He did mention in his speech the concern that some people have about not hearing a great detail on this bill.
My second question relates to some concerns in the House in the last few days regarding the government's approach to environmental assessment. We now have four Fisheries and Oceans biologists expressing concerns, some alleging cover-up, about environmental assessment procedures as it relates to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I would appreciate his comments on that as well.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I spoke in the House yesterday on another subject, the gulf crisis. I sat in the House all day yesterday until ten o'clock with you, Mr. Speaker, last night. I recall vividly that a member of the hon. member's asked straight forward questions. I was very naive about this. It was not until later in the evening that I found out that these were all trick questions.
This might seem to be a straightforward question from my hon. friend and had it have been three years ago I would have given straight answers to it. But I am learning that when I hear straightforward questions from



October 19, 1990

the NDP, I am not sure that I should give straightforward answers.
I said during my presentation that these are points and reservations that I have. I know that they are shared by many other members of the fishing community, by people in my riding, by the fishermen associations and by the fishermen's union. In fact, I spoke with the vicechairman of the fishermen's union last night and again this morning. Generally, they think it is not a bad idea, but they are upset that they were not consulted as much as they should have been. I suggest that maybe during the committee stage there would be a chance for consultation.
With respect to the committee travelling, I am not the chairman of the committee. I would suggest that this is something that the committee would have to look at and decide for itself.
On the second point, I am not going to comment on that because there are aspects of it that could cause me to go overtime and that would incur your wrath. Rather than get on the wrong side of you, Mr. Speaker, I will just leave that for another time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, prior to the hon. member completing his full presentation, I am wondering if he might entertain a question or so with regard to some of the sanctions which are contained in Bill C-74.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognized the hon. member on debate, but he has already spoken. I will allow him few remarks, but he cannot speak again. He might as well get his little question in right now.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak a second time. However, since you have been gracious enough to give me an opportunity to pose a question to my colleague, I will certainly afford myself of that opportunity.
Does the hon. member believe, as I do, that there is a need for consultations with regard to the implementation of this particular bill? Does he believe that we have to have before the committee representations from all fisheries organizations on both coasts, particularly those in Atlantic Canada, namely the Maritime Fishermen's
Government Orders
Union, in order to alleviate their fears, that this bill is not, in any way, intended to be discriminatory against the inshore fishery? I think we would need those kinds of individuals at the committee to get evidence which would suggest otherwise, and if indeed it is the opposite, that corrective measures be taken. Would the hon. member concur with that observation?


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I am very serious about this because the hon. member has raised a very important point. I alluded to it in my introductory remarks.
I have a concern that in the well-intentioned discharge of the legislation as the proposed bill now stands, it is my belief that the inshore fishermen would suffer unduly because, essentially, the enforcement action would be focused on them. I am not suggesting that inshore fishermen break the laws any more or less than offshore fishermen. What I am suggesting is that most inshore fishermen, and I am talking about the close inshore fishermen, are closer to the surveillance of fisheries officers who meet them when they come back to the wharf. Fisheries officers have a better means of getting to them when they are hauling their traps. They are small and independent businessmen. They do not work for corporations. A fisherman could be hit with a fine which before was less than $5,000 and averaged about $300, and all of a sudden one is looking at $10,000 or $20,000, which is well within the limits. This could put a small fisherman out of business very fast.
The fisherman's union that I am associated with, and I correspond and communicate with them frequently, has an inshore fisheries council. In response to the hon. member, I would strongly suggest that the Inshore Fisherman's Council and the associations that represent inshore fishermen make sure that they have an input into this in the committee stage and that the judgment that is applied and the amelioration of the bill in committee stage before third reading will be taken into account. Then the inshore fishermen will not be unnecessarily pinned down by this legislation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.

October 19, 1990
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weiner that Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin third reading debate on Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.
Since the earliest days of history, the language of a community has always been its most vibrant cultural legacy. In this country, with its many language communities, the legacy is as rich as it is diverse.
Canada's linguistic resources are an inalienable part of our national identity and they are the voice and expression of our multicultural character. In a modern world, they are a vital and indispensable resource for the future.
The decision to create the institute was the result of thoughtful consultations with key leaders and groups in the heritage language field, along with Canadians from every region of the country. It was their support, people across the country, and their active involvement that brought us where we are today in the establishment of this institute.
I am proud that the government has taken the leadership in responding directly and in such a concrete way to the cause of more effective ways to support heritage language learning in the country.
The consultations that helped to give shape to the institute were an invaluable source of information and
inspiration. These discussions also indicated that many language communities are still isolated from each other and that instructional standards continue to vary greatly from one community to the next. It was clear from the discussions that the existing structures and approaches simply are not adequate for the challenges and the opportunities ahead of us and, if we were to achieve a more effective use of heritage languages in Canada, that we would have to address fundamental deficiencies.
Leading experts in organizations working in the field, along with government officials, concluded that the only way to improve the situation was to introduce more innovative ways to link our communities. We have to find new ways to capitalize on what does work, replace what does not, and bring forward new ideas and methods that can be shared across the country.
Canada's linguistic communities called for a national resource, founded on co-operation and partnership. They wanted an institution that would understand the practical workings of these local language schools and one would appreciate just how important it is for students, whether they are Ethiopian or Ukrainian Canadians, to have modern text books that foster the learning process, not ones that hindered it.
That new vision is the very essence of this legislation, Bill C-37. It is not an ethereal vision, not one of ivory towers where lofty academics muse about the state of languages in abstract terms. That is not our vision, not at all.
I know that many Canadians who volunteer their time to support their heritage languages do so in the most natural and modest way. The instructors in our communities week by week achieve the most remarkable results. In the process, these volunteers do this country a very great service indeed in providing our young people with language skills promoting their cultural identity and later to achieve opportunities in the international and global world in which we all share.
In establishing the institute, we understand that Canadians want and demand that all government initiatives be fiscally responsible. That is why we have modelled the Heritage Languages Institute with this viewpoint in mind. In particular, we realize that people working in the heritage language field do not want the government to squander scarce resources by over-staffing the institute
October 19, 1990

or by establishing a large alienating building in which to house it.
The mandate of this institute and the mandate of the people who work in the heritage language field is to sustain and to strengthen Canada's heritage languages. In practical terms the institute will be responsible for developing Canadian-orientated materials in-house and for disseminating these materials throughout our many language communities. The institute will act as a clearing house, seeking to correct the uneven access to teaching resources and replacing it with greater uniformity and higher standards.
The actual institute itself, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you personally will be pleased to hear, will be located in Edmonton. From the beginning we have committed ourselves to creating an institute without walls, a place where language communities and associations from every region will feel right at home. Wherever the community is, they belong.
Quality research and materials are only as effective as the teachers who use them. For this reason the institute will do its part to help to improve the standard of heritage language instruction by developing more effective training methods and courses.
In terms of financial support, the institute will receive $6.5 million over five years and as a charitable foundation, financial support for the institute may also come from the private sector and community sources, as well as from provincial and territorial governments.
Part of the federal government's financial support will be directed to an endowment fund. In this way we will make the institute a permanent, lasting testimony to the promise of Canada's linguistic resources.
The doors of this institute will always be open to all who wish to support its work. I like to think that above these doors will be the names of every one of Canada's language communities, if not in reality then at least in the minds of the people who work there. As the staff of the institute go out into the communities, they will be helpful in sharing their ideas and working together.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who have participated in bringing this Bill C-37 to third reading, all those witnesses who came to the committee and, indeed, the members of this House who were members of the legislative committee of Bill C-37 who worked together to strengthen and improve the legislation that is before
Government Orders
us. I know that they share with me a sense of how important this institute will be and what it can achieve.
Recently I had an opportunity to speak to one of the leaders of the heritage language instruction. He called the establishment of this heritage language institute a crown jewel. We look forward to this institute being operational very soon. It is a challenging mandate for any institute to serve as a trustee of this nation's linguistic resources, not only for today but for generations to come.
With the support and talent of Canadians, we share the same larger vision. It will achieve its objectives and become a source of promise and lasting achievement for all people.
I urge all members of the House of Commons to pass this bill on third reading quickly in order for us to establish this institute as soon as possible.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, establishing a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute is in itself a step in the right direction. Cultural groups and language teachers feel it is important to have a centre where documentation on language learning is collected, catalogued and, above all, distributed across the country.
On the other hand, we must avoid duplication and ensure that the Institute is sensitive to the needs of the community and regularly updates its information and existing teaching materials.
If the Institute is to be truly effective, it must communicate on a continuing basis with all cultural groups in order to establish a relationship based on co-operation and trust.
Mr. Speaker, the Institute's mandate is a broad one, especially since it is to be an institution without walls that will serve the entire country. I have some questions about this aspect.
How does the present government, with a budget initially designed to respond to the needs of Western Canada, according to the reports of Professors Kreisel and Batts, plan to respond to the expectations of an entire country? We cannot afford to let a lack of funds hamper the Institute in its work. No region in Canada should be penalized because the Conservative govern-

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
merit has decided all research will be directed from Edmonton.
Mr. Speaker, according to what has been said by both authors of reports and the groups that were consulted, the Canadian Eleritage Languages Institute was supposed to be one of two new Canadian institutes that would complement the one already in place in Toronto. In fact, at the time, the plan was that one institute would be based in Edmonton, to respond more specifically to the needs of the West in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, while another institute would be established in Quebec to meet the needs of the East.
These two entities were to focus mainly on applied research and developing teaching tools, thus complementing the work done by the Toronto institute. All three were to be complementary and work together, to save time and avoid duplication.
Thanks to their strategic locations, the three institutes would have been in a position to respond to specific regional needs, since heritage languages are not necessarily the same in Halifax and Vancouver, and thus develop teaching techniques adapted to the target population.
According to Bill C-37, however, there will be a single headquarters in Edmonton that will serve all provinces. An institution without walls, with a budget originally intended to meet the needs of four provinces, will now have to respond to the needs of the entire country. It will be interesting to see how it will manage this "tour de force".

The Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship will have to stay alert and follow closely the setting up of the institute to ensure the representation of all parts of Canada on the board of directors. It will be crucial in the orientation the institute will take, thus the need of having people from different groups, different areas of work and different regions of the country.
If the institute is to serve the people, it must be representative of the people. It makes no logic sense to have an institute that is supposed to serve the needs of
the Canadian population if that body is not responsible to the community that is to use it as a resource centre.
The mandate of the institute is broad. Because of this, it could easily become another elite paper-producing organization. This must not happen. The institute must never lose sight of grassroots people; those who are working in the field and have been creating material throughout the years, those who know and live the problems, those who need back-up. That is why the institute is there.
Here again, I have very serious doubts about this government's intentions. Let us not forget that this is the same government that gave $14 million to teach Canada's business elite how to speak various languages of Pacific Rim countries. Where are the priorities of this government? They love to talk about less government intervention and budget cuts. Unfortunately for the youth of this country, the government only remembers this fact when it is dealing with women, youth and native issues.
When it comes to its friends in the business community, it opens its purse strings. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find this completely unacceptable.

If, as the Minister of State has repeated so often, the $4.1 million cut is actually only $30 per student, if the Conservative government feels that the amount is so insignificant, why are schools closing down because they did not get that grant? Is this the way the government shows it cares about the needs of the people? And if so, what guarantee do we have that the institute will do better than the government? How do we make sure all groups can benefit from institute resources, not only a select few in major urban centres or others with access to technological facilities? The institute simply cannot afford to discriminate against any group no matter how important or where it is located. This will be a major challenge which the institute will have to live up to.
Canada is again going through times of crises and tensions. The coming months and years will give us the opportunity to promote multiculturalism throughout Canada. Wherever people may come from they must be made to feel they are part of Canada. The ideal is to be Canadian without having to negate one's own cultural
October 19, 1990

heritage. This is a major challenge, and the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute is one of the tools we have at hand for the job.
The Minister of State may well be sincere, Mr. Speaker, but we do entertain doubts about the motives of the Conservative government: even before the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship saw the light of day, they reduced the budget of the future department. How can we believe the government when it claims to be promoting harmony and then turns around and tells people who need grants to maintain their cultural heritage that no funds are available? How is it possible for an institute slated for Western Canada and expected to serve the whole country to meet the urgent and basic needs of heritage languages schools with an annual budget of a little over $1.2 million?

Mr. Speaker, we understand that there must be budget restraints, but should we cut on a department that has yet to become a reality, a department that has, as a mandate, to help create harmony among the people of Canada? In this summer of discontent, some of the most disturbing facts have been an increase in intolerance against various communities in our great country. The only response that this government gave was its silence.
The Prime Minister and his cabinet refused to call Parliament back to deal with various issues, as Canada seemed to be swept over with feelings of resentment. The vast majority of this hatred is directed at this government. Unfortunately, some of this discontent was redirected to various minority groups. Instead of coming out with concrete actions to assist in the creation of harmonious race relations across Canada, this government has done nothing, except cut funding to heritage language schools that help in the preservation and promotion of harmonious, cross-cultural understanding.
In B.C., without federal funding, some of these heritage schools will close. Some already have. The schools are the reason why this government is trying to establish the heritage language institute. It seems illogical to establish an institute that is supposed to act as a resource centre for the schools that this government is forcing to close. That is why I seriously doubt this government's
commitment to either this issue or others relating to racial and cultural harmony in this country.

On October 27, Mr. Speaker, children, teachers, parents and directors of Ottawa region heritage language schools will hold a demonstration on Parliament Hill. They will present note books from every school containing handwritten letters and children's drawings protesting against their reduced budgets. Before and after the demonstration we hope to present a number of petitions in the House to bring pressure on the government.


Mr. Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that remarks I made in the House on October 16 are being inappropriately used, or even distorted, by Liberals and Conservatives in Manitoba.
Unfortunately, unhappiness with elements of the environmental record of the former NDP government, by which I still stand, caused me to generalize unfairly about its record on Rafferty-Alameda.
I have taken the time to examine the record, and I find that the NDP government was expressing the appropriate concern at the appropriate time. The fact is that this issue did not become the issue that it is today until June 1988, two months after the NDP left office.
Any suggestion, therefore, aided by my comments that the NDP government inadequately responded to the deal between McMillan and Devine is completely out of line and dishonest. Indeed, if Gary Filmon is into quoting me, I ask him to quote from Hansard page 14231 of the same day, October 16, in which I referred to the

October 19, 1990
refusal of his Tory government to take strong action, given all the things that have taken place since he came to power.
Furthermore, I have had the opportunity since 1988 to work on Rafferty and other environmental issues with Gary Doer, and it is precisely because of the new and deeper commitment that he brings to environmental issues that we did so well in the last election.


NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Between October 12 and 21, Mr. Speaker, we celebrate our first week of science and technology.
Because science and technology offer many advantages we should be more conscious of the role they play in our daily lives and in our domestic economy with a view to promoting scientific culture in Canada.
It will stand as a challenge to improve our standard of living, boost the competitiveness of our industries, and open up interesting career opportunities. We will be much better prepared to face up to and overcome the many obstacles which threaten our environment.
Mr. Speaker, let us make a common effort during this week of science and technology to raise the interest of all Canadians in the key role of science in our society and to make Canada more competitive on the international market.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, by the government's own count, 1,500 fishermen and plant workers on the Labrador coast are without income this winter, and this government evidently does not give a damn. Because of the worst failure in the fishery in years, Labrador fishermen and plant workers, many of whom are aboriginal, do not even have 10 qualifying weeks let alone the 14 now required for unemployment insurance.
Once again Labrador fishermen find themselves in an emergency while the federal government stands idly by. If special funds are not put in place this month, it will be too late. Even the minister's own Industrial Adjustment Committee has documented the seriousness of the situation and called for an emergency response program.
This has nothing to do with Bill C-21, because even if Bill C-21 passes, hundreds of Labrador people will still not qualify for unemployment insurance. The people of Labrador are full Canadians and are entitled to the support of their government.
I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to announce an emergency response program for Labrador and to do it now.


PERSONS DAY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Persons Day, and I think it appropriate to recognize a recent contribution to women's equality.
The Federal Solicitor General has announced that the maximum security prison for women in Kingston is closing. In its place, the government is going to build five regional facilities for federally sentenced women, including a healing lodge for aboriginal inmates. This action came about because of the task force recommendation on federally sentenced women.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those within government and in non-government organizations who worked so hard to produce what I believe to be a very progressive, forward looking initiative that will help to improve the quality of life for incarcerated women.
Many years ago, Agnes Macphail, the first woman MP started the fight to close this prison. This government has finally taken this important step to building a better future for women and society as a whole.


THALIDOMIDE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has disappointed the disabled community yet again.
October 19, 1990

Earlier in the week he rebuffed a request by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada for a compensation package of about $48.9 million, spread over 30 years, for thalidomide victims.
Canada is the only country that has neither acknowledged its responsibility to the victims nor settled legal liabilities with them. Canadians will remember that their government not only did not prevent the sale of thalidomide, but it failed to withdraw it from the market quickly enough when its harmful effects had already been scientifically verified.
Victims have to live with their physical deformities and handicaps, but their families will not always be available to provide them support. The $18.9 million package would provide for current and long-term accommodations to permit the integration of victims in society, but the minister holds firm and obdurate when compassion and justice cry for action.
Yet just next to him his colleague, the minister of energy, was able to squeeze a mere $602 million in grants and cash payments to suffering oil companies last year alone. We ask: Where are this minister's priorities?


INTERNATIONAL GATHERING OF THE IRISH
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, everyone claims a little Irish in their blood, and New Brunswickers are no exception.
Next year our province will play host to the International Gathering of the Irish in North America, and we will be having shamrock citizens with us from around the world.
This is another unique opportunity, both for New Brunswick and for Canada, to demonstrate that we really are a nation for all the world, for all cultures, for all races, for all people.
Just consider the human blend and interchange to take place when Canada's officially bilingual province, New Brunswick, meets and mixes with the world's favourite adopted strain, the Irish: "Sure-'twill be like a morn in spring".
This is an early invitation for every member of this House to come to New Brunswick between July 19 and August 3, 1991. There you will share the best of Irish
humour; there you will see the best of Irish art; there you will sing the best of Irish songs; all in a setting of true Canadian hospitality at its best.
Just this week we had an advance visit by an Irishman from Baie Comeau. Already Irish eyes are smiling and Irish hearts are happy.
Please come and join us next summer.


THE SENATE
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have asked me: "What are these Liberal senators doing? Can they do this?"
I can find no authority to support the actions of the Liberal senators. The Library of Parliament provides the book The Modem Senate of Canada 1925-1963 by F. A. Kunz. On page 339 it reads:
But these arguments and counter-arguments respecting the Senate's financial powers, although theoretically interesting, are now-a-days little more than examples of academic pedantry and to discuss the Senate's right to revise the government's financial program in terms of conflict is really to present a very misleading picture of its functions in the modem state. On the contrary, the Senate has acted in full understanding of the meaning and the implications of responsible government and accepted as binding upon itself the proposition that it should not unduly disturb what has come to be called the "balance of ways and means"-
Or, as Hopkins said in "Financial Legislation in the Senate" in the Canadian Tax Journal:
- that it would be inadmissible to tamper with the over-all financial program submitted by the government in its budgetary proposals -
For a more current opinion I consulted last night with Canada's leading tax consultant, Dr. Vern Krishna, author of the text book on tax law, The Fundamentals of Canadian Income Tax. Dr. Krishna, Professor of Tax Law at the University of Ottawa, notes: "The precedent dates back to 1215-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the great leveller, the great equalizer among children worldwide is when a child acquires the ability to read and then has reading materials made readily accessible to him or to her.

October 19, 1990
There is no other single skill which will open up the world of knowledge and dispel the darkness of ignorance and thus relieve human hardship through enlightenment more than the ability to read effectively.
In view of this direct and positive correlation between literacy skills and children's well-being, does it not seem frivolous to express publicly concern for the welfare of children, as the Prime Minister has done recently, and at the same time attempt to impose a tax on children's reading materials which will lessen the likelihood of poorer children learning to master reading skills?


FORESTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, Canada's forest industry is in a crisis. Thousands of jobs are being lost, mills are closing, and yet this government is idle in trying to help the forest industry.
The minister responsible for forestry said some time ago that he would have forest agreements signed before the planting season. Which planting season? What year will he have these signed? Also the sellout of the forest industry by this government and the Government of British Columbia, in signing the softwood lumber tariff, has resulted in direct orders being issued from the U.S. government to our governments telling us how to run our forest policy.
The 64 directives issued by Washington should be released by this government so that we can get to the bottom of the domination of our forest policy by the U.S. government.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Cash Flow Enhancement Program will enable farmers to secure interest-free cash advances during the current 1990-91 crop year. Each producer will be able to secure up to $50,000 interest free on the security of his undelivered grain.
I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds for their prompt response to the serious cash flow problems resulting from lack of opportunity to market the current
crop. The cash flow enhancement program enables farmers to get some immediate cash on grain they have produced but cannot sell.
This program will provide some interim help for producers pending establishment of a new safety net system consisting of two long-term programs: the Guaranteed Revenue Insurance Plan and the National Income Stabilization Account, programs which should provide significant and predictable support levels for the future.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers of Canada have informed the government on numerous occasions of their grave concern as to the future of the supply management system in Canada.
Given recent statements by the government regarding its position on supply management at the GATT talks, dairy farmers across Canada have good reason to suspect that the government is preparing to bend to external pressure tactics and cave in on its support.
If this government is sincere about fighting to maintain supply management, will it indicate once and for all that it will not throw in the towel at the GATT?
It is truly sad that dairy farmers of Canada have to run television ads reminding the government of something it should already know, that is when a dairy farm dies in Canada a part of Canada dies as well.
It will be nothing short of deception and bad faith for the government to sell out Canadian dairy farmers at the GATT. I call upon the government to provide steadfast support for supply management when the crunch comes in Geneva.


THE SENATE
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that the Liberal senators have finally come back to their senses and agreed to do what they are paid to do, and that is to work. Their degrading performance over the past month has severely tarnished their image as wise men and women, and undermined the
October 19, 1990

reputation of intellectual integrity and emotional stability of most Liberal senators.
It would seem that a lengthy fasting session may have had more serious consequences than we first thought for some of them because it has irremediably impaired their judgment. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, common sense has prevailed and the Liberal majority has managed to score for democracy. The saying vox populi vox dei is still relevant. The Liberals have no right to presume that Canadians erred when they twice voted for the Conservative Party.
When Trudeau-their guru-said that not everybody is cut out for democracy he should have pointed out that he was talking to them.
Canadians no longer want to be held hostages by sore losers-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


VARITY CORPORATION
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very insulting series of events that have taken place involving the workers of Varity Corporation.
As the House will recall, this company owes its existence to a $200 million Liberal government bailout in 1981 which works out to half a billion in today's dollars. Well, Mr. Speaker, guess what? Varity is moving to the United States and taking a half billion of taxpayers' money with it.
Can you guess, Mr. Speaker, what the NDP Government of Ontario and the Conservative government in Ottawa are doing? Absolutely nothing. Yes, there is a $12 million severance and benefits package under the agreement and a deal for the maintenance of 1,200 Ontario manufacturing and processing jobs.
But, really, does anyone in this place believe Varity will honour this deal any more than it honoured the agreement it made in 1986 when the $200 million in
loans to Varity was written off by this present Tory government?
I expected the Conservative government to sell the workers down the road, but never did I think so soon after being elected would Bob Rae and the NDP climb into bed with the Tories and refuse to defend the workers of Ontario.
Bob Rae, if you are listening, workers want jobs, not severance packages; workers want jobs, not promises.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


THE SENATE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Liberal senators have decided to put away their childish behaviour and concentrate on their obligation to provide second sober thought to legislation enacted by the elected representatives of this House.
I know I speak for all Canadians who have witnessed this disgusting spectacle over the last two weeks when I say that I hope we will never have the occasion to see it again.
While some headway has been made with respect to a timetable in regard to the UI and Hibernia bills, and other major pieces of legislation which the Senate has unreasonably held in limbo until now, an agreement has not been reached with respect to a vote on the GST. We need the GST. The Liberal senators' stand has been unproductive. They should set aside the partisanship and look to the well-being of the country.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Larne Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it was 20 years ago this morning that the House of Commons voted on the invocation of the War Measures Act.
I wanted to note for the House that there were 16 of us in the New Democratic Party who felt so strongly that the government was wrong that we said, "no" to the War Measures Act because of our concern about civil liberties in this country.
I do not have time, Mr. Speaker, to read all the names of the people who took that stand, but among them is the

Oral Questions
late Andrew Brewin, the late David Lewis and the late Tommy Douglas. In addition, there was Stanley Knowles, who is now an honorary officer of the House, and of course, Ed Broadbent, the former leader of this party.
In conclusion, I think the important thing was that some of these people had the courage of their convictions, and showed that leadership sometimes is swimming against the stream, and doing what is right and not necessarily what is popular. I wanted to pay tribute to those people this morning.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said in the House, "We brought in a higher interest rate precisely to fight inflationary pressures". Yet the goods and services tax, the GST, according to the figures of the Department of Finance, will increase inflation by more than 20 per cent above current levels.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Why is the government working at cross purposes? Why is it pursuing two contradictory policies, on the one hand keeping up interest rates allegedly to fight inflation and on the other hand, forcing the GST on Canadians when it knows that GST will greatly increase inflation?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being very cute with figures this morning.
The Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance have been very clear right from the beginning of introducing the goods and services tax, that inflation will take a one-time increase of 1.25 per cent in the inflation rate. That has been known right from the beginning. That is not news and that is not something that is shocking or the Leader of the Opposition is not revealing something that is new. That has been said all along and of course would be taken into consideration in setting any kind of interest rates that are set from week to week by the Bank of Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State admits that the government is pursuing a contradictory policy, raising interest to fight inflation and at the same time trying to impose the GST on Canadians when it will increase inflation the year it comes in by 1.25 per cent, which is more than 20 per cent above current levels.
Will the minister undertake that the Governor of the Bank of Canada will not be allowed to increase interest rates even further to counter the inflation caused by the GST?

In other words, Mr. Speaker, could the minister give the House the assurance that the Governor of the Bank of Canada will not further increase interest rates in response to inflationary pressures caused by his GST?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada is following a policy to wring inflation out of the economy. It is very important that the inflationary pressures are wrung out.
For example, in July and August, average wage increases in this country were 6.1 per cent. That causes, of course, inflationary pressures. The inflation rate has held fairly steady at 4.2 per cent as was announced this morning. We are encouraged by that, but there is still too much inflationary pressure in the economy.
The Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance, unlike the opposition, do not have knee-jerk reactions to what is going on in the economy. It is a policy that is followed to wring inflation out of this economy and to assure that interest rates come down and stay down, not like in the days when the Liberals were in power and we saw inflation at 13 per cent and interest rates at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. We are not going to let that happen to this country.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when Canadians look at the economic policies of this government, they know where the jerks are, they are on the other side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
October 19, 1990


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to economic policy is clearly perverse. At a time when the government's own trade figures show that our exports are falling, the government made a deal which allows the Varity Corporation to close the Kelsey plant in Windsor with a loss of more than 500 export related jobs.
Why did the government not insist on that Kelsey plant being saved? Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not insist on that Kelsey plant being kept open and those 500 jobs saved? Is the minister saying to those workers that this is the way the government expects them to die, before they can get to heaven?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in the automotive industry in particular, there is a major restructuring going on all over the world, not only in Ontario.
The important thing about the Kelsey-Hayes closing is that bad as it is, the workers have at least been offered a deal which is better than they might have been offered under other circumstances.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in Ottawa and the NDP in Toronto have just joined hands to underwrite the largest swindle of Canadian workers and taxpayers in the history of this country.
The Varity agreement will cut 500 workers loose immediately. It is nothing more than a two-year stay of execution for the 1,200 jobs that are supposed to be guaranteed under the agreement.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is: Why did Premier Bob and his friend, Brian, cave in?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might have been the "Bob and Bob Show", but there is no doubt that the new agreement we have with Varity offers at least greater certainty to all the parties involved.
It was not this government that loaned Massey-Fergu-son part of the $200 million. Let us go back. It was in 1981 that the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, now the Leader of the Opposition, said that "this $200 million in guarantees facilitates a private sector solution to Massey's woes". What it did was postpone Massey's woes.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to the 1981 dollars that were spent with a guarantee that the jobs would stay in Canada. I can tell him that if there was a Liberal government here, we would not allow them to pack up and leave, just like the Tories-


Some hon. members:: Right on, Sheila.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The workers have been thrown peanuts and crumbs, while in actual 1990 dollars, the amount of money spent by the Canadian Ontario taxpayers to this company is over half a billion dollars, $592 million to be exact.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will move immediately to get a repayment of this half a billion dollar bail-out which is going to result in a loss of Canadian jobs to the tune of 1,500 workers by the time this Varity mess is cleaned up by the next Liberal government.


An hon. member:: Peterson almost made the same deal.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize what this new agreement is. It is an improvement over the original foundation agreement. It is supported by the Government of Ontario and by the CAW, with 1,200 jobs guaranteed.
It was not long ago when we heard members on the other side of this House say, "What about the 4,500 workers from the combine plant in Brantford"? Under this agreement, the 4,500 workers at least have better lay-off provisions than they had before, when they had nothing.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this government which now wants to be seen as tough, as "willing to take the hard decisions on the economy", to quote the Prime Minister yesterday. The Prime Minister as gunslinger is not a new act in this House of Commons. This week the signs of recession grew and we see today that the inflation rate in this country has stayed the same.
Will the government start making the tough decisions and admit that it has been wrong? Will it admit that there is a recession? Will it admit that high interest rates

Oral Questions
are, in fact, hurting this economy? Will it admit that the Canadian dollar has to decline to get-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has completed his question.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think if we did not have the policy that we have today, inflation would be running at a much higher rate in this country. It would be much higher, there is no question about that. Every economist says that that is the fact. There is no question about that.
The hon. member talked about a number of "will it admit", will the government admit there is a recession? That is for Statistics Canada to give us the facts. Those numbers will be coming out in the next few weeks and that is when it will be decided. There is definitely a slowdown in the economy. We do not take comfort in people being hurt in this slowdown in our economy. We cannot take comfort in that and we do not. But, at the same time, we cannot make band-aid solutions to major problems that we are facing. We have a policy in this country-


Mr. Barrett:: That you created.


John Horton McDermid: Well, the hon. member says, "that we created". That is right, we created 1,600,000 new jobs over the last six years. We have had unparalleled economic growth in this country over the last six years. The record of the economy under this government has been superb and I am proud to stand behind it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I say to this government, you cannot take credit for the good times and then wash your hands of the bad times. So I tell this government take the tough decision and admit that it has made a mistake, it has driven this economy into a recession and as a result, right across this country there are thousands and thousands of people hurting.
Is this government prepared to stand up and admit that it has made a mistake and change its policies to start helping people?


John Horton McDermid: No, we have not made a mistake in our economic policy. We know people are hurting. In his budget in February, the Minister of Finance said there would be a slowdown in the economy
and a slight increase in unemployment. That prediction was made by the government in the Minister of Finance's budget, so that is not a surprise, that was expected. At the same time, the policies of this government are for the long term, to get interest rates down permanently, to get inflation down so that the economy can grow in a balanced manner. That is what this is all about.
God help us if the NDP were in power, it would be slapping band-aids here, there, and everywhere, and inflation would be running out of control today.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, surely the government is prepared to admit that the economic situation that we find ourselves in today is different than existed at the time when the government first contemplated the GST. Surely it is willing to admit that.
Is the government completely closed-minded about changing its mind on the GST? Is it completely closed-minded about listening to the small business community, to labour, and to almost everyone in the whole country, except itself, who think that it may be time to reconsider the wisdom of imposing the GST in the new economic circumstances that we find? Is it going to be at least reconsidered?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, again, my answer is no.
Let me tell the hon. member that there has been wide consultation on the goods and services tax right across the country. It has been going on for years.
I might point out that a report from the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee of the Senate of Canada, on which Senator Buckwold, Senator Kirby and Senator MacEachen sit, recommended this: "We recommend that as soon as practicable, the government introduce legislation to introduce a broad-based multi-state sales tax to replace the existing sales tax system which does not work."
That is the recommendation of those people who are now opposing the multi-state sales tax that we have in the country. I cannot understand why those senators are
October 19, 1990

opposing something that they recommended a short two years ago.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The minister has claimed he is taking the toughest possible action to have a full environmental assessment of the Rafferty-Alameda project before it goes ahead.
If the minister means what he said, why was he not in court yesterday seeking an interim injunction? Why is he not in court today, and does the injunction he is seeking include all construction on both Rafferty and Alameda, all land acquisition, all contracts, and all operations? Or, is this just another stall so that Grant Devine can complete the dam?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday that I was at that point instructing my officials to seek an injunction on continued construction and land acquisition related to the Rafferty-Alameda project. That is what has happened. Officials are proceeding under those instructions as I announced to the House yesterday.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, every hour irreparable damage is being done on the site of that dam. Surveyors were out on the site of the Alameda Dam yesterday and today. The minister took no action until the Tetzlaff brothers, who do not want their farm expropriated, notified him on Wednesday that they were going back to court.
Again, why was the Minister not in court yesterday seeking an interim injunction? Is he in court today seeking an interim injunction? If not, is he prepared to let construction just continue throughout the weekend on a 24-hour basis? When will we have an injunction?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are acting. I indicated the action that we were going to be taking.
The important thing here is that we want to respect a process that has been established by the courts and been established by the House. We want to have a full environmental review of the project and we shall have that. We are seeking an injunction to stop land acquisi-
Oral Questions
tion and construction on the project until that process can be completed.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Not content with producing newspaper advertisements which previously offended the House and, later, radio ads which offended the Advertising Standards Council of the Canadian Advertising Foundation, the government is now embarking on a series of similarly misleading television ads trying to convince the people of Canada that the GST and the government-induced inflation is good for them.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of all Canadians taxpayers this: Will he now admit that this ad has nothing to do with informing people, and has everything to do with trying to restore the failed credibility of the Minister of Finance?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, once again my friend opposite is totally misdirected in his criticisms.
The ads are not doing what he says. They are bringing the attention of Canadians to a very important policy initiative that is important for the country, and particularly for the future of our children and our grandchildren.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently the member was right. They are not restoring the minister's credibility. It is beyond repair.

I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister opposite whether he will admit, once and for all, that the ads were not intended to inform the public but are an attempt to restore the credibility of the Conservative Government.
And considering these facts, will he ask the Conservative Party to compensate taxpayers for this misleading advertising?

October 19, 1990
Oral Questions


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the departmental statute does not apply to any ads that governments would put out.
These are ads for information so Canadians can better understand a very important policy initiative which has been totally misrepresented by members of the opposition.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
The National Defence Act expressly requires the Government of Quebec to send a report to the Secretary of State of Canada on the circumstances that led to the requisition of Canadian forces this summer in Oka and Chateauguay.
It is now two and a half months after the troops were requisitioned. Has the report been received? If not, why not? Will the government insist on the report, and will the government give an undertaking to make the report public?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the report has not been received yet.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the other three questions which were part of my question were not answered.
My supplementary question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
This summer we saw, for the first time since the War Measures Act was invoked 20 years ago, Canadian forces deployed against Canadians. This is a very serious event in our history. There are many questions arising out of events of this summer, including the stone-throwing incident at the Mercier Bridge, the role of the army, the question of civil rights, and a whole set of questions.
Will the minister give an undertaking to the House that there will be a full-scale, federal, public inquiry into the events of this summer?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would certainly dispute my hon. colleague's description of the events of this summer. Members of our Armed Forces were there at the requisition of the province of Quebec to provide assistance and aid to civil order, and performed those duties admirably.
As my colleague knows, there has been a motion on the floor of the House for discussion. That motion, once it is passed, will be referred to a standing committee of the House which will have the authority to consider all matters related to the situation this summer.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, but perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to reply.
Yesterday, a Quebec coalition of publishers, book sellers, authors and printers launched an offensive against the GST on books. They said that taxing books is tantamount to promoting ignorance. I therefore want to ask the minister why he is so anxious to undermine education.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, there is no impeding education. As the hon. member knows, libraries, schools, and universities will not be paying taxes on those books. I might say that there are many groups that would like to be exempted from the GST. All have their own reasons, but the more groups exempted, the narrower the base and the higher the rate.
One of the reasons that we are bringing in a goods and services tax spread over a broad cross-section of the economy is to make it fairer, to keep the rate lower, and to give individuals choices. That is what it is all about, to make it fairer than the manufacturers' sales tax.
October 19, 1990

The hon. member might be interested to know that there is manufacturers' sales tax in publications as well now. It is hidden way down in. The people do not know they are paying it, but in fact they are.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Books are a way to defend our language and our identity. My question is directed to the same minister. Why does this government want to destroy our Canadian cultural identity?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we do not want to destroy the Canadian cultural identity. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Communications who is responsible for culture in the country has made some very significant announcements over the last while supporting cultural endeavours in the country.
To make a statement like that is completely erroneous, Mr. Speaker.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. In 1984 the Prime Minister promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Since then we have had lay-offs, lay-offs, lay-offs.
Plant closures and cut-backs have been the order of the day across eastern Ontario. In my own riding, in the town of Renfrew, over 1,600 jobs have been lost. This is a devastating blow to a town of 8,500. When plants close the entire community suffers.
When is the government going to produce an economic program for eastern Ontario to give some hope to business and some hope to those workers who are having difficulty supporting their families? Have a heart.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, no one likes to see a plant close or anyone laid off. What is happening in the country, as we have said before, is a significant restructuring of almost every industrial sector.
Oral Questions
In terms of the member's own riding, the industrial commissioners from his part of the country are out in fact trying to generate new business. They are not moaning about what is happening. They are taking a positive approach and are out looking for new opportunities.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, this is the first question I have asked in the House on this matter because I have been out working with industry. I have been working with communities., I will not permit the minister to stand in the House to give a different impression.
The 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber, high interest rates, and an artificially high Canadian dollar have been absolutely destructive to the forest industry across Ontario. Hundreds of jobs have been lost again in eastern Ontario. Sawmill owners, logging contractors, hard working people have had their livelihood taken away from them.
When is the government going to get serious and negotiate its way out of the export tax, lower interest rates, lower the value of the Canadian dollar, and sign a forestry agreement in order to get business and jobs moving again? Think of the people out there who are hurting because of the policies of the government.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada of course is concerned about the MOU that the hon. member refers to and its impact on the Canadian softwood lumber industry. There are extensive consultations going on between the various parties, the provinces involved and the lumber interests. That is carrying on to try to come to a satisfactory conclusion. It is a very complicated and sensitive issue, but I can assure the hon. member that is being looked after.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In April, 1989 Michelle Douglas, a talented young officer who was the top graduate in her class of 85 was fired from the forces after a degrading SIU investigation, solely because she happens to be lesbian.

October 19, 1990
Oral Questions
The recent decision of the Security Intelligence Review Committee struck down this forces' policy as unconstitutional, and the report of the Marin Commission urged an end to the SIU witch-hunts against lesbians and gays in the Armed Forces. When will the government finally change this inhumane policy, as the equality rights committee, of which she was a member, unanimously recommended five years ago?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I know of the hon. member's continuing interest and concern on this issue.
I think that he is aware that as as result of the Marin report, we have indeed agreed that homosexuality will not in itself be grounds for review of security clearances.
However, on the broader issues, these are still under discussion, both within our department and with the Minister of Justice, in terms of our over-all review for the Canadian Human Rights Commission Act, and I am sure those decisions will be forthcoming over the coming months.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that there is a very serious and immediate problem in this area and that the contracts of members of the forces whose careers are currently in limbo, and who are affected by this Armed Forces policy, are coming up for renewal in the coming months.
I ask the minister for her assurance that members of the Armed Forces whose contracts are coming up for renewal, who are currently in limbo as a result of the government's delay in ensuring equality for all members of the forces, will have those contracts renewed and that the members who are affected by this will not, in fact, lose their lives, have their livelihood shattered and destroyed as so many others have done before them.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has brought this matter to my attention in recent days. I have asked my officials to look at this issue very closely. I will certainly be responding to the hon. member just as soon as possible.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the tabling of the Green Plan. Considering the government's emphasis on protecting the environment, could the minister inform the House whether he expects to meet the deadline he had set for tabling the Green Plan?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that, after consultations with some 10,000 or 11,000 Canadians in April, May and June of this year, work on the plan continued throughout the summer. The Green Plan was discussed repeatedly by the Environment Committee, and I can assure the hon. member that so far, we are still right on schedule, in other words, the Green Plan will be tabled around the end of November or early December.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There is a crisis in health care in our aboriginal community. The number of neonatal deaths is worse than in most Third World countries, due in large part to a lack of well trained health professionals from within their own community.
How can the minister justify his government's cancellation of its support for the University of Manitoba Special Pre-medical Studies Program, which was established in 1979 in response to the need to train medical doctors from aboriginal communities, while a significant number of babies on Indian reserves continue to die at alarming proportions?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raised the questions of vital concern not just to the government but to all members of the House, and that is that there are certainly inequalities between the health outcomes for native children and for other children in Canada. It is something that we are determined to address.
October 19, 1990

As the hon. member knows, the federal government has put money into trying to give assistance to natives to train for the medical professions.
The ongoing responsibility, however, for provision of training and of post-secondary education is the responsibility of the provinces. The federal government has tried to assist them in doing that, but the primary responsibility is that of the provinces.
We will be making a review of all factors which affect the health of native children. It is not acceptable to me that we see the mortality rate among native children and the mortality rate in general of native communities as being higher than in the rest of society. It is something that we are determined to address and to do everything that we can within areas of federal jurisdiction.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the words that the House heard today from the minister were equally reflected on August 9 of this year when the health minister wrote and assured the petitioners of the program. I quote in part: "Let me assure you, every effort is being made in working with the Manitoba provincial government to ensure continuity. . . of this Special Pre-medical Studies Program". That was last August. Today, it is already October.
Is the minister prepared to commit in this House today that he will restore funding for this program so that babies born on Indian reserves are given a fair chance to live?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member asks me, on behalf of the federal government, to assume responsibility for something which constitutionally is the responsibility of the provincial government.
I understand the hon. member's concern and I share that concern as well. Though it is important that we ensure that all of the partners, acting within their areas of responsibility, do what they can to protect the health of Canadian natives, the federal government will do eveiything that it can within its areas of jurisdiction. The fact that the federal government has provided assistance in this area is evidence of the fact.
Education, as the hon. member knows, is primarily the responsibility of provincial governments. The hon. mem-
Oral Questions
ber and the Leader of the Opposition should well know that. Instead of playing partisan games as the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do with something this important, it is important that the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition do what they can, together with the government, in order to ensure that every effort is made by all levels of government within their areas of jurisdiction to promote the health of all Canadians.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is found of telling us that he has the facts. He reminds me of the minister of truth that George Orwell feared would come to power in 1984.
Among the thousands victimized by this government's recessionary policies, there are 300 Purolator Products Ltd. workers who are being laid off and their jobs shifted to the United States.
A steel case company that The Financial Post boasts of being among the hundred best companies to work for, plans to lay off 72 workers by January.
The transport minister says that he is not in the business of saving jobs but creating opportunities.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what opportunities are in store for these Canadians who have lost their jobs


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Purolator air and oil filters is a relatively low-technology operation and it is very difficult to do low-technology operations in a high-cost area like Mississauga. Purolator recognized that and it decided to consolidate all of its operations elsewhere. We do not like it, but that is a fact of what is going to happen.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is hoping that these laid off workers will follow their jobs to the United States. Varity paid $52 million to escape this government's recessionary policies.
My supplementary question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Employment and Immigration instructed to draft the UI bill, currently before the Senate, to protect the treasury from the sweeping layoffs that this government is causing?

October 19, 1990
Oral Questions


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that is no. What we are trying to do with that bill is to say that when these things happen, such as Purolator in the general area of Mississauga, that we have the money to retrain people for higher technology jobs. Get the thing out of the Senate and let us get on with the job.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. A few minutes ago, the premier of Saskatchewan announced he was taking the federal government and the Minister of the Environment to court over the Rafferty-Alameda project. I want to ask the Minister of the Environment a question along the lines of making a suggestion to him.
In order to avoid the loss of time in going through the courts, and he has talked about not having many alternatives, I wonder if he would consider introducing into the House immediately or within the next couple of days a bill that would make it illegal for construction on that dam to proceed until we have full and complete environmental hearings? In other words, why abrogate our responsibility from Parliament to the courts to this countiy, why not take some action in this House of Commons?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I will repeat today that we are doing two things. First of all, I am in the process of appointing a new panel to have a full and complete environmental hearing. At this hour, I do not see any reason why we cannot have a panel that will be starting to work very quickly on the issue and get us the kind of full environmental process that we are seeking.
Second, we are seeking an injunction before the courts to stop any kind of land acquisition or construction related to the project. So, I do not think that we in any way as a government abrogated our responsibilities.
Quite the opposite. We have fulfilled our responsibilities, and we will have the full due process conducted.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well what the minister is saying, but in terms of the question I make a suggestion.
Rather than going through the courts and abrogating our responsibility to the courts of this country, which could be time consuming, would the minister consider a bill to be introduced Monday of next week to make it illegal for the Saskatchewan government to proceed with construction so that we in Parliament make that decision, that it would be illegal to proceed with construction of the dam until we have a full and complete environmental hearing. I just make that as a way of a suggestion in Question Period in order to have some action on this and raise this issue immediately.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion.
I just would like to repeat to my hon. colleague and every other member of this House that over the last three days, I have gone over all the options that we had.
I believe that proceeding with the injunction is the most effective option to ensure that we do in fact get a full environmental hearing of this case. That is the way I am proceeding for the moment.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that young people make up 19 per cent of the labour force in Canada, but they represent 38 per cent of the 175,000 workers who have been laid off in Canada in the last six months.
While the national unemployment rate is 8.2 per cent, the unemployment rate among young people has now reached 13.6 per cent. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Given the devastating loss of jobs and the disproportionate increase in the lay-off of workers among young people in Canada, what specific policy is this government putting in place to deal with youth unemployment and the hopelessness that comes with it?
October 19, 1990


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member by first reminding him that when his government was in office, the unemployment rate for young people in Canada was over 20 per cent. That was in 1981-82.
On the question with regard to the specific initiatives that we are taking concerning youth, I would like to remind him of our most recent initiative, which is the Stay-in-School initiative to make sure that people at least complete high school.
My hon. friend will know that if we ccan get our young people to complete high school in this country, they will double their chance for employment. That is why this government is investing over $300 million in the course of the next three years to make sure our kids stay in school and get better jobs.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister's attempt to compare the numbers from a world-wide recession in the early eighties to a made in Canada recession in the nineties is not going to wash with Canada's young people.
Since 1984, given that this government has cut 35 per cent of the training budget in Canada and is attempting now to generate new training dollars by taking those dollars out of the pockets of the unemployed and Bill C-21, I again ask, what is the Government of Canada doing to assist those thousands of young people who are now on the streets, desperately in need of a job, wanting to do a job, wanting the dignity of a pay cheque but who have had no hope from this government? What specific policies does this government offer?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member, as knowledgeable as he should be, when he talks about Bill C-21.
One of the problems that young people of this country are experiencing at this time is that they lack job training skills. If the hon. member's colleagues in the Senate would allow us to get on with Bill C-21, we would have more than $100 million ready for youth for training in this country. That is his fault, not ours.
Routine Proceedings CORPORATE SPONSORS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am sure Canadians saw the final straw this last week, when they saw the government entering into a special deal with McDonald's hamburgers through Canada Post: If we make ogo-pogo burgers or Sasquatch burgers, we will get the subtle endorsement of the Government of Canada.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: Where are we going? Is it Wendy's in support of health and welfare next, or Burger King in support of veterans affairs? Is Ronald McDonald really leading this government? Where is this government going with this policy?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, can I ask my hon. friend what he has against corporate sponsors who help youth, who help sports, and who help other members of society?
What is it with the socialist party in this country?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of proxy voters, non-listed electors and advance polls).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, if it were to be passed would actually guarantee that every single Canadian, no matter where he or she happened to be on an election day at the federal level, would be permitted to vote on that particular day provided that he or she were entitled to vote under normal circumstances or under the conditions that exist.

October 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
It was unfortunate that during the last election many people who could have voted, who were out of the country, who were not enumerated or for any number of other reasons were not in fact permitted to vote, did not do so. Democracy is so precious that everyone who wants to participate should be able to do so. This particular bill would counteract that. It would guarantee every single Canadian that opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Marcel Danis: point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek the indulgence of the House to revert to tabling of documents. I would like to table orders in council.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: I appreciate the kindness of my colleagues.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Marcel Danis: Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), I am pleased to table in the House, in both official languages, the orders in council announcing appointments made recently by the government.
These orders in council are deemed to have been referred to the standing committees listed in the appendix.


INDOOR AIR QUALITY ACT
John Paul Manley: for leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act relating to indoor air quality.
He said: Mr. Speaker, given that Canadians as a people spend more than 80 per cent of their time indoors
this bill respecting the Indoor Air Quality Act would empower the minister of health to establish a national research centre, which would be able to conduct research and study all aspects of indoor air contamination. It would develop methods and technologies for the processes of detection, correction or prevention of indoor air contamination. It would also enable the minister of health to formulate comprehensive plans and designs for the control and abatement of indoor air contamination. It would promote public education with respect to the hazards of indoor air contamination and would enable him to develop and disseminate informational materials relating to indoor air contamination.


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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to put a motion to the House dealing with a most important development in the last few days in the Windsor area.
It deals with the Varity plant and the Bobbsey Twins act of Bob White and Bob Rae getting together with the Prime Minister and spending Canadians out of style, making this depression very difficult for us.
That motion would address the specific problems of the investments of Canadians in the Varity plant in Windsor and its closure, which is wasting our money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


PETITIONS
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 210 petitioners from Bonavista Bay, Charleston, Musgrave, Cannings Cove, Bloomfield, Bunyan's Cove, Georges Brook, and the Clarenville
October 19, 1990

Routine Proceedings
area. I have spoken to most of them; I recognize their names.
These petitioners are very concerned that the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland is the highest in the country. They want to have their unemployment qualification time reduced from 14 weeks to 10 weeks. To do that there is a need to introduce the variable entrance requirement, which has been done every year in this House since 1976.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to introduce the variable entrance requirement immediately.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to present a number of petitions from Canadians from several provinces, including the province of Manitoba.
These people condemn the goods and services tax, particularly as it applies to books, magazines, and newspapers. They believe, as do a number of other members and I, that reading and everything that is associated with it is the cornerstone of a democratic society such as ours.
We in fact benefit as a country if we have a more educated citizenry. They also see it as a cornerstone of our economic and social development. Therefore they ask this government to remove this tax, particularly as it applies to books.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition is certified correct as to form and content.
Many Canadians urge Parliament to ensure that the preservation and enhancement of heritage languages be part and parcel of government policy, for they point out that thousands of students and teachers rely on government support to survive. They ask Parliament to maintain the programs which will provide quality heritage language teaching in Canada so as to preserve and promote our multicultural heritage.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to present another petition from members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is in my riding, numbering over 200.
They vehemently oppose the imposition of the GST and call upon this Parliament to implore the government to withdraw this most unjust of taxes.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition bearing 437 signatures. Your petitioners request that programs for older worker adjustment be open to all permanently laid-off workers regardless of the number of employees in the company and the location of the plant, for this would do away with discrimination resulting from the requirement that eligibility for this program is restricted to companies with more than 100 employees.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens from British Columbia who state that 25 per cent of the Canadian adult population is illiterate and that in some regions illiteracy exceeds 40 per cent.
They also state that literacy skills are increasingly important in the work place and illiteracy costs Canadian society $10 billion a year. Therefore these petitioners call upon Parliament to undertake a major national campaign against illiteracy and create a community base for remedial and preventive illiteracy programs which respond to the needs of individuals and groups involved.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House today signed by residents of British Columbia.

October 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to introduce and systematically enforce legislation guaranteeing Canadian women equal pay for work of equal value and equal opportunity for employment.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 with a petition from residents of my riding of Mission-Coquitlam who I am sure are very sad today, because what they are calling for in their petition is the provision of tax relief and fairness to Canadian families by increasing benefits paid through family allowances and through refundable child tax credit.
As a result of the decision made in the Senate last night by collusion between the Liberals and the Tories, they feel very gravely that that will not happen.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by a number of citizens of Glengarry in the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. In particular, these are mostly residents of the Alexandria area, the town of Alexandria which we affectionately refer to as "Alexandria the Great".
The people of "Alexandria the Great" are against this government's proposed GST, the grief and suffering tax. They ask that the government abandon forthwith the planned GST which causes more inflation and more recession.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of petitioners from Scarborough, Brampton, and Etobicoke.
This petition concerns essential assistance and protection for those persons inflicted with serious allergy reactions. This was brought to my attention because of the premature death of Robyn Allen in Scarborough and supported by the Allergy Information Association.
It calls upon Parliament to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in prepackaged foods. As well, it calls upon restaurateurs
and food retailers to provide a list of food ingredients presented on prepared foods.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the famous riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, so ably represented in this House by their hon. member who sits on this side.
These petitioners would be astounded to know that the government is persisting in its intention to pass the goods and services tax into law after so many millions of Canadians have signed petitions against this tax, including these petitioners, residents of St. Isidore, Apple Hill, and Maxville in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops who point out that the government is going to tax reading material for the first time in history. Consequently they are asking the government to curtail direct taxation on literature, particularly children's storybooks.
I have another petition I wish to present on behalf of a large number of people from Chase, Pritchard, Monte Creek, Westwold, Dallas, Valleyview, Barnhart Vale, and Rose Hill.
The petitioners are pointing out their opposition to the government's goods and services tax. They suggest that it will add to the cost of living and thereby increase the rate of inflation, which will likely then result in increased interest rates and more difficult economic times. They are suggesting that the government should be implementing an effective minimum tax on profitable corporations instead.
The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to back off on the goods and services tax and replace it with a system of fair taxation.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present a petition on behalf of 30 of my constituents of Stormont- Dundas which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions. These individuals are calling upon the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Cana-



[DOT] *
HHHHHnHiH9HRHHHH
October 19, 1990

Government Orders
dian Constitution so that Parliament can legislate total protection for all human life including the unborn.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, from people in the greater Toronto metropolitan area calling upon the government to remove the GST, particularly as it applies to the written word.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Weiner that Bill C-37, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the third time and passed.
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before Question Period, on October 27, children, teachers, parents and administrators of heritage language schools in the Ottawa area will hold a demonstration on Parliament Hill.
On this occasion, there will be a presentation of handwritten letters and children's drawings from each school, protesting cutbacks in funding to the schools.
Mr. Speaker, both before and after this event, we shall regularly table petitions in the House, in order to put pressure on the government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see this institute become window dressing for a government that has left the cupboards of heritage language education bare. I must really question the effectiveness of this move and ask how much it can really do.
I am also concerned about funding for aboriginal languages. I am concerned that this government has cut funding for various native newspapers and publications. I am concerned that this government's policy does not satisfy the language needs of Canada's aboriginal people.
I would hope that all members of this House would support the private member's bill of my colleague from Western Arctic calling for the creation of a native language's institute.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, quality education is and remains the key to the future. The Institute must serve those people who wish to promote their cultural heritage and who are dedicated to sharing their knowledge with their peers. We in the Liberal Party support the establishment of this Institute, but we intend to watch the situation very closely to ensure that no region is neglected.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand at the third reading stage of Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.
Every year we welcome thousands of immigrants to Canada from many different lands. Of course, if they do not speak English or French when they first arrive, it is essential that language training be a first priority in order for them to adjust quickly in Canada.
This requires adequate federal and provincial resources for English as a second language classes or French language classes so that children will have the extra help they need and schools will not be overburdened. In the city of Vancouver this is a very crucial concern at this time.
Adults of all ages, and I include women as well as men, who often have the priority for language training related to employment, must have language fluency to become Canadians. Elderly persons who come to Canada to

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
become a part of our society need opportunities for training in Canadian languages as well. This, I think, is the first language priority in multicultural Canada.
I must say before I speak to this bill that I regret very much that the federal government does not fulfil its responsibility to adequately finance language training in French or English for either adults or children.
The opportunity to maintain and learn heritage language also has been a very important component of Canadian multicultural policy. The government itself has repeated this objective often.
Language reflects culture, and young people need an opportunity to speak the language of their parents and of their grandparents, m order to appreciate their roots and to develop their identity, as part of becoming Canadians. It enriches all of us to have Canadian citizens who are fluent in second languages or, in some cases, in third languages. We can be very proud of the cosmopolitan, international character of our Canadian mosaic and our Canadian communities.
In my riding of Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker, I often visit heritage language schools, where children spent their Saturday mornings learning the language of their parents and their grandparents. Along with that, of course, they absorb the culture and reinforce their parental culture.
I want to pay tribute at this time to the hardworking teachers in these schools and in schools for heritage language classes right across the country. These teachers often work with very few resources and on low salaries.
Also I have known of children in my riding, and I am sure other members have similar experiences, who did not learn the language of their parents or grandparents. When they become teenagers, very often there are serious communication problems that create barriers between generations, and even lead to family breakdown.
Heritage language classes cost very little and they bring values to our society as well as to individuals. Therefore, we support the concept of a heritage language institute. Even more, we support the government subsidies. They are pretty small subsidies when you look
at individual classes that have in the past been given to heritage language schools.
We regret very much that the government eliminated $4.1 million for heritage language classes from its last budget. This not only denies their stated policy, but it has forced the closure of many schools. It is of major concern to ethnocultural groups across this country.
Bill C-37 which we are debating in its final stage today is to establish a Canadian heritage language institute, an institute to be based in Edmonton. It is very sad, and I think somewhat ironic, that on the one hand, while the government takes away $4.1 million from last year's budget for heritage language classes, on the other hand, it has decided to give a little token back in the form of $1.2 million, just a fraction of the budget for previous years and only over a five-year period, let us not forget, to provide research and to assist the very heritage language classes it is killing off in communities because of inadequate funding.
We are not opposed to establishing a heritage language institute but we do seriously question the government's priorities and the political motivation in this instance. It certainly appears that the institute is a token political gesture so that the government can save face for having cut funding to the first priority, which must be the very community classes that will provide heritage language and for which an institute would be established.
What is the purpose of the institute and what are some of the concerns that were expressed by most witnesses that appeared before the legislative committee? I would like to quickly summarize some of these.
The purpose of the institute, as stated in the bill, is to provide a resource centre for the production, acquisition, retention and dissemination of information related to heritage language classes, a research centre for conducting studies on all aspects of heritage languages and for setting standards on how they should be taught. I think most witnesses that we talked to and people who we have been in touch with across the country feel that this is a valuable service that is needed, provided you have the classes and the communities to use it. It also would provide a public relations centre for promoting heritage languages and maintaining liaison with governments and institutions.
October 19, 1990

Government Orders
The funding would be $6.5 million over five years and then, I assume, it would be terminated. Surely that must be a major concern for those who will on the board of this institute. Their headquarters will be in Edmonton. We do not object to this but I think it should be pointed out that according to an eminent researcher who consulted various groups and made proposals to the government, that one of the priorities that made Edmonton and western Canada a priority was the fact that heritage languages of western Canadians could be stressed. This should give particular priority to immigrants from Asian countries who have quite a different basic language base from European groups that came earlier to our country.
We agree that a resource centre of this kind will be valuable, provided that we are able to maintain frontline community services. I would like to mention a number of concerns that were expressed in committee, that have been expressed in letters and conversations that we had with a number of witnesses. These people have direct experience in heritage language classes. I would like to mention again that we debated this at great length with a number of very eloquent speakers at the last stage of amendments.
The point I would like to make is the very strong request that came from aboriginal organizations that the languages of founding peoples, the aboriginal peoples of Canada, be excluded from this bill. They must have support to establish a separate aboriginal language institute. This was debated in committee. We were glad to see that the reference to aboriginal languages as part of this particular institute was deleted. There was not an amendment added which we had strongly proposed, and which was requested from aboriginal organizations, that would specifically mention exclusion of aboriginal languages.
There were a number of very eloquent speeches made on the question of the need for recognition of aboriginal languages, with both the preservation and teaching of these very important languages that are unique to Canada and North America.
One of the major concerns and a continuing concern is the funding cuts to heritage language classes.
This was a concern of every witness who came to committee and many whom government members refused to hear. I think they were a little afraid to have the constant criticism from groups across the country.
In fact, I want to say that the Heritage Language Association of British Columbia has refused to support the Heritage Languages Institute until funding of classes is restored. Other witnesses supported Bill C-37, but called very strongly for reinstatement of funding to classes as a priority.
The Secretary of State, as I said earlier, despite receiving only a 5 per cent cut in its total 1990 budget, eliminated the $4.1 million annual subsidy to heritage language classes across the country. I want to repeat, as I have said many times and other speakers have said before in the House, that this means a 100 per cent funding cut for the 1,500 schools and 129,000 students who are learning 60 different languages. Many schools have had to close down as a result, and others have had to raise tuition fees which makes them inaccessible to children from low income families.
I want to mention, particularly, some of the more recent immigrant groups. I am thinking of immigrant groups from Asia and the Middle East, although there are not quite as many groups in my own community from that region. These are groups that have not had heritage language classes established and they do not have a curriculum. There should be priority special funding to establish classes for these newer language groups that have come to Canada.
There have been leaders of ethnocultural groups and heritage language associations and students and parents representing different languages from every region of Canada who have lobbied hard for the reinstatement of funding. I note that there is going to be a cross-Canada rally on Saturday, October 27, including a rally here on Parliament Hill, to express again the great concern that there is still on this matter. It will not go away.
The government must realize that groups are not going to forget about this and that they are going to keep insisting, as we are, that there must be federal responsibility for funding for heritage language classes. It is absolutely ridiculous that we can consider putting millions of dollars into an institute when the very classes

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
that are to be served by this institute are being quite undercut by this withdrawal of funding.
We are very concerned that the government really has very misguided priorities. The minister's rationale of course was that language classes should be a provincial responsibility. We hope the provincial governments will contribute, but let us not forget it is the federal government that has a responsibility for immigration and for multiculturalism. This falls directly within the responsibility of those two federal jurisdictional responsibilities.
Witnesses have also told us that there simply is not provincial funding and there never will be in many regions. I am sure in the Atlantic region this is true. In British Columbia, schools have closed because we do not have adequate provincial funding. I do not think the federal government can just slough this off and think that it is going to get away with it.
Another concern we have to look at is, while it sounds as if the $6.5 million over five years is a lot of money, actually, Mr. Speaker, when you break it down per year and think of it being ended at the end of five years, this is a pretty insufficient amount of money. One of the concerns that we have, and that witnesses had, is that it does not allow for any decentralizing of services of the institute to serve other regions. I know people in the province of Quebec, for example, will have concerns about this, as will people in other regions. Originally this institute was to focus on western needs, as I said, but as time progressed and as the bill came into being, the minister's interpretation has certainly been that this is established to serve all of Canada. I am not sure that it is possible to do that.
Dr. Kreisel, one of the researchers who conducted the feasibility study, said very strongly in committee that this institute should be an institute without walls. We do not need a lot of centralized, bureaucratic, academic institutions. We need the resources to go out and help people in the communities where they live and that will be able to use the funding and so on to be just as close to teachers and students in communities as is possible.
It should be a very practical institute and it should work very closely with people in the field and we would urge that this be a major focus of the institute.
I want to mention another question which came up a number of times. It was a very legitimate question. On the one hand, the government has taken all the federal funding away from community heritage language classes and, on the other hand, it has decided to give $65 million for the elite kind of training of business people, under Project 2000, related to the Minister for International Trade. The government has decided to give $65 million while $4.1 million has been taken away from community language classes where children can learn, as they are growing up and be fluent in these languages, particularly in Pacific Rim languages.
We feel very strongly that the learning of Pacific Rim languages, particularly those which are going to be useful in trade, are very, very important. But let us not kid ourselves. We have enough experience in teaching French as a second language to know that it is best to start learning the language at a younger age.
From an administrative point of view, it makes great sense to include the training needs for languages which will be needed for Pacific Rim trade, as part of this institute referred to in this bill that we are debating today. Why should it not be specializing in the languages that are necessary for trade, developing the kind of curriculum, teaching aids and supports for the establishment of practical classes for business people and others? We do not see the kind of priority for this elitist approach of putting $65 million toward training for business people, while taking away money from classes for children and not including these classes under this institute because they certainly will need the kind of resources that supposedly this institute will provide.
I want to make one final point that was part of the criticism of the whole process in the legislative committee on Bill C-37. It is important not to forget that, once again, opposition members worked very hard to try to bring amendments that would improve the bill. The government, as it has consistently done in other committees in which I have been involved in the multiculturalism area, refused to go along with amendments.
In particular, we had hoped that the government would accept amendments that would empower the institute to fund heritage language classes, as a desperate last attempt since the funds were being taken away from the other direct funding. Some of the witnesses we
October 19, 1990

questioned suggested this could be used especially for new languages which are not as well developed.
We also felt that there should have been an amendment, as I said, to assist in the teaching of the languages which would be beneficial to Canada's international trade and international relations. This amount of money then could have been integrated.
I would like to point out also that the government members on the committee also tried desperately hard to limit public input by refusing to hear regional witnesses. It was only after opposition members threatened to boycott meetings that they reconsidered. It is pretty disgraceful when these kinds of things happen.
I would like to quote quickly an excerpt from a letter that was received from the B.C. Heritage Language Association which reflected the concerns of many witnesses. They state: "The harsh reality for B.C. heritage language learners is that closures of heritage language schools is inevitable. We are affronted by the hypocrisy of removing grassroots support while giving to a potential mausoleum."
We will not vote against this bill because it has been our policy to support the establishment of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. However, once again, we ask the government to reinstate essential funding for heritage languages classes in communities as its first priority.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. I would like to ask the member if the New Democratic Party is for this bill or against this bill? I could not make heads nor tails of what she was saying.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my remarks and in previous speeches that we made in the House, we will be supporting this bill reluctantly. We support the concept of an institute, but we do so with the expectation that the government will reinstate funding for heritage language classes.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to speak to this act to establish a heritage languages institute.

My premise is that learning languages, whether the language happens to be English, French or any other
Government Orders
languages in Canada or on this planet, is a means of personal enrichment. I firmly believe that we should not neglect languages. Certainly not.

We all realize that in this country, English, as it should, has received a lot of attention and it must continue to do so. We recognize as well that the French language has increased in importance and significance and it has had more opportunities to develop, as it should.
We also have to admit and acknowledge that the treatment we have given to native languages and heritage languages has not at all been appropriate. It has been sadly lacking.
Why are languages so important to people and indeed to Canada. Rather than try to give you the reasons myself I want to quote from testimony given to house committees here. The first is from Eli Taylor, an elder of the Sioux Valley Reserve in Manitoba. He made the following points:
"Our native language embodies a value system about how we ought to live and relate to each other -It gives a name to relations among kin, to roles and responsibilities among family members, to ties with the broader clan group-There are no English words for these relationships because your social and family life is different from ours. Now if you destroy our language, you not only break down these relationships, but also you destroy other aspects of our Indian way of life and culture, especially those that describe man's connections with nature, the Great Spirit and the order of things. Without our language, we will cease to exist as a separate people.
In terms of heritage languages, I would like to quote some of the testimony given by Ms. Sarah Del Rosario, who is a heritage languages teacher with the United Council of Filipino Associations in Canada, who represented the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. She stated as follows:
These languages are a symbol of the fundamental respect to Canadian communities of origins other than French or English - they are central to the cultures and the cultural preservation and promotion of minority ethnocultural communities.
- they are a central aspect of Canadian multiculturalism as lived by families in towns across Canada-They assist in developing positive attitudes towards the national official languages policy. They assist young people in their ability to learn a third language, often the official language -As well, they greatly advance the international trading ability of Canada as more Canadians develop a detailed and enthusiastic knowledge of the languages, cultures, and norms of countries all over the world.

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
Let us go back to the institute. Why are we founding this institute? Why is it that we think this is a good idea? I have tried to argue that the preservation and learning of heritage languages is important from a number of perspectives. The cultural perspective because, as the world changes, we recognize that we need to learn to get along with each other, no matter what kind of linguistic, religious or other backgrounds we come from. This is of paramount importance to each and every one of us, whether we be Canadians or people from other countries.
We recognize as well from a social perspective that people with other languages often see problems rather differently than we do, but some of their approaches are in fact superior to our own. If we can protect and enhance their language, it will enrich us as well.
We know that from an economic perspective there are tremendous gains to be made in the preservation of language and culture. Let me give some examples of some of the languages that we have in Canada, and obviously I cannot cover them all, and some of the trade that we carry on with some of the home countries of those particular languages.
First, over 300,000 Canadians claim Chinese as their mother tongue. Canada's total trade with Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China and Taiwan exceeded $8.9 billion, the latest figures available. We have over
125.000	Canadians who claim Dutch as their mother tongue and we do roughly $2.2 billion worth of trade with Holland. Over 85,000 Canadians claim Spanish as then-mother tongue and if we look at the trade that we undertake with Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Venezuela, it amounts to almost $4 billion. Over 20,000 Canadians claim Korean as their mother tongue and if we look at the trade with North and South Korea, we have trade in the area of $3.5 billion. Over 160,000 Canadians claim Portuguese as their mother tongue and if you look at Portugal and Brazil, we have close to $2 billion in trade. Our total trade with Japan is almost $19 billion and there are, according to my statistics, roughly
20.000	Canadians who claim Japanese as their mother tongue.
Almost 500,000 Canadian citizens claim German as their mother tongue and if we look at our trade with West Germany it totals $5.6 billion. If we add Austria and East Germany, it exceeds $6 billion. Our trade with the U.S.S.R. is roughly $1.3 billion and if we look at
Canadians who claim Ukrainian, Russian, Estonian, Latvian and a number of languages from that particular group of countries, we have an important number indeed. Over one million Canadians claim Italian as their mother tongue and with Italy we do almost $3 billion worth of business.
Quite apart from the cultural benefits and the social benefits, there are serious and important economic benefits and I have given but a few examples. It would seem rather silly, ineffective, inefficient to try to teach those languages to people who already know them when we know full well that we will need them in the international markets of the world as the world changes quickly into a global community.

I would now like to discuss some very serious problems with this bill. First of all, people who were directly affected will never forgive this government for cutting more than $4 million in funding for courses taught in heritage languages. They were deeply hurt.
Also, is this a symbolic gesture or has a deep commitment been made? With there will be sufficient funds to ensure the Institute's mandate is carried out? Will the Board of Directors, when it represents from 50 to 60 members, include enough people with an interest in heritage languages?
Will the Institute realize that it will have to work together with various urban and rural communities, universities, people who teach these courses, families, young people and the not-so-young? Will it realize there are a number of groups that must be brought together so that their expertise can be used and we can truly benefit from their knowledge? This should not become an elitist institute that responds only to a single group.
It will also be necessary to make frequent assessments of the Institute's performance, in a manner that is fair and equitable. We want to ensure that the Institute is able to achieve the objectives it has been set, but I see no mechanism for doing so.

There are also very important explanations that must be given to the Canadian people with respect to this particular initiative. Let me give some examples. The English language community wonders why, as it should with some justification. What is this going to accomplish?
October 19, 1990

Is this the way we ought to be going? This explanation is needed just because of what is happening. The need is even compounded when one looks, for example, at The Free Press of October 7,1990, where the hon. member for Winnipeg South is referred to in a headline that reads: "Multiculturalism Policy Divisive, Dobbie says". It goes on to say that the policy is a waste of money. When you get comments like that from the government side, clearly that leads to confusion, frustration and anger.
What was the response on October 11 from the same newspaper headline: "Anti-Multiculturalism Remarks Rile Ethnic Leaders"? Surely these kinds of comments are really quite insensitive and suggest that the government is not really serious. It suggests to a number of Canadians that perhaps this is nothing but symbolic window dressing. Perhaps there are things that are changing. We really do need some explanations from the government. We need to make sure that this is a sincere gesture.

And I would not wish to overlook the Francophones in this country. My good friend Mr. Forest, who died a few months ago, called me about this. He was all for setting up the Institute, but he wanted to make sure this would not in any way diminish the French language. We will therefore have to make Francophones in Canada understand that establishing this Institute will merely add to what is already being done for their language and culture. If we do not give them these assurances, there may be some very negative feelings.

With respect to our aboriginal peoples, they have indicated that they do not want to be considered under this particular bill. We can best show that if we support them, we must support the private members' bill proposed by my colleague from Western Arctic who suggests that a parallel institute be created for aboriginal languages.

Mr. Speaker, after these comments, I would like to say that, together with my colleagues, I am prepared to support this bill, with the reservations I just mentioned.
Government Orders
On the whole, I believe it is a very important initiative. On the other hand, certain precautions must be taken, and I hope that for once the government will listen.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair. I believe that members on this side of the House, at least in the Liberal Party, have agreed that we would like to start sharing our time in two 10-minute periods, followed by the usual five-minute questions and comments. That is because we have a large number of members who are interested in this bill and who would like to expedite the legislation as fast as possible.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker,
I know that my venerable House leader did that in order to prevent you from having to listen to another of my tirades for more than a minimum amount of time. That really is not so because he is interested in making the affairs of the House go much smoother. I thank him anyway for standing up and at least giving me an introduction in such a tentative fashion.
We have debated this bill in the past and we have highlighted the pitfalls associated with it. My colleague from the NDP, who is normally very thorough in her analysis of all of the things that go wrong with the bill, or with any bill, has been quite correct to outline many of the drawbacks to this one.
I am at a little bit of a disadvantage, having followed a colleague from my caucus who is very erudite and who is also very knowledgeable in this area. He has given us some very good reasons for supporting the heritage language foundation and heritage languages in general.
One of the things that bothers me as a member of the House, after having gone through committee and debated this bill at second reading, is that what we have seen, both through government action and through some of the debates that have taken place in the House, a picture of a country that is so great and diverse as Canada-I use great in a qualitative fashion, rather than in a geographic sense, because this is a country that has become the host or hostess of the largest number of different peoples throughout the entire world.
My colleague from Winnipeg just pointed out the major language groups. He indicated for the purposes of this House those numbers of Canadians who identified

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
themselves as functioning in a mother tongue other than English or French.
That does not mean that those people identified themselves as being Chinese, Korean, Italian, Portuguese or Spanish. They identified themselves as Canadians whose mother tongue, whose language of function, happens to be the ones that he enumerated.
I draw to the attention of all members the statistics that my colleague presented for consideration. When we are talking about people who identify themselves as functioning in a language other than the ones that are official in this country, the number-again I remind all listeners that it was only a sample-was well past three million Canadians who function in a language other than the two official languages.
It calls to mind what I started to say a moment ago, that a country that is capable of hosting people who still function in other languages, other than the official ones, finds itself with a government which through legislation has demonstrated a most parochial and narrow view of the way its own citizens relate one to the other and the way its own citizens developed the economy of this country and the way in which they establish an opportunity, a bridgehead if you will, with other areas of the world.
My colleague from Winnipeg has pointed out to all of us here who were not aware that we have tens of billions of dollars of trade with countries as a result of the contacts established by those people who function in a mother tongue other than English or French.
Those people would not include individuals like myself whom StatsCanada would not identify as operating in a mother tongue other than English or French, but who comes from one of those other racial or linguistic groups.
If we are serious about some of the statements that the government is making, what we should be doing is examining these kinds of initiatives in the context of the broader government initiative.
The parliamentary secretary for citizenship and multi-culturalism was very proud to point out that this is another step in the establishment of broad multicultural principles which are supposed to govern this country. We have had opportunity to criticize employment equity as a function of those initiatives. We have had opportunity to
criticize and analyse the function of heritage language cuts in that context.
I know hon. colleagues will already have been impressed with the intrinsic value of language. They will also be impressed with the analysis of what happens to policy and what happens to the dictates of commitment to the development of a country and to government policy when, on the one hand, it withdraws funds that allow for the further generation and development of language groups and, on the other hand, it establishes a foundation which has a series of nine purposes that are supposed to do something positive.
Perhaps we are stealing from Peter in order to pay Paul. I am going to be kind, because I saw throughout the parliamentary committees and the standing committee at debate on second reading an opportunity that no one has identified just as yet, that is an opportunity to establish the infrastructure for a truly multicultural policy which should permeate all departments.
We have had the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism and Citizenship and his parliamentary secretary, with great pride outline the fact that now we finally have a separate department for multiculturalism. Presumably that department will flourish, develop, grow, and eventually reflect the demographic reality and diversity that is Canada.
As well we heard her say: "Look, we now have this foundation, the Fleritage Language Institute." The legislative committee on a race relations foundation will present its report next week. We have at least three pillars for the establishment of an infrastructure. The parliamentary secretary and her minister have given us an indication that there may be a parallel or sister foundation for native heritage language programs. There will be four pillars of the development or identification of a much more varied society in Canada.
If we are taking all of these initiatives, why would we start cutting funds that are absolutely crucial to the maintenance of language programs which will allow young boys and girls the opportunity to study a language, thought development, culture, philosophy of life, historical and cultural traditions that emanate from their parents and their family life and to give them an opportunity to discover themselves and do it with pride
October 19, 1990

before or while they integrate into the mainstream of Canadian life?
Why would we withdraw funds that would make it opportune for Canada to generate new Canadians as solid, self-confident, aggressive individuals who see themselves for what they are and who see themselves as part of the whole Canadian mosaic?
I do not know whether hon. members would agree if on one hand they acknowledge that they welcome and in fact encourage such a development and on the other hand they remove the means whereby that development can come to realization.
If I were to spend more time describing why it is that language development is important, I do not know whether the minister opposite who is already very fluent in two languages would not recognize the importance of being fluent in more than two. When I said that we were becoming rather parochial, perhaps I should have been thinking of the minister opposite in terms of what we should be doing when most other countries in the world are encouraging all of their citizens to go to not only the second but a third and fourth language in a global society, in a global economy.
They are taking away funds, $4 million, from something that should be a solid and integral part of where we should be going. While they are removing $4 million from something that could be socially and economically beneficial, they are throwing away, as I said in a statement earlier today, $602 million to poor multinational oil companies for exploration purposes out west.
I think most Canadians and members on this side of the House see an inconsistency that they would like to see corrected, even though they recognize the worthwhile nature inherent in the establishment of such a foundation.
I would hope all members would see this bill for what it is, a first minor step in the direction that we all hope would emanate from the rhetoric coming from the department, a rhetoric that we hope becomes material rather than just empty phrases.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced this legislation I was very encouraged for several reasons, not the least of which
Government Orders
was that I am a unilingual Canadian with all kinds of hopes and aspirations that I would perhaps become bilingual and fears that reality dictates that I may not.


An hon. member:: There is always hope.


Ron Fisher: There is always hope, that is true. I stand here with envy of at least the two people who have spoken before me, knowing that in one instance the speaker is more than bilingual. The fact of the matter is that the way in which the minister first introduced the bill gave me hope that the Canadian tradition of being multicultural, in addition to the other things that have gone on in Parliament and in this country in the creation of the multicultural department, is very encouraging.
My problem is that when it comes down to the reality of it, like so many other things we have seen happen in this country over the last couple of years and what I have seen in the last couple of years in the House, what we really have in the final analysis are some very hollow words. The problem is that the words, hopes and aspirations being generated by a lot of activity on the government side are not and will not come to fruition in anywhere near the grand possibility that is presented within them.
I have received more mail, not only from my own constituency or my own city of Saskatoon but from elsewhere across the country, on the issue of a heritage language foundation and on the issue of heritage languages than I have on any other issue other than the GST. I suppose there is not much use debating the GST at the moment. I certainly want to debate and draw to the attention of other members of the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments that have come to me from people who are concerned about what is happening with the heritage languages foundation.
Their concern is primarily that it seems there has been a tradeoff. That may or may not be the case, but certainly it seems there has been a tradeoff in taking money away from what has been described to me as one of the most valuable educational institutions within Saskatoon and within Saskatchewan, an institute that has over 20 years of experience. The government is taking money away from it and putting it into an institute which will receive funding over a five-year period. It is rather questionable about what will occur after that.

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
The problem is that these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive and, while it is true that we as New Democrats support the implementation of the institute, it is also true that we decry in the strongest terms the cutbacks in funding to the heritages languages which we have found within our community and which is expressed in far better language by the people themselves who are involved than I possibly could. I have a letter here from the President of the Saskatchewan Organization for Heritage Languages, Shakeel Akhtar, who wrote:
lam writing to you to convey our anger and dismay over the recent federal budget, which completely eliminated funding for all supplementary heritage language schools in Canada.
In Saskatchewan, heritage languages are taught primarily in the out-of-school situation, relying heavily on the goodwill and determination of volunteer language teachers from the particular ethnocultural communities.
These communities make up the mosaic of our city and province.
I also have a letter from a very dear friend of multiculturalism, immigration and the multicultural mosaic of our country, Mr. Mike Kindrachuk, President of the Saskatoon Multicultural Council. He wrote:
On behalf of the 12,000 members of the Saskatoon Multicultural Council and our Multicultural School, I must inform you of our shock and outrage at your decision to completely eliminate operating funding for supplementary heritage language schools.
Such radical decisions should not be made without appropriate consultation -
This is another very important issue involved in this whole discussion: without consultation. This is something which has been repeated over and over to me in so much of the correspondence I have received.
Another important point which was made was that it is questionable whether or not there was a cut in funding to the department. I have seen figures which show it actually got a 15 per cent increase, but there has been some indication that it was cut by 5 per cent. I am not in any position at the moment to determine which of those two figures are important, but I am in a position to point out a letter from Linda Flory who wrote:
We have been informed that the total budget of the Secretary of State has been cut by only 5 per cent. Within this budget the minister cut off the heritage language schools by 100 per cent-
Whether it is a 5 per cent decrease or a 15 per cent decrease, it is a 100 per cent cut to the heritage language schooling which goes on within our heritage communities.
I have another letter from Mr. Thomas Heine of the German community in Saskatoon. Among other things, he wrote:
It was with great disappointment and dismay that I heard about your recent decision to completely cut funding for all heritage language schools -
With regard to the German community, he wrote:
We also note that you are planning to establish a centralized Heritage Language Institute-at a cost of $6.7 million. What would be the purpose of such an institute? We note that very few of the heritage language groups are in favour of such an institute: we prefer to teach languages rather than just study them.
I think that is a very important matter when it comes to this whole discussion. He continued:
Curricula have already been established through the efforts of the various modern language schools across Canada. In the case of the German language schools, graduates are able to obtain international recognition for successful completion of the programs that we have already established.
In personal discussions with Mr. Heine he pointed out that the lingua franca of the German language, the Goethe Institute accepts the levels reached within that heritage language school in Saskatoon. It is very painful to those people as well as others that such drastic cuts have been made.
I have a letter from Mr. Charles Pei of the Edmonton Centre of Chinese Heritage and Second Language Studies.
He says:
I had just returned from the Saskatchewan second heritage language teachers' spring conference in March -held in Saskatoon. I was so surprised by the level of emotion expressed by all participants on the sudden elimination of the Federal government's per student grant to our heritage language schools.
You may not have direct experience with any of these heritage language schools operated after normal school hours by the parents. It is the real community foundation of our multicultural Canada and that is what hurts the feeling of these people so much and they expressed their frustration in the most simple and sincere way a citizen can show. MAD.
October 19, 1990

Mr. Speaker, the Jewish community in Saskatoon also wrote me concerning the cuts. The Hindi School of Saskatoon wrote and told me that they were terribly concerned about those cuts. I also received a letter from the Jewish Community Centre in Saskatoon. And, I have here a particularly poignant letter from the Cambodian Association. Listen to this, I will quote from the letter:
We began the the Khmer Language School in the fall of 1989, recognizing the value of retaining the Khmer language and passing it on to our children. But now, after only one year of operation, the School is faced with the threat of having to close because of the Secretaiy of State's funding cuts. It is impossible to collect fees from the students as they and their parents are-
-all very poor and restricted financial ability.
Mr. Rozdilsky wrote to me, on behalf of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, to express concern over the cuts for heritage language training.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of not building the institute in Edmonton, it is a matter of building the institute in Edmonton, with the academic and research capability that it will obviously have, and it is also a matter of retaining the funding for those heritage languages.
The heritage languages, as has been pointed out by many other speakers, are so important to the future of this country because, if we have the ability to be able to communicate in this new trading situation which is developing in the world in the languages of other countries, which we must retain within our own country through our own citizens, in comparison to the amount of money we have given to the oil companies, the small amount of money invested for this training would be returned many times.
I would like to remind hon. members that there are going to be rallies and demonstrations across the country and there is certainly going to be one here on Parliament Hill on October 27. I would like to remind those, in Saskatoon, who are listening there will also be one in Saskatoon on October 27 on the corner of Third Avenue and 22nd Street.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill because it gives me an opportunity to talk about a part of our Canadian-ism that is vitally important to me and perhaps even more treasured by me as the daughter of an immigrant to Canada.
Government Orders
We are, indeed, a fortunate nation. We have been wise enough throughout our history to ask of people who come to this country from another culture and with another language that they retain their language and culture and use them to add to the richness, diversity and vibrancy of our Canadian culture. One of the most important ways we have done this is by encouraging the teaching of heritage languages and, in conjunction with the teaching of heritage languages, the teaching of the cultures and an appreciation of the cultures of the countries from which many of our immigrants have come.
For many cultural groups this has meant, through many generations, retaining a sense of attachment to their roots, their background, to the place from which their families originally came and bringing that as a vital and valuable contribution to their Canadianism and, indeed, to the Canadianism of each and every one of us.
I cannot over-emphasize my emotion when I and other members from the Ottawa-Carleton region met with representatives of the 70 heritage language schools in the national capital area. There are 70 schools just on this side of the river. I was touched by their awareness of how important these schools are, not to them and not to their children, but to the total Canadian society. They talked to me about the importance of their children going into the schools and playgrounds of Canada with an understanding of their culture of origin. They told me that sharing that culture with their fellow students or with their playmates wherever they were meant that not only they but the children from the two founding cultures were also finding their lives enriched and made more interesting by the fact that those of immigrant backgrounds were retaining those cultural links.
It has impressed me as well that Canada has a very important international role to play on a number of fronts. One of those that is certainly most important to me is the environment. I do believe we have a leading role to play in developing technology and leading world opinion so that the countries of the world are co-operating together to avoid the destruction of our planet and to ensure the preservation of life on this earth on a more equitable basis than has happened in the past. What more valuable resource to have as we play that role than to have close to one-third of our population now with

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
links and family, cultural and linguistic ties to literally every comer of the earth.
The members from the Ottawa-Carleton schools talked to us about how important the schools are in the integration, not the assimilation, of immigrants into Canadian society. In particular the women are often not out in the workforce and therefore have much greater difficulty learning the language. For many of them their involvement with the school is their best way of becoming integrated into Canadian society, coming in contact with other families and learning one or the other of the Canadian official languages, English or French, and through their children and their children's involvement in the school becoming part of Canadian society more fully than they might otherwise do.
That to me is the importance of heritage languages in our society, not an institute. An institute only serves us well if it is there in support of that grassroots process that involves 150,000 children in this country and many thousands more who are teachers and parents involved in the program. If the institute can provide resources, can assist in the development and preservation of heritage language schools right across the country, I wish it the best, but it is thwarted and doomed to failure if the very grassroots for which it exists are cut off as they have been by this government in cancelling funding for heritage languages.
I want to address one other issue because I think it is of vital importance and that is the failure of the government to recognize that aboriginal languages are not, repeat not, part of the whole package of heritage languages. Aboriginal languages are one of our founding languages and part of one of our founding cultures. Lumping them in in the way they have done in this institute has added another dramatic failure to our lack of recognition of the importance of the aboriginal culture and the aboriginal peoples in Canadian society. We have been through a long and bitter summer. The fact that this bill is passing today without the amendment that would have removed aboriginal languages from heritage languages I think is a shame. We have got to remember that we are the birthplace, we are the place where aboriginal languages exist and whether they continue to exist in this world or not depends on whether we encourage and support their existence in Canada.
If we had one small little plant, or one small little insect, that existed nowhere else but in Canada, we would fight to preserve that with every breath we have. Yet we are failing miserably to protect a living culture that thrives and survives through its languages.
We are failing not only our aboriginal peoples, we are failing our own Canadian society and we are failing world culture by not making a commitment to aboriginal languages we should be making.
I hope the institute is successful but I hope it does not become a tree planted in the middle of an urban environment without enough earth around it for its roots to grow. I hope we do not continue to cut off the roots that make this institute relevant to Canadian society. If we do, we will just have another empty shell that serves no useful purpose, that is there as a nice little token that we can trot out to visitors from abroad.
I want to conclude by saying that the schools in this region have decided this is a serious issue. They want to challenge the government to reinstate what it cut from them this year. They will be holding a rally on October 27 on Parliament Hill and I invite any member in the House to encourage their heritage language schools to join them in spirit, if not in person.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-37, an act to establish a Canadian heritage languages institute.
The formation of this institute is an important step toward making Canada a truly multicultural nation. Within this year, some 175,000 immigrants will have become permanent residents of Canada. They will have come from every corner of the globe, bringing with them all the richness and colour of their respective cultures, making Canada a better and more exciting place in which to live.
They form communities within which they celebrate their own religions, festivals, foods, and languages. Some of them open shops, restaurants, and other businesses, giving Canadians a taste of their homeland and a chance to begin to understand what would have otherwise remained foreign.
However, religious affiliation, residence in an ethnic neighbourhood, or even marriage within an ethnic group, do not necessarily keep a minority group culture intact. Language is the single most important element in
October 19, 1990

a culture. Language is the single most effective medium through which to preserve a culture.

Mr. Speaker, studies have shown that if an ethnic group fails to preserve its language, integration quickly and inevitably means assimilation. This is a country that is proud of its multiculturalism and its racial and religious tolerance. However, tolerance is not enough. We must play an active role in creating ways in which our ethnic minorities can preserve their language or their heritage. This would be the role of the Heritage Languages Canadian Institute: to promote heritage languages.
There are, however, a number of questions that remain to be answered. Will this Institute meet the real and concrete needs of our ethnic communities?

The institute would have a mandate to promote the learning of heritage languages, to provide information to the public about heritage language resources, to develop programs to improve the quality of heritage instruction, to assist in the production and dissemination of related materials, to assist in the development of learning standards, to conduct research into heritage languages, to establish scholarly and professional links to further their mandate, and to encourage consultation in matters relating to heritage languages.
Research, consultation, and the establishment of scholarly and professional links are obviously very important aspects of an institute of this kind, but who will ultimately benefit?
There is concern that the institute could lose sight of its responsibility toward the actual ethnic minorities while concentrating too heavily on its dealings with academia. It is possible that, without close scrutiny, the institute could find itself providing assistance, not to the students of heritage languages, but rather to language scholars.
There is danger of the institute promoting programs and disseminating information that never materialize in our ethnic communities. I believe the the government must expect to keep a vigilant eye on the proposed
Government Orders
institute once it becomes reality in order to ensure that its mandate is indeed carried out towards the survival and, hopefully, the enhancement of our ethnic communities.
The second question which we must address is the lack of adequate programs to educate our new Canadians in English or French as a second language. The need for heritage language training is real and, as I have stated, the preservation of ethnic cultures through language serves only to enrich Canada and its inhabitants. However, the need for our new Canadians to understand and to be able to function productively in at least one of our two official languages is a basic one.
It is imperative that those who are granted Canadian citizenship and who do not come from a country where either French or English is widely spoken be provided with the means to successfully integrate themselves into the realities of their new home. It would be appropriate, given the proposals contained in Bill C-37, that the government take steps to ensure the availability of proper second language training for ethnic minorities in tandem with its efforts to ensure the survival of heritage languages.
Another concern with respect to the proposed Canadian Heritage Languages Institute is the issue of the preservation of aboriginal languages. Deleted from Bill C-37's original text when the bill was in committee was a section which included "any aboriginal language" as a heritage language. This was done at the request of the Assembly of First Nations. Obviously, as pointed out by native leaders, aboriginal languages are founding languages of this nation and not heritage languages.
Heritage languages are those that may be retrieved from one's original homeland, but we can never retrieve an aboriginal language. Once an aboriginal language is lost here in Canada, it is lost forever. To help prevent such losses in the future, it would be necessary for the government to establish a foundation or an institute similar to the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute for the purposes of retaining and encouraging aboriginal languages.
My colleague, the member for Western Arctic, has developed a private member's bill, Bill C-269, dealing with this very issue. As with the issue of English or French as a second language for new Canadians, I believe that if the government has the intention of being

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
taken seriously with respect to language issues as a whole, it should consider Bill C-269 very carefully.
In closing, I would like to restate my support of Bill C-37. An institute of the kind proposed by this bill is badly needed in Canada. Every year, Canada attracts more immigrants from countries where the language and culture differ radically from our own. The Government of Canada must continue in its efforts to assist Canadians in the preservation of their cultural and linguistic heritage.
We are all very proud to be citizens of this great country, each one with a desire to be a productive part of society and to help make Canada a better place for all. Equally so, the many diverse customs, religions and languages that have come to Canada are worthy of support, for in our diversity we can find the strength to go forward to break new ground in a land blessed with the freedoms and opportunities which we are so fortunate to enjoy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important piece of legislation which we call the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act. I would like to make a couple of general comments.
I view this legislation, as I hope we all do, as a mechanism or a way and means of consolidating our country's approach to the development of the teaching and learning of heritage languages.
The profile of the use of heritage languages in this country other than English, French and aboriginal languages, to which I will make reference later, is usually an urban profile, but it is not exclusively so. I am sure that in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Beauce, Quebec, and Pictou, Nova Scotia, there are heritage languages represented there. We really do have a challenge to address this very valuable asset that we, as Canadians, have. I am very confident, subject again to a comment that I will make in a moment or two, that any investment we put into this as a country will be rewarded many times over.
In my own riding of Scarborough-Rouge River, a rough count shows me that there are approximately 20 first languages other than English and French spoken in the riding. I have heard most of them. That does not
include Jamaican, which many of my constituents will regard as another language and I say that respectfully.
In my own riding executive, just the table officers represent six first languages other than English. That manifests, at least in the part of the country that I come from, the existence of a reservoir, a bank of linguistic ability that can serve our country, not just domestically, but around the world. I am very confident that we will put that to use.
Language, as well, is perhaps the principal vehicle of delivery of culture, something that we regard as very important in Canada. Language is a vital component of that and, to the extent that we wish to foster further the many cultures found in Canada in all their manifestations, we have an obligation to ensure that language, the vital component of that, is buttressed.
This is a note of caution because I do not think we should confuse heritage language with two other elements. Very briefly, I will speak from a point of reference in my own riding of two challenges which developed beyond the realm of heritage language, but which are not unrelated to it.
The first area is the challenge to develop English as second language education, not just for youth, but for adults. There are great challenges in many of our urban centres. Funding appears to be insufficient. We have large numbers of new Canadians. They desperately require first language training. I use English as a second language because in my riding that would be the dominant first language, but French as a second language has equal validity in the province of Quebec and other parts of Canada where French is the principle language spoken on the street.
The second area is the challenge to all of us of integrating new Canadians whose first language is other than English or French. I think primarily of immigrant women. These individuals need access to English and French training so that they may access the many opportunities that the country has for them and for all of us.
I have to take note then of a modest problem we have here in the definition of heritage language. It has been referred to by many other speakers, including the member for Stormont-Dundas who preceded me. That is the inclusion of aboriginal languages.

I rhetorically ask the question of how much consultation really did take place prior to proceeding with this legislation with a view to providing our aboriginal peoples with a sense of security that their languages would receive the attention they deserve and badly need to ensure their survival. It may be construed as an insult that they perhaps were not consulted to the degree that they might have wished. One thing is certain, I would not want our success in pursuing the goals of this particular legislation in any way to detract from other initiatives that must be there to foster the strength and education in the aboriginal terms.
Another challenge that I see from the structure of the bill that must be addressed-at least I believe we are going to have to address it-is that we have many heritage languages, in excess of 25 or 30.1 think there is a challenge to the first directors of this heritage languages institute to ensure that all these languages are addressed equitably and fairly, with some proportionality and a political sensitivity to the presence of all of them.
We do not want to have a Tower of Babel constructed here in the first board of directors. I note that there are only 21 directors. There are a heck of a lot more than 21 heritage languages. I do not envy those who must make the decision as to which languages will be represented on that first board. However, that challenge remains.
The last item I want to take note of is that I hope the government does not hope to choke off this institution by under-funding it. It may look good on paper, but I note that the first year's funding is $800,000 in capital and $500,000 in current expenses. I look at 21 directors and I know how much it costs to move people from one part of Canada to Edmonton. I just have this fear that it will eat up half of that first year's funding just to have its first board meeting.
There are no other mechanisms inserted in the statute to provide funding for all the many good things that this institution will want to accomplish. I caution the government on that. I just have a feeling that the operation is under-funded and there will be many complaints in the months to come about the under-funding. I do not want to by too cynical. I hope the government realizes that it cannot offer what it is now offering and under-fund it. It will have failed in its objective if that is the course it wishes to take.
Government Orders
Having said that, I am happy to include my vote with those supporting this important piece of legislation.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and honoured to rise and speak on this issue of heritage language.
Before I do so I would like to say a word of thanks and appreciation to the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism on this wonderful and excellent initiative. Certainly the bill to a large extent addresses the issue of heritage languages fairly well in the sense that he is setting up an institute that will be used and will act as a clearing house and agency that will pass on information and deal with the issue of heritage languages from close by or from far away. It is there. I could not help but mention one statement made by a colleague, Shaun Murray. He told me the other day that if he one day became the Prime Minister, one of the things he would do would be to allow every Canadian a one-time deal tax deduction, one trip to a Third World country and back to Canada and look at what we have here in order to appreciate the type of country we have and the type of society in which we live. We can appreciate and see how fortunate we are to live in a caring, compassionate country such as Canada. I am very proud of my Canadian citizenship. I value it tremendously.
There is an area that concerns me tremendously as well as it concerns a lot of Canadians, and that is the issue of citizenship. When it comes to good citizenship, we have to make sure that the opportunities are available and provided to citizens from all walks of life, regardless of their background and regardless of the country from which they come, the colour of face, origin and also that they are provided with the tools to become good Canadian citizens.
When it comes to heritage languages, it is very important to let people learn the language of their own country. Also, I believe it is as important for all new Canadians who come to Canada, including myself, to be able to speak the language of the country that has adopted them, whether it is English, French, or perhaps both languages. That opportunity, as it is right now, unfortunately is not available to all Canadians. In particular, it is not available to newly arrived landed immigrants from different parts of the world, whether from eastern Europe, western Europe or Third World coun-

October 19, 1990
Government Orders
tries, or countries where their people speak languages other than French and English.
English or French as a second language is quite a situation across the country right now. School boards are struggling in order to deal with the high demand for teachers, resources and funds in order to support the school boards to deal with English or French as a second language. They just do not have the resources to deal with that problem.
Here is an opportunity that the Secretary of State has missed. That is to take a leadership role in education. When it comes to English as a second language, it really fits right into what the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism is trying to do, and that is to build a stronger Canada or help to build a stronger Canada. There is a deficiency.
We have done a cross-country check-up. We have called every major school board in every major centre across Canada. Every single school board we contacted told us that they have waiting lists of hundreds and hundreds of people from different parts of the world who want to enrol in a program to learn French or English. They cannot get to these programs. The result is that there will be many people unemployed. As a result of that, they may go on the welfare rolls because they cannot speak the language that will help them to integrate into society. It is a major problem.
On Tuesday next week, we will meet with representatives of school boards from across the country. These representatives will call on the federal government to take some sort of leadership role on the issue and step in to assist the provinces to deal with the issue head on, because the issue needs to be addressed quickly.
We support the bill as opposition members because we believe it is a good bill. It fits in nicely with what we are looking for. We are very disappointed because of the $4 million cut to the heritage language schools, which can affect them quite extensively.
In the Ottawa-Carleton region we have approximately 70 schools that teach heritage languages and the cut would involve 40 per cent of their funding. On average, each school receives approximately $10,000. Four thousand dollars from every school is quite a bit of money when dealing with schools that are operated on a non-profit basis. We are disappointed with that.
The number of children across Canada who benefit from heritage schools is approximately 150,000 to 170,000 students. There are approximately 6,000 teachers involved in providing those kinds of services. That is quite a large number of people who are receiving the benefit of such a program.
The minister ought to be proud of the kind of initiative he has taken on this issue and I would like to thank him.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleagues, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Ottawa West, speak on this because the three of us were involved, along with a lot of other members of Parliament, in meeting with different people from the various heritage language schools in the Ottawa-Carleton area.
These people met with us and their voice was as one. They did not understand why the cuts were made to their heritage language schools. They did not understand or realize the problems they were going to be faced with in trying to raise the money to continue on with these programs.
Most of these programs are taught on a Saturday and they are taught mainly through the large efforts of volunteers within their own particular cultural community. With the many cuts last June in the budget, Mr. Speaker, fund raising, not just for heritage language schools, but for many organizations and non-profit organizations about the country, is putting stress on the availability of the dollar.
The heritage language school is terribly important for these groups within our country. Before I ask my question, I would point out there are three particular areas that really affects them. It detracts from the ability of ethnic minorities to feel a vibrant part of the mosaic because their full participation as individuals belonging to an ethnic group is denied. Heritage language training provides a competitive edge in the international marketplace and heritage language training promotes the understanding of the importance of culture retention. An understanding of the French fact in Canada would be promoted along with immigrant groups.
My question to my colleague for Ottawa Centre is that some months have passed since that meeting. I believe it was something like 16 organizations, if I remember
October 19, 1990

correctly. I have had contact with some of the organizations within my municipality and my riding of Nepean and I would like to know if the member has had any contact with the heritage language groups in his riding, how they are coping with it, and do they see their problems as being eliminated at this point in time?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I can see the clock is getting closer to two o'clock and I want to make sure that in one and a half minutes, at the very most, that I address the concerns of my colleague.
Yes, we have been working with the organizations here. My colleague for Ottawa West, as well as my colleagues for Ottawa South and Nepean, as well from Ottawa Carleton and Ottawa-Vanier, have all been in touch with the school boards and with the heritage schools, and it is a major concern.
It is my hope, on a very positive note, that the minister of multiculturalism will take note of this as he goes through Hansard. They have an excellent opportunity here to make some good announcements and reinstate the $4.1 million cut from the budget in order to allow those schools to deliver the goods and services they are providing to children in the national capital region as well as children across our country.
Once again I thank the hon. member for the good question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being awfully close to two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Private Members' Business


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   COPYRIGHT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Barbara Greene: that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Copyright Act (fair use), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate my Private Members' Bill C-316 to amend the Copyright Act. I would like to thank those people who have collaborated with me on it; in particular, Pierre Yves Boucher, the executive director and legal counsel of the Association of Colleges and Universities, and Lorraine Flaherty of the Canadian School Trustees Association.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Library of Parliament, Monique Hebert and Diane MacMurray for their invaluable advice and assistance in the drafting of this bill.
To date, the bill is supported by the Association of Colleges and Universities of Canada, the Canadian School Trustees Association, The Association for Media Literacy, the Canadian Music Publishers Association, CREPUC, representing university libraries in Quebec, many members of Parliament, numerous school and library boards and various private sector businesses which see this as a reasonable solution to the problems created by the existing legislation.
I would like to note that many of these problems were there before the amendments that occurred to the act were undertaken by this government. However, the increasing militancy of creators and the attention that has been focused on this issue have created a realization, particularly in the education and library fields, that much of what we in our society do with works created by others is illegal.
Teachers across Canada are very much aware of this and their potential liability. In my part of the country, metropolitan Toronto, a teacher in Scarborough had to pay an out of court settlement of $2,000 after a CBC

October 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
employee took the teacher to court for playing a tape of material taken off the television in the classroom.
I am informed that recently a school in Etobicoke had tapes seized and a heavy fine was required to be paid.
School boards and libraries have considered this issue and have sent out directives to their staff. Some boards have even removed the record buttons on VCRs. This means that teachers must limit themselves legally and, if they are very careful, to strict textbook teaching and use of materials that their board has purchased. Otherwise, they could be liable for action such as the two I have referred to.
This is almost impossible for people teaching today. It makes for a very boring and irrelevant classroom. One of the things teachers are taught to do is to try to relate the principles learned in the classroom to the materials in the real world that students are familiar with.
The legislation passed by this House in Phase 1 of the copyright revision modified the law to give creators secure and unequivocal control over their works and thus ensure them compensation. I think that was an important and a very necessary step that has assisted creators, in particular some of our more recent creators in the computer and programming industry and the music industry in ensuring the protection of their property-
Educators, librarians and others-I would say the vast majority of Canadians-recognize the rights of creators. Indeed, they are strong supporters of Canadian creators. No one that I have met wants to deny creators compensation or the right to earn a living from their work, or indeed control over the public presentation of their works. Many educators are also creators. However, there is a serious lack of balance in this legislation and some very serious access problems which the bill we have before us today attempts to address.
The minister and the previous minister of communications promised to bring in certain exemptions for education and libraries, and consultation has taken place with certain representatives from those groups. A number of exemptions from the legislation have been drafted.
My bill does not address these exemptions and simply assumes the minister will bring these in, in due course, although we have been advised that these are imminent for several years now. Some of the recommendations that are in these proposed exemptions are as follows. For example, it will permit the manual copying of work. Writing a poem on a blackboard is technically illegal. The exemptions the minister will bring in will also permit teachers and students to copy copyright works in examination questions and answers. Obviously much of this is going on now. It will permit the playing of a radio or television set in the course of teaching and research. It will permit live performances by teachers or students in the course of teaching and research.
I am sure almost everyone here who attended school took part in a classroom play at one point or another. Did you realize that this was illegal?
It will also permit the playing of a record or an audio tape in a classroom and the off air taping of news and public affairs programs.
I think those are essential, and I think we all recognize that certainly they are going on right now in the classrooms of this nation.
The bill before us addresses all those works that are not in the repertoire of a collective or the lists in a society or association as referred to in the act that has the power to license and permit the use of works. It addresses everything that a collective does not have power over.
Seventy-eight per cent of the works used in Canada are not from Canadian sources. There is a vast amount of audio, visual and print material available which is not controlled by collectives and unlikely to be.
For example, many professionals such as lawyers do not mind people copying their work. We as politicians very seldom mind people copying our letters and distributing them, so we will certainly not be joining collectives. Fair use would apply in all those situations, as well as for foreign materials, where creators would not feel that the market was not large enough or were not desirous of obtaining remuneration. If they did, they would join the collective.
October 19, 1990

What this bill will do is clarify the rules for teachers, librarians and other users including ourselves, businesses and people in our society who are users of works created by others.
Works will be available for use through a collective which can license institutional users and grant permission for use on an equitable and fair basis, or it will be subject to the fair use provisions outlined in this bill.
These fair use provisions are taken directly from American legislation. Essentially what they do is allow reproduction and use of material, provided there is no personal profit and it is used for teaching, review, legislative or judicial proceedings, research, criticism, comment or newspaper summary.
It also provides for a defence of fair use in an action for infringement of copyright and requires destruction of broadcast materials that are reproduced within 120 days from the day the copy is made.
As I stated before, 78 per cent of works used in Canada are not Canadian. Most of these materials come from the United States. Implementation of this bill would mean that the same rules as apply in the United States would cover most works, unless the creators have established or joined a collective or licensing body registered in Canada and made their works available and the terms and conditions of use known.
I think this is very reasonable, since Canadian teachers have been successful in obtaining permission to use American material simply by writing and asking American television networks, magazines and so on whether they could have permission to use their materials in accordance with the fair use provisions.
The impact of this bill on education and librarians will be very positive in clarifying the issue. It is also most important that provincial ministries negotiate agreements with the collectives that have been established as soon as possible, so that works that are listed in the repertoire of collectives are available to educators and librarians on a fair basis. This will allow those creators who wish to receive remuneration for their works to receive it and will allow people to use these works.
The Minister of Communications should also bring forward the exemptions to the copyright legislation that have been agreed to by the consultative committees on educational and library uses. These are important com-
Private Members' Business
ponents of a total package on copyright that our educational and library system can live with.
This bill will provide a great deal of assistance to individuals, governments and private companies that must communicate. Under the existing legislation users are infringing copyright, with the exception of fair dealing, unless they have received the permission of the copyright owner of any work except for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary. That has been interpreted very narrowly by the courts as being individual private study. It does not permit the making of multiple copies for classroom use, or for sharing with others, or public performance, or display of work.
We in Parliament are constantly violating copyright legislation. Those of us who stand in this House and read from newspapers or magazines are publicly performing works and violating the law technically. Those of us who copy news items in our householders and circulate them without obtaining prior permission are violating the legislation. Of course Quorum is technically illegal, as are other news clipping services unless they have obtained permission. If we copy articles from Hansard for public circulation, even of our own speeches, this is technically illegal.
Some members have never run into this issue and may think that there is no real problem because nobody in their right mind would require permission or would object. On the contrary, The Toronto Star has a policy that refuses permission to politicians to use pictures and news items they own. I ran into this last year. I could not use a picture of myself, my daughter, and the Yamagami family from my riding who had a disabled child and I helped with an immigration issue. The Toronto Star owns that picture.
This of course would still occur, but they would be registered with a collective and we would at least know what the rules are. As far as those newspapers that do not mind are concerned such as The Ottawa Citizen or have their own rules that allow members to use their material, at least we would know what the name of the game was and we would be able to use the material, so there would be clarity.
If you, Mr. Speaker, have a public meeting or publicly display a picture or a diagram or any work created by someone else, you may be violating the law unless you

October 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
have the permission of the creator. Under my bill, if the work is not in the repertoire of a collective where you can find out what the rules are, the concept of fair use will apply unless you want to use it for commercial purposes. For commercial purposes you would have to obtain copyright permission from the owner.
As I have mentioned, educators are in a particularly difficult position. Multiple copying for classroom use is currently illegal, unless there is an agreement with a collective. However, few provinces have these agreements. Quebec is the only province in which the use of collectives has been developed enough for boards of education to be able to go and obtain an agreement with a collective. The rest of the provinces are in a state of negotiation. It is a very difficult situation now to obtain permission.
I worked on a teaching project with a number of other teachers as part of a course. We decided to try to find out if one could get permission. Our project was a project in which we were studying police drama. We wanted to look in particular at this one unit on the program Night Heat, so I tried to get permission to tape Night Heat and use it in the classroom.
I was passed around to eight different people and each one of them said: "Go ahead and do it. We don't care". I said: "I wanted to do it legally. Our board says that we have to obtain copyright permission. This is the same throughout Ontario. We are working on this teaching unit. I need to obtain it legally". I went through the vice-presidents of CTV. I went through everybody. Finally I found the company that represented doctors and lawyers across Canada which owned the rights to Night Heat. I was able to send a letter to it stating when I was going to tape it, when it would be destroyed and so on. The company agreed, and there was no charge. When the day came when I wanted to tape it and I had made the arrangements, it was bumped for a hockey game. After all that effort, I could not use it.
Our bill will set out clearly for teachers and others what fair use is, and put those conditions that they want, namely, no commercial use and destruction after 120
days, in the legislation. It would be far easier for everybody.
The universities encounter many similar problems. In order to get around this law, students are having to line up at copy machines in libraries. I am familiar with a number of graduate students. Teachers will say the periodical article is in the library students will have to make their own copies. Students are spending as much as $20 a week getting these copies. They are lining up. They can only have the periodical article signed out for 20 minutes, so they are at machines in line-ups copying the article. It is completely counterproductive.
Librarians usually pay $8,000, and some even $25,000, to get periodicals. The idea is that they are used by people in the field. The people who submit to them very seldom get any kind of large remuneration. It is an honour to be published in these magazines and the whole idea is that they should be used. Because of the problems with the copyright legislation, university librarians feel they cannot do it. If the periodical is registered with the collective with the terms of use there, it will be clear. If not, it will be fair use.
Similarly, businesses run into this. One thinks of things that are put out by the Royal Bank, for example, such as a newsletter. It does not mind it being copied and circulated. It is a great honour that its material is circulated and respected. This is another example of someone who does not mind. There are many examples.
What is in this bill for creators? It continues to give creators clear and unequivocal rights to their works, subject only to the exemptions that the minister brings forward. It provides a strong incentive for creators to join collectives if they want remuneration for any of those non-commercial uses permissible under the fair use provisions. It will make the collectives stronger and more viable.
In conclusion, I think this bill will provide for the establishment of a reasonable and balanced approach to the issue of copyright legislation in Canada. I greatly appreciate the support of the House in referring it to the communications committee for further consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for St. Boniface, then the hon. member for Bourassa, the hon. member for Prince George-

Bulkley Valley, and then the hon. member for Lethbridge in that order.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address this particular bill in the House today. I want to commend my colleague for the work that she has done.
She has also rendered another valuable service in the sense that she is attempting to plug a loophole which is causing a great deal of anger, frustration, and anxiety among a number of people. These include educators from all levels and others as well.
Some will recall that I made a statement pursuant to S. O. 31 this week in recognition of National Students Day and the Canadian Federation of Students Strategy Paper, entitled, Strategy For Change. I indicated that the government had no vision, no plan, no focus, and no strategy. It was in total disarray in terms of education. The points that are being made today, in fact, corroborate my statement.
I want to suggest that it is not only in disarray and confusion with respect to education. It is clear that this is also the case in the area of economic development. The Minister of Finance cannot admit that there is a recession. Some people are talking about depression. We know that youth unemployment, as mentioned in the House today, is sky-rocketing. If I remember correctly, it is in excess of 13 per cent. We know that the number of bankruptcies in the country is sky-rocketing and going out of sight. Again, it is total disarray. There is no plan and no focus. There is simply no leadership.
I could make the same points with respect to the social development area. One will recall the attempt to de-index pensions and the government came back with a clawback. This is a good example of no plan and no vision. Another example is the unemployment insurance bill. Again, we are going to try to train people on the backs of the unemployed.
Let us take the cultural area. We spoke today about the establishment of the heritage language institute. I think many people recognize that native languages are in fact dying. The majority will not survive unless we can respond to this need. The government has been unable to state unequivocally whether or not native languages fall within the institute.
We spoke as well about the importance of preserving heritage languages and we gave economic, social and
Private Members' Business
cultural reasons for doing so. Again, this is a good example of disarray. What people do not understand is when those groups are not considered as they ought to be, when their languages and cultures are not readily accepted, we find people feel marginalized as if they do not contribute fully to the Canadian way of life.
I believe the government has not understood that education is a cornerstone of economic, social and cultural development policies, that it does not understand as well as it should that in order to be competitive we must have a well-educated citizenry, in order to be leaders and not followers, we must have a comprehensive plan with respect to education.
Some of you will recall that I mentioned the lack of support that universities and colleges have received.

I have often commented on cuts in transfer payments. If we look at the period from 1986 to 1995, we find that the government will transfer $10 billion less to the provinces. For instance, there is less funding today for training and re-training, although we were promised these programs would be improved. If we look at student assistance, we see there has been no change since 1984 and that students are facing tremendous problems. Their debts are increasing at an alarming rate, and tuition fees as well, and there is also the 3 per cent administration fee.
Illiteracy: between five and seven million Canadian men and women need help, and what do we see? An investment of $4.50 per student per year. In research and development, we see the same situation. The government promised to double it's investment. It was 1.40 in 1984, and now it is less than that.


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member for Bourassa wish to raise a point of order?


Marie Gibeau: I think the hon. member's speech is very interesting, except that I don't see any connection with the debate on the bill before the House today.


Mr. Charest:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. With reference to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Bourassa, on the question of relevance, I

October 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
would like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that not only does the hon. member's speech seem to be lacking relevance to this very important subject, but furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there also seems to be a lack of factual information. To give you an example of relevance, government spending on postsecondary education in Canada has increased at an average rate of 5.1 per cent per annum under this government, which is higher than the rate of inflation, and the rate of growth-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. I am sure the hon. member will become relevant.


Ron J. Duhamel: It is relevant and I am sorry that my colleagues have not picked up the point. I thought it was very clear. I said there was total disarray and confusion. There are big gaps in the initiatives not being undertaken by government. That is the point.
When we look at this copyright bill, Bill C-316, we recognize that the member has tried to fill another loophole. I pointed out that there are loopholes all over, and I can mention them again in case my colleagues are not sure that it is relevant or pertinent. I object strenuously to the comments that have been made. If they had listened more attentively, they would have heard the relevance.
We know Bill C-316 has, in fact, a number of flaws. This attempts to fill those loopholes, the big gap that exists out there. We recognize that the creator must be rewarded. But we also recognize that the teacher must be able to teach. We recognize that there are others with legitimate and valuable needs out there and this bill will go a long way toward correcting them.
I wondered, as I looked at the bill, whether or not the purpose, nature and the value of work contained within the bill is sufficiently and precisely defined. That is a question I think we can discuss at some other time. I think it should be more specific. It is not specific enough at this particular point in time.
The whole notion of what its teaching may have to be looked at as well. What is a teacher? Are we talking about teachers in public institutions or are we talking about teachers who might in fact be teaching in a
non-public institution, who might be teaching, for instance, a heritage language group without the specific qualifications that are normally accepted within a province? That occurs on occasion. That is another issue I think we should look at but perhaps it has been covered. I am willing to listen to what the hon. member has to say.
I want to point out that my hon. colleague from Mount Royal had proposed a solution when Bill C-60 came up. It is unfortunate that it was not taken up at that time because we might not be having this discussion today if it had been.
As I indicated initially, I am dismayed, as are a number of other colleagues, by the government confusion in education, and as I pointed out, the whole of education. This is a good example. I am concerned as well by the delays in filling this particular loophole.

However, I can assure you we are prepared to support this bill, and I hope we will now be able to go ahead with it.


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the speech by the hon. member for St. Boniface.
The present copyright legislation in this country consists of an act drafted in 1921, proclaimed in 1924, and subject to interpretation by the courts. Until quite recently, the legislation had never undergone substantial review. When I hear remarks about confusion, lack of vision and delays, I fully agree with the hon. member since the Liberal Party was in power at the time and, as usual, lacked vision, caused all kinds of delays, and created this confusion. This was typical of the Liberal government throughout its mandate, I may add!
During all those years of Liberal government, we saw, I might say, the birth of radio, television, photocopy machines, tape recorders, videocassette recorders, computers, satellites and various devices for information storage and retrieval. All these technologies have contributed to increasing the use of works protected by copyright.
These new technologies have to a very large extent been instrumental in creating works protected by copy-
October 19, 1990

right. They not only helped produce these works but also provided new ways of using them, and as a result, opened new markets, thus increasing opportunities for pecuniary remuneration in exchange for such use.
However, these technologies also made it possible to make repeated use of protected works without obtaining permission from the copyright owner. For instance, we can easily reproduce a TV program at home by using a videocassette recorder, and it is practically impossible for copyright owners to control how the program is used. Consequently, new technologies have created a host of legal problems, some of which require solution through legislation. That is why the 1924 Copyright Act was partially amended in 1988 by Bill C-60 and by the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
In 1988, nine specific amendments were made to the Copyright Act. The maximum fine for criminal offences was raised from two hundred dollars to one million dollars; specific protection was extended to computer programs and moral rights were reinforced to protect the reputation of the author of a work; a public exhibition right for artistic work was created; the link between copyright and drafting was clarified; choreographic work was protected, whether or not it had a story line; and finally, the obligation to obtain a licence for the production of sound recordings was abolished and the application of royalties negotiated on the market was allowed.
Furthermore, Bill C-60 encouraged the creation of corporations for the collective administration of copyright or associations of copyright owners, and provided for regulations in this respect. These licensing bodies, based on a concept that has worked satisfactorily in the music industry for over 50 years, will now be able to operate in all copyright sectors and negotiate the granting of licences with users of works protected by copyright. In exchange for payment of reasonable royalties, they will give users quick and easy access to works protected by copyright. If the licensing body and the user cannot agree on what constitutes a fair royalty, either party may apply to the Copyright Board to fix the amount. Amendments to the Copyright Act have also expanded the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board.
As a result of the amendments to the Copyright Act under terms of the Canada-United States Free Trade Implementation Act, cable operators are required to compensate the holders of copyrights for the re-broad-
Private Members' Business
casting of distant radio and television signals, both Canadian and American.
The amendments which I have just mentioned represent the first step in an effort to update a 66 year old legislation. The Government is determined to continue reviewing the copyright legislation and to implement some of the most urgent amendments which have been favourably and even enthusiastically received by both creators and users.
As it progresses, however, this review brings to light new aspects which, over time, become increasingly relevant and significant, and call for our immediate attention. They are sometimes basic issues or matters of an administrative or technical nature.
A number of these amendments are necessary to meet international requirements concerning copyright or to place Canada on the same footing as its main trading partners. The purposes of other amendments are to update the Copyright Act and to rid it of such terms as "mechanical reproduction" and "perforated rolls". Bill C-316 which the Hon. Member for Don Valley-North introduced and which we are dealing with offers a good example of copyright related issues.
I share the concern of the Hon. Member for Don Valley-North and appreciate her efforts to find a solution to the sensitive problem of the use by teaching establishments of works protected by copyright legislation.
Bill C-316 suggests one way of dealing with exceptions when implementing the Copyright Act, particularly when the permission of the copyright's owner and the payment of royalties are no longer required because a given use is deemed to be fair, pursuant to the standards set in the legislation.
Generally speaking, Bill C-316 is aimed at giving various users access to copyrighted works when such access is not possible under a general licence, that is when the licence giving access to a wide array of copyrighted works cannot be secured. This is why the bill advocates setting up group management companies which authors should join. Still a number of problems related to the bill and external factors make it necessary to take a closer look at the bill before passing judgment on it.
Bill C-316 now provides exceptions in the case of certain users, particularly teachers and researchers. It advocates a radical change concerning both form and

October 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
substance with respect to the fair use concept embodied in the Copyright Act. To some extent the bill goes beyond the discussions which creators and users such as librarians and teachers have had in recent years. The bill may not reflect these discussions because they are part and parcel of the review process and must be taken into consideration in any Copyright Act amendment.
Reviewing copyright provisions has always been a complex and controversial undertaking, if only because of the balance which the Copyright Act must restore between creators and users of copyrighted works. These exceptions are particularly delicate because they can seriously upset the balance if they go too far or not far enough. One of the best ways to be mindful of the delicate nature of the amendments is to see to it that both creator and user are involved in the policy drafting process. That is precisely what the government has done.
In 1987 and 1988 the Department of Communications set up two legislative committees to go over the exceptions which might be included in the copyright legislation. One dealt with exceptions concerning libraries, the other covered exceptions related to the teaching profession. When the two committees began their hearings, creators and users were sitting around the same table but they had strongly diverging views. Users wanted wide-ranging exceptions, first to gain free access to works required for teaching and research, second to be in direct contact with library patrons. Sure enough, creators would have none of this because they felt that these exceptions would encroach upon the rights they had been enjoying all along. I believe that after lengthy and sometines very vociferous debates the parties finally reached common grounds of sorts.
The advisory committees agreed that, instead of widening the scope of the fair use principle, the new legislative provisions would include special exemptions for libraries and schools. Therefore schools and libraries would no longer face the complex problem of having to decide whether a given activity would be deemed to be fair use by a court.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate today on Bill C-316, put forward by the member for Don Valley North, and to be presenting some of the views from my colleague, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, who could not be with us today. He is attending to affairs in his riding, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
We do have some concerns and comments obviously about this legislation. I appreciated some of the earlier comments that a speaker made regarding how our contemporary world with its new and modern technology has placed great demands on government regulators to try and catch up in many ways with technology and laws relating to many very important issues. For instance, there is the use of VCR's. I know some constituents who have recorded a number of your memorable rulings, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that you would be concerned about in terms of copyright legislation.
There are the simple things which take so much for granted now, such as the photocopier or the fax machine. All of them may make us technically commit illegal activities in our offices. Many people, of course, would not be familiar with these machines.
In any case, Bill C-316 certainly addresses some serious matters that fall between the rights of creators, artists, and what have you, and the rights of users. That is chiefly, and most importantly, the need to balance these rights for the public good.
At this point we are opposing this legislation as it stands and I will make three quick points in review of our position and then make recommendation for your guidance.
The bill is flawed in its intent in the issues it seeks to address and by lack of a precise definition of certain terms. Clarity of thought and purpose is very important here. Of course, we have to say how important that is in all government legislation.
We say further that the problem faced by educators would be best served by a clause covering the sponta-
October 19, 1990

neous use of material, namely, that as part of negotiated agreements, educators would be able to use articles from newspapers and magazines, combining fair use with just remuneration, something my party has been committed to for some time.
My third point is a matter of time. Overhauling copyright legislation is tough business to be sure, requiring complex and detailed legislation, but the government has made a tough situation tougher for all concerned by not proceeding in a timely way with Phase II of the copyright legislation.
The minister has committed himself to bringing in Phase II twice in 1989. In May, 1988, his predecessor promised Phase II within a few months. It has now been five years since an all-party unanimous committee of the House requested a comprehensive overhaul of copyright laws. It is certainly not the only legislation that probably needs some overhauling.
The minister certainly enjoys his portfolio, but the job confers responsibilities. Full and comprehensive copyright reform is one of them. We know the time we had to wait for a museums policy from the minister. It is an indication that whoever is in charge of the minister's schedule should try to put copyright legislation on Monday's page so that we can give some attention to it.
Our recommendation is this: Because the bill concerns matters of importance, the bill needs more debate. The issues it touches on are important and are certainly worthy of further examination. Because we want the government to get on with the full and comprehensive copyright reform that the House and many others have recommended, we are certainly in full support of referring the matter of the legislation to a legislative committee in the interest of expediting full and comprehensive copyright reform in Canada. Let us hope that this legislation is a step in that direction.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise and say a few words with respect to this Private Member's Bill, Bill C-316. For me, it points out once again the critical importance of the Private Members' Hour because it is the hour where private members, after often long hours and diligent work, are able to being an issue to the attention of the whole Parliament.
Private Members' Business
As you know, Mr. Speaker, for all the years that you have sat here and the somewhat lesser years I have sat here, that was never ever done. Private Members' Bills were talked out by the hundreds. At the end of the hour, they were simply lost. When we became the government in 1984, we pushed hard and changed those Standing Orders. Now, a certain number of bills have to come to a vote.
This bill did not get on that list where they have to come to a vote, but the excellent work done by the member for Don Valley North has got us to the point where, by consensus, we agree in the House that this matter is so important that it should go on to the standing committee for further study and review.
I want to commend the member for Don Valley North because Parliament can be a very frustrating place, even more frustrating for members on the back-bench on the government side. So much of what we do in the caucus and in the committees never gets reflected in public. Whereas opposition members-and we were the same when we were in opposition-can stand up and take positions and promote them forcefully in public. On the government side we have to do it quietly behind the scenes in the committees. It is always frustrating for government back-benchers and I am sure the member for Don Valley North is very proud, and deservedly proud, of the work she has done on this bill.
There are many people that back this bill in its entirety and it reflects a broad view in our society. It is certainly worthy of detailed study. As previous members have spoken, it is a question of balancing the interests of creators with the interests of people who want to us it, especially for educational purposes. There is no doubt that none of us would ever recommend that we go out and take food from farmers without adequate compensation, or a car from a car manufacturing plant. It is the same with creators of works, especially software and other valuable educational works.
This bill will be an occasion for the standing committee to take a look at it in great detail, bring witnesses in, and further concentrate our minds, as legislators, on this topic. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, speaking for the government, I am pleased to be able to ask this House for unanimous consent that I might put the following motion.

October 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
I move:
That Bill C-316 be withdrawn and that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed and ordered. Accordingly the subject matter of the bill stands
referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I call it three o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.39 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday October 22, 1990