1990-05-11

Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I open third reading debate on Bill C-18. The minister could not be here today due to a long-standing commitment he had in Winnipeg.
We are now in the final phase of deliberations on Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multicultur-alism and Citizenship.
Moving this bill through its final stages in the House and on to the other place follows a strong commitment of the Prime Minister reaffirmed a few weeks ago in Toronto. The Prime Minister did so because he knows this department will help strengthen our sense of being Canadian and promote equality for all in Canada.

Last June the Secretary of State told the legislative committee to which Bill C-18 had been referred that it was nothing more than a housekeeping measure. In short, it is a bill concerning government management and aimed at establishing a new department.
In the debate on this bill we have heard small voices rooted in the past, urging Canadians to look backward, urging Canadians to grind the wheels of social progress to a halt.
We have listened to some hon. members in the Opposition. The government has reviewed the amendments they proposed at committee stage and in the House, amendments that go far beyond the scope of this bill.
As the minister explained in detail at committee hearings on Bill C-18, this legislation is an administrative measure to provide the legal framework for a department. It does not in any way replace the Multicul-turalism Act or the Citizenship Act.
Yet, time and time again, my hon. colleagues have been critical of the bill because it does not include a definition of multiculturalism. Quite frankly, their logic is elusive.
I would direct my hon. colleagues to read the title of the bill. We are not talking about a department of multiculturalism only. Do members of the opposition suggest we be so flippant as to dismiss the citizenship mandate of this department? Why are they only speaking to one side of the department?
None of them over there has even given the slightest thought to the imbalance that will arise if we defend multiculturalism and do not do the same for citizenship. They do not understand that we have given a much broader scope to this institution than just multiculturalism.
Maybe they just were not listening, or maybe they were only listening to certain overly vocal lobbyists.
Sometimes the most obvious is worth reiterating. There is a difference between a department and the policy that falls within its mandate. A department is an instrument. It is put in place to help implement the policy. It is not the policy itself. All departments are

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
administrative instruments for implementing policies and programs.
Unfortunately, some members have forgotten this important distinction. They have proposed amendments that go far beyond the scope of an administrative bill. Ironically, they would be limiting the scope of the department to narrow issues. They would limit the department only to multicultural matters. They and their lobbyist friends would create an ethnic ghetto in the name of providing what they call "precision".
Do we really want to re-open debates that took place in 1988 on the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, an act which was passed unanimously by this House and which embodies our multicultural policy? Who were the members of the opposition listening to then? They were hearing many voices, but listening to only one, a decidedly negative voice-the executive of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
Let me remind the House and the Opposition that this organization originally favoured a strong Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. But when we did not accede to the narrow, and let me say, self-serving proposals it made to the legislative committee, it changed horses mid-stream, retracting its support.
I suggest to my colleagues across the way that there are some other voices out there that they should be listening to. For example, they should be listening to the Canadian Citizenship Federation, the National Voluntary Organization, national literacy groups from across the country, Harambi Centres Canada, the Committee for Racial Justice, the Association of Multiculturalism, and immigrant serving agencies of British Columbia, to name but a few.
This government believes their views do count. The thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have expressed their support for the establishment of a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship should not be ignored. If there is an outstanding characteristic of this department, it is that it is inclusionary. Everyone has a stake in this federal department, just as they do in our nation-building.

The sole purpose of Bill C-18 is to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship whose mandate will be to promote equality, fight against racism, and strengthen our common values.

With this bill we in Parliament are seeking to make multiculturalism and citizenship integral parts of the mainstream life of this nation. I believe the gap between our aspirations and reality is slowly narrowing. We have built up an equity in our multicultural policy. We are not starting over again. We are not going back to square one, as members of the Opposition would have us do.
We have rejected the old, tired ideas of the past about what multiculturalism means to Canada. This Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will carry out a more meaningful policy. It will help move us one more step forward toward a higher ideal for this country.

The department will relate to all Canadians, men and women alike, for they are all members of our multicultural society and share the binding link of citizenship.
There is no question here of a department solely responsible for multiculturalism nor of a small token department for so-called "ethnic groups". The government simply will not indulge in that kind of cynicism.

The creation of this department follows directly from the vision and the ideals expressed in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. As a people we recognize that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society. Multiculturalism is essential to an understanding of what it means to be a Canadian.
As well, one of our strongest ties as a people is our shared Canadian citizenship. It is both a symbolic link and a living expression of our Canadian unity.
Canadian citizenship is never a final achievement. The new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will foster a greater sense among all Canadians of the
May 11, 1990

responsibilities that go hand in hand with the rights of our citizenship.
When the Prime Minister announced his intention to set up this new department, he sought the careful balance of multiculturalism and citizenship as characteristics central to our contemporary sense of Canada. He did so with great insight. The Prime Minister recognized that governments cannot live our lives for us. They cannot exclude the Canadian people from their own social policies. Certainly, this is true of multiculturalism and citizenship which are elements central to our being Canadian.
Canadians must judge the new department on its aims and objectives, what it strives to achieve within the context of contemporary Canadian society. I would like to cite some examples, such as enhanced literacy, greater understanding about the value of human rights, more widespread participation in the critically important voluntary sector, fighting racism, and promoting the values inherent in our shared citizenship.
I will tell the House what this department is not about. It is not about confrontations, quotas or regulations. The department's mandate is to work co-operatively within government and with all sectors of our society to build a Canada where there are no barriers, a Canada where each of us as individuals can contribute fully to the prosperity, growth, and development of the country, and where everyone can assume all the rights and responsibilities as citizens of this great land of ours.
The greatest strength of the new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship resides in the very ideals that give shape to its mandate. Few countries and few people can claim so many close ties between communities. The department seeks to foster these ties to promote greater understanding among Canadians.
Yes, as Canadians, we do have great expectations for ourselves and for our country.
We must fight racism, the sometimes quietness of racism. I believe the most dangerous kind of prejudice is not necessarily the loudest. We must work to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to contribute to society and that they can assume and exercise the rights and responsibilities inherent in our citizenship. We must strive to teach all Canadians, new and old, of the values
Government Orders
which are fundamental to our understanding of being Canadian.
How can ideas as vibrant as these be captured in a static definition? This has eluded our friends across the way.
A new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship cannot do it all, of course, but it can help focus our energy. It can assist in making our vision and our hopes possible.
This department is about fairness and equality. It is about our future together. That is the heart and soul of its mission.

The new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will strengthen our previous commitments as expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and new legislation on citizenship. This country needs the contribution of each and every citizen, and we must ensure that all Canadians are given every opportunity to do their share.
The estimates of the new department are an unmistakable indication of our intentions. They relate to participation, understanding, awareness, and enhancement of our society's basic values. The Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will become a key department for the future of the country. The department will not be control- or protest-oriented, but rather dedicated to the fulfilment of the hopes harboured by all Canadians.

I would like to conclude my remarks today by encouraging hon. members to support this bill, and to move it rapidly to its passage.
I urge them to do so for their fellow Canadians. People are what this country is all about. They are all this nation of ours can be. In the end, it is not departments or agencies that are the legacy of an administration or a Parliament, but the human progress that is achieved.
Today, the government is living up to a promise we made to all Canadians, for all Canadians. We do so mindful that there is an even greater promise to keep. We must work together for the day when all our citizens

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
enjoy the full richness of life in our beloved Canada. Only then can we say we are truly satisfied.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville (Mrs. Maheu) has a question?


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle raised a number of points on which I would like to comment, but unfortunately, we don't have enough time.

I wonder what the hon. member means when he says that certain groups are trying to grind the wheels of social progress to a halt.
He also referred to a definition of multiculturalism. A little further in his speech he asked: What does multiculturalism mean to Canada? I submit that it is up to this member and this government to give us finally a definition of multiculturalism. That is what we have been asking for.
We have been asking the minister and the department to tell us what multiculturalism means to this government. As a matter of fact, we are questioning the commitment that appears to be there when we talk about it. We pay lip-service to it, but what are we really doing?
The hon. member also said that members of the Opposition and the other party are not defending citizenship. I do not know where the member hides himself, but in my riding the almost all the immigrants become citizens. Every chance we have, we talk about Canada. We talk about them choosing this as their country. If they want to become citizens of our country, we are there to help them. I have worked in the community at the grass roots for 20 years. I know what I am talking about.
The hon. member talked about an ethnic ghetto that is being formed. Before too long, the ethnic communities of the country are going to outnumber the francophones and the British who founded it. I do not think we are forming a ghetto in this country at all. I object to anyone saying that the Canadian Ethnocultural Council is trying to form an ethnic ghetto. It represents about 20 or 30 groups in the country. Let us tell the National Italian
Congress of Canada that it wants to form an ethnic ghetto. Let us tell CRARR from Montreal that it wants to form an ethnic ghetto. I strongly object to that suggestion.
I would like the member to explain how a ministry or a department, with no logical objectives, no responsibilities, and no accountability, can help the multicultural mosaic of our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate.


Shirley Maheu: That was a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I made a mistake earlier when I asked for questions. There are no questions or comments following the speeches of the first two speakers at third reading. It was my mistake. I thought the hon. member was rising on debate. The hon. member may continue on debate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before the hon. member begins, I wish to advise the House that I have received written notice from the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest that he is unable to move his motion during Private Members' Business on Monday, May 14, 1990.

Since the Chair is unable to arrange an exchange on the order of precedence, Private Members' Hour will be suspended for that day, pursuant to Standing Order 94.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties in light of the announcement that you just made. I think you would find unanimous consent for the receipt and passage of the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, May 14,
1990, the House meet at one o'clock p.m. and proceed to the
consideration of Government Orders from one o'clock p.m. to two
o'clock p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to move his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
May 11, 1990

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to


DEPARTMENT OF MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint Laurent-Cartier-ville.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, it is too bad there is not a period for questions and comments. The member raised several points that I feel were contentious.

As multiculturalism and citizenship spokesperson with my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today. The government is to be commended for tabling this bill. Creating a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship is a positive gestures, reflecting our recognition of the diversity and equality of all Canadians, irrespective of race, nationality or creed.

This new department is a step in the right direction, but for it to be more than a front-and that is what I was referring to-it must be a leader from the start. It is necessary that a senior minister take charge and, also, that part of the staff represent or at least be knowledgeable of the real needs of the different groups it wishes to help. Without clear goals and a good framework, it would be difficult to assess the demands and effectively react, thus the importance of objectives and controls from the start.
Today, almost 40 per cent of the Canadian population is of ethnic origin-that is, not French or British-and this percentage is increasing steadily. Our new multicultural reality is both a major asset and an extraordinary challenge for Canada. It is a major asset, because the entire country can benefit from this multicultural diversity, both economically and culturally.
Canada's future depends on its ability to recognize and promote this Canadian mosaic. Recognizing and encouraging this fundamental characteristic of our country means, in practical terms, that we must develop political mechanisms and programs that will enable Canadian society to establish harmonious interracial relations, based on mutual respect and equal participation.
That is the challenge of Canadian multiculturalism. Failure to meet this challenge would be a serious threat to our future. Imagine what our country would be like if intolerance, racial tension and conflict, were the rule.

Canada cannot afford, if it wishes to stay a country, a rise in tension and intolerance between the different groups living here. It is a new challenge because we are now discovering new minorities and different races all over this country. We must learn to accept and learn from these new groups as they from us. The road towards social harmony is a long one but it is one that the government has accepted to take. Let us stay alert and assure it fulfils its task.

Madam Speaker, while recognizing the importance of a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, I question the potential for action by this department. It seems there are still a number of gray areas in this bill, despite all our efforts in the legislative committee to clarify certain points and suggest amendments. Unfortunately, we did not succeed.
Most issues relating to multiculturalism and citizenship will be the responsibility of a new minister whose duties will include ensuring that the multiculturalism policy announced in the Department of Multiculturalism and citizenship Act is implemented. He must monitor

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
the policies of all departments and federal institutions, which is not made sufficiently clear in the bill.
Madam Speaker, the specific duties of the minister, as set forth in the bill, include to promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship; to provide services for the acquisition of citizenship; to promote greater understanding of human rights; and to make grants and contributions in support of special programs for race relations.

The new minister's mandate is a very broad one, so broad that one wonders how it will be possible to control what is to be done effectively in the new department and what is to be done in all other departments affected by the minimum quotas to be respected with regard to hiring people from different minority groups, among other things.

Madam Speaker, while the government is to be commended for increasing funds to promote race relations, I must say that at the same time, the government has disappointed both me and community groups by imposing budget cuts on organizations involved with ethnic groups, native people, the disabled, young people and especially, special-interest groups.
My point is, Madam Speaker, that while overall, the budget for multiculturalism has gone up, the funds for community support and participation have decreased by $400,000 this year. This represents a 15 per cent cut in funding for such groups as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.

The Canada Ethnocultural Council represents 40 groups across the country. When they bowed down and said: "Yes sir, how high do I jump?", that was fine. The minute they started questioning politics and government policy, they are no longer considered to be a representative group of cultural communities.

These groups act as coordinating and liaison bodies to help the different communities communicate with each other and with the various levels of government.
Madam Speaker, I am also concerned because we do not know whether the obvious trend to limit operating grants for groups will last for one year or more. If it continues, the Department of Multiculturalism will be less effective in fighting racism in Canada. It is important for the department to co-operate closely with these organizations so that it is aware of what is in fact happening, and for that, it is essential that these organizations survive.
Madam Speaker, another point that I consider worth mentioning is the staff of the new department. The present employees to be transferred from the Secretary of State's Department are too few to fulfil the responsibilities of this new department.


Barry D. Moore: It changes nothing!


Shirley Maheu: Oh! I would like to have an explanation as to how it changes nothing.
Clause 5 of the bill stipulates that the minister's duties are to initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship. This is a big responsibility and the number of people working in this new department and the funds to support them must be increased for it to be effective.
It is also very important that additional staff be of diverse origins and cultures. It is essential that the new department set an example in hiring visible minorities, but it is just as important for those working there to be aware of the issues. They must come from the grass roots and understand the real needs of the communities so that they actually represent what Canada is today.
Madam Speaker, it is essential to hire people who are culturally attuned to multiculturalism and it is also important to provide funds for community programs. It is essential that groups speaking on behalf of cultural communities have sufficient funds to remain a real resource that helps the government in its work.
Madam Speaker, it is also necessary to provide a medium- and long-term budget so that the new department and the various organizations representing groups can take positive action from the start in order to give effective recognition to the mosaic that is Canada in 1990. Above all, we must not have a department with expectations that cannot be met because of budget cuts.
May 11, 1990

Neither must the funds given to the new department come from cuts to associations reflecting the various groups across the country. Both must work together so that the new department meets the challenge it has set itself and for that, the minister must have both the staff and the budget.

Without a budget a department cannot function. With only a short-term budget, projects will be limited and poorly motivated because of a lack of security. A new department, and especially this one, must be guaranteed a long-term budget if it is to be pro-active in today's society and permit all to be treated equally in fact and not merely on paper.
Madam Speaker, the department must not be allowed to become a department of good intentions which pave the road to hell, as they say. It must be an active department. By creating expectations and promising positive action, the government has put it reputation on the line. Now it will have to deliver.
Here is what the minister said in his speech in June, and I quote: "The central responsibility of this department is to strengthen the solidarity of the Canadian people by ensuring that all Canadians participate fully and without discrimination in defining and building Canada's future. This is a time of change and transition in our nation, a time when the evolving cultural and racial diversity of contemporary Canada presents a new image of what we are as Canadians. It is a time when we are seeking to ensure that all Canadians receive fair and equal treatment, that all Canadians have the same chance to participate and to achieve their dreams."
If we really want all Canadians to have the same chance to participate, it is crucial that all citizens have access to current events, so that they can have their say, either through presentations, letters, elections or by any other means. This implies that everyone must be able to read, write and communicate in one of our official languages. That is a major challenge, but it is one the new minister will have to meet early on, if he really wants all Canadians to have the same chance to understand what is happening in our country.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, to ensure all these pious wishes come true, we feel that, as recommended by a number of groups that appeared before the legislative committee, it would be desirable to have a commissioner of multicul-turalism who would monitor enforcement of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act. This position would be similar to that of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and its incumbent would operate on an arms-length basis to ensure his right to criticize.
Madam Speaker, another option would be to have the Canadian Human Rights Commission monitor implementation of multiculturalism and rule on complaints filed with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship, as provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Madam Speaker, our emphasis on the need for monitoring by a commissioner is merely to ensure that in the years to come, under the department or government that happens to be there at the time, there will be positive action, with programs directed towards the future, programs that are people-oriented and that teach the target population.
Not that we have any particular doubts about the effectiveness of the future minister, especially since we don't know yet who it will be. Will there be a new minister? Will it be the Secretary of State again? We also have some concern about responsibilities that have not yet been set out. We are concerned, however, about ensuring continuity between the written word and concrete action, so that all Canadians become aware of a genuine openness in Canada, directed to those who make this country what it is today and what it will be tomorrow, on the eve of the twenty-first century.
Madam Speaker, a tool that has been little or poorly used to promote and understand the differences that make us unique as Canadians is the media, and especially television.
It is essential that what we see on television reflects the multicultural and multiracial reality of the Canada in which we live. It is also very important, Madam Speaker, if we are to have a proper understanding of the needs of the various groups this medium is to represent, to have on staff people of different backgrounds and races, who are aware of the needs and are in touch with these communities, so that the correct image is projected. Once again, by example and education we can discover

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
together the rich resources of this country and those who live in it.
Whatever our background, we are all Canadians and proud of it. That is the reality that should be projected through all the media. It is essential that the government uses wisely the tools at its disposal, so that all Canadians will have the same chance to participate.
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, creating the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship is an important step towards the future, but the government creates expectations it must be able to meet.
To ensure the department's credibility from the outset, Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, must contain a reference to Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. This reference, Madam Speaker, will provide a better framework for the new department by including, for instance, a definition of multiculturalism.
We realize that Bill C-18 is the logical sequel to Bill C-93, since the government wants to create a department. But to avoid misunderstanding or false expectations about the new department, it is necessary to clearly state for whom this department exists, so that its future actions and positions can be better understood.
It is still fundamental to lay the proper groundwork, including the rationale, power and target groups of the new department, so that it starts off on the right foot, whence the importance of reference to Bill C-93. What seems obvious today, which would justify not referring to Bill C-93, will not necessarily be obvious tomorrow. It is always better to have more information rather than less, so that we will have a department that can take its rightful place and meet its commitments.

If the government really does wish to have a new department that will have a positive impact on our society it is important that, from the beginning, the role, mandate, budget and control system be specified, thus avoiding unnecessary mistakes.

While we appreciate the creation of a new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, we remain cautious about its future effectiveness. Since it has such a broad mandate, we will remain on the lookout to see if it will in fact take positive action and have clout in 1990. The government has raised expectations in various ethnic and racial groups. Let us see whether it will keep its promises.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: May 11, 1990
similar to the Official Languages Commissioner. Representatives of citizenship organizations, and I hope my friend on the opposite side who was so critical about admission of citizenship will listen to this because we listened to the representatives of the citizenship organization, wanted a much greater emphasis on citizenship in this bill. We proposed a name change and the toughening up of a number of sections to do this. But the government and the minister were the ones who turned this down in committee, so let us get the facts straight in this House today.
In the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, which was meeting concurrently with the legislative committee, we worked as an all-party group to get consensus on an all-party definition of multiculturalism. We took the preamble to Bill C-93, so it was not anything new. It was not an invention of myself or anyone else. It was in the act but we were rephrasing it and putting in a slightly tougher wording on the equality aspects. We agreed in the standing committee that this should be presented. The minister would not listen to it. It is ironic that the government at report stage of the bill had to bring in a hundred Tories to vote against the simple definition of multiculturalism. They could have brought in their own definition if they wanted to and we would not have cared. They obviously did not want to strengthen this bill.
I would like to refer the House to our proposed preamble which referred to strengthening the Citizenship Act which provides that all Canadians, whether by birth or by choice, should enjoy equal status and are entitled the same rights, powers and privileges and are subject to the same obligations, duties and liabilities; whereas the Canadian Multiculturalism Act establishes a multicultural policy for Canada, including the requirement that all federal departments and institutions implement this policy; whereas multiculturalism is for all Canadians and is a fundamental characteristic of Canada based on the recognition of the diversity and the equality of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion while recognizing two official languages. Multiculturalism is a government policy commitment designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians, to eliminate racism, and to achieve equality for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do apologize, but I must interrupt the hon member. Of course she will be able to continue after Question Period.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that I am sure is of concern to many members. As the Soviet Union evolves under Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost a resurgence of anti-Semitism is reaching a dangerous level. The rise of nationalist movements such as Pamyat are of great concern to those of us who are interested in seeing a transition of the U.S.S.R. into a prosperous and tolerant member of the international community.
I would like to express my profound concern for the safety of the Jewish people in the Soviet Union. I urge the Government of Canada to communicate to the Government of the U.S.S.R. to allow those individuals who wish to leave the Soviet Union the opportunity to do so. It is also time that Canada act in a manner consistent with its image as a caring and thoughtful nation.
I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to staff the Canadian embassy in Moscow with more immigration officers to facilitate the reunification of Jewish families with their relatives in Canada.
sfe *	*


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note that the government has decided to renew the Court Challenges Program for another period of five years.
This program provides financial assistance for test cases of national significance put forward on behalf of or by disadvantaged groups and individuals. These cases serve to clarify the language and equality rights of Canadians under the Constitution. In renewing the program the Government of Canada has demonstrated
May 11, 1990

its commitment to the advancement of human rights in Canada.
I am pleased to see that the report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons on the Court Challenges Program has contributed to this positive action on the part of the government. The renewal of the program will be received very favourably by all the groups which appeared before the committee.


TOURISM
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, next week is National Tourism Awareness Week.
Tourism is Canada's fastest growing job creator and by the year 2000 will be the largest industry in the world.
Over 1.2 million Canadians are employed directly or indirectly in tourism at all levels of education and skills, which means that one out of every ten workers in Canada is employed in tourism, and 60,000 businesses generate all or most of their revenue directly from tourism.
Tourism brought $24 billion into the Canadian economy in 1988 and ranked third among foreign exchange earners, surpassed only by the auto industry.
While this vital industry continues to be a leading economic factor, it is also an industry at risk. The goods and services tax will curtail its job growth rate, and our travel deficit continues to grow.
Canada competes world-wide for tourism dollars and marketing is the key. We must ensure that we fight aggressively to keep our share in this industry and to keep Canada competitive in the global tourism marketplace.


NATIONAL HEALTH DAY
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate National Health Day. This year's theme, "health services, a resource for our community", was chosen to highlight the essential role health services play in society. Service to the community and financial responsibility are the cornerstones of this
vast multifaceted public system that has been established over the years to meet the growing and very diverse needs of Canadians.
I therefore invite all Canadians to join in the activities of this special day that gives us an opportunity to recognize the skills and devotion of thousands of professionals and volunteers who work in the health field and provide the high-quality care that we all enjoy in Canada.
On behalf of the federal government, I wish to thank very sincerely the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Hospital Association, the two organizations that have sponsored National Health Day for several years now.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, in spite of all the constructive efforts of Liberal members to make the Conservatives understand that Canadians do not want the GST the government has gone ahead and adopted this regressive and repugnant measure, over of the objections of the Opposition.
Well, Madam Speaker, the fight is not over. Tomorrow, bolstered by thousands of fellow Canadians, Liberal members will rally on Parliament Hill in yet one more attempt to convince the Conservatives that they must immediately drop the GST bill.
Tomorrow, May 12, at noon, Canadians will gather here on Parliament Hill and, given the unpopularity of the Conservatives, we will try again-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time of the hon. member has expired.


CANADA HEALTH DAY
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we are celebrating Canada Health Day throughout the country.
This year's theme "Health Services: Our Community Resource" was chosen in recognition of the significant role played by health services in communities throughout Canada. Health services, which are supported by public funds, respond directly to community health needs. Community service and fiscal responsibility are

May 11, 1990
the cornerstones of these important community resources.
I invite all Canadians to join in recognizing the skills and dedication of the thousands of voluntary and professional health care workers who contribute to the high quality of health services that we enjoy in Canada.
On behalf of the federal government, I would like to thank the Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian Public Health Association for taking the initiative to sponsor Canada Health Day.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, the Tory government is punishing unemployed workers for attempting to upgrade their job skills by undertaking training programs under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As of April, 4,000 British Columbians, including people taking training for nursing, child care, computer programming and forest resource workers, have had their UIC discontinued. These include students who are paying their own fees. The government can provide training assistance under existing UIC legislation. There is no need to punish these people because Bill C-21 has not been passed by the Senate.
I call upon the government to restore the training allowance immediately to these 4,000 deserving British Columbians.


NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: In a few hours, Madam Speaker, we will be witnessing the closing activities of our National Forestry Week.
The purpose of this annual event is to make all Canadians aware of the importance of our forests. They are the income source of 800,000 Canadians and their economic impact is undeniable.
However it has become imperative to stress further the environmental impact of this precious resource. Fortunately, Canadians are ever more conscious of this issue and their positive attitude augurs well for the years to come.
Let us make sure that National Forestry Week is not an event which people forget the minute it is over. Each of us must see to it that showing respect for trees and nature becomes part of our daily activities.
They are our forests, let us look after them.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Canada's largest union, will be seeking wage increases of at least 8 per cent to 9 per cent to protect workers from the GST.
According to CUPE, these increases include a 3 per cent hike to cover the impact of the GST and another 5 per cent to 6 per cent to allow for inflation.
The government has been working under the assumption that the employees will not seek or will not ask for higher wages as a result of the GST.
Obviously the government's assumption that there will only be a 1.25 per cent inflation increase has flown out of the window. As a result of the GST, for at least another two years, inflation will be higher, interest rates will be higher, and the deficit will continue to increase.
Once again, Canadians will be gathering on Parliament Hill tomorrow at noon to oppose this tax. What is it going to take for this government to put a moratorium on this tax? It takes leadership. Where is it?



Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Madam Speaker, Canadians do not want higher prices in the stores. Canadians do not want higher interest rates in the future. Canadians want assurances that we are going to have a stable economy next year, particularly when the goods and services tax comes in.
May 11, 1990

Right now the consumer and corporate affairs committee is holding hearings into exactly how we might be able to achieve this, but at the same time a major labour leader is telling Canadians he is going to use the GST as an excuse for major wage demands.
In today's press, the leader of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Jeff Rose, stated:
We are telling our 377,000 members across the country to factor in a 3 per cent hike for the impact of GST and another 5 to 6 per cent for-inflation.
This is irresponsible on the part of the union. This is exactly what we do not need. This is the kind of fabricated demand which will lead to higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher prices for consumers, and an economy in trouble.
Responsible Canadians call upon our major labour leaders to be responsible and not put their own interests before those of Canada.


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, this morning we awoke to the shocking news and nauseating view of the desecration of a mainly Jewish cemetery in the south of France. This kind of deplorable act, possibly by fringe lunatics or fanatics, is not an isolated incident; it has occurred in my own community in Montreal. People of good will do not accept such acts of racism. When racism raises its ugly head, we all have to fight it. It calls for the world to speak up.
And how sad is the irony in this expression of antiSemitism the very week that world Jewish leaders went to Wansee Villa where officials of the Third Reich met 48 years ago outlining the policy of Nazi genocide. The Jewish leaders declared the forty-fifth anniversary of the defeat of Nazism as a victory for all mankind over this lowest point in man's inhumanity to man.
Leaders of good will around the world should never remain silent in the face of malevolent acts of racism wherever and whenever they occur, for to do so can be mistaken for indifference.
Most Canadians reject the desecration of consecrated land and even in the most challenging of times still share a belief in tolerance, understanding, and respect for basic human rights.


STANDING COMMITTEES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, just a few minutes ago we heard the chair of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations attacking the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
It is interesting to note what kind of justice that union can expect to receive from a chair who has attacked it publicly at this time. It throws into question the whole role of the chairs of our standing committees. Obviously the chair of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Orders is acting as a spokesman for government policy and is not acting in the interests of all members of Parliament.
In addition, we heard a Liberal member speak in favour of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. However, it was the Liberals who supported the Conservatives in the standing committee, summoning the Canadian Union of Public Employees before that committee and the Canadian Labour Congress.
It is interesting to note that those same groups were denied the opportunity to speak in front of the finance committee in opposition to the GST, another committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.


CANADIAN CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 1989 was a year to remember. The discovery of the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease which affects the lungs and digestive system of young people, was announced by researchers at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Thanks to these remarkable accomplishments, we can all look ahead with hope and promise.
As a result of the breakthrough, it is hoped that the goal of finding a cure, or effective control, will be achieved much more quickly than was thought possible only a short time ago.
Since this is cystic fibrosis month, it seems appropriate that we reflect on these recent achievements and also salute the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, its many volunteers and financial donors who make it possible for

May 11, 1990
Oral Questions
the foundation to contribute approximately $3 million to $4 million annually toward cystic fibrosis research, in addition to supporting clinics for patients and providing information and public education programs.
Congratulations to the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my office has been deluged this week with phone calls from Public Service employees wondering whether they are allowed to participate in a rally on Parliament Hill tomorrow against the goods and services tax.
They are concerned that their jobs may be in jeopardy if they turn up here at noon tomorrow, Saturday, May 12, on Parliament Hill, to tell the government what they think of the goods and services tax.
This symbol of freedom and democracy, this place where the people speak, is already under a shadow, a shadow of excessive use of closure, ignoring the petitions of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and the arrest of people who come here to speak their mind.
I am telling people that not even this government would dare fire or discipline somebody just for saying what they think about something that is going to affect them and their families every day of their lives.
I urge them to come here tomorrow, Saturday, May 12, at noon on Parliament Hill and let the government know what they think about the GST.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today, we learned that the top five executives at Canadian National Railways, which is owned by and accountable to the government, last year received wage increases averaging over 18 per cent.
This is the same government that is asking ordinary Canadian workers to bite the bullet on wage increases to help fight inflation.
How can the government be taken seriously when it asks Canadians to exercise wage restraint when top executives of its own Crown corporations are receiving wage increases in excess of 18 per cent? How can the government be taken seriously on this in any way, shape or form?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify for my hon. colleague opposite that the facts that were reported in the story talk about cash compensation. It is not a question of salary. There are bonuses included in here and it is quite confusing.
When I read the article, I have to underline to my hon. colleague that those bonuses for 1988 have been mixed with the 1989 salary levels. In 1988, CN had its best year ever and that is why those increases are there.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the minister's answer is totally unsatisfactory. The executives still got the money. Call it cash, call it compensation, they got the money. How can the government possibly defend these massive increases in the salaries of CN executives when, at the same time, in the same period, ordinary workers at CN got increases of only 4.5 per cent?
Will the government order an immediate salary rollback for these executives, a roll-back to the same rate that it expects Canadians to live with? Will it roll-back these salaries? Yes, or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague how these compensation numbers are arrived at.
Under the former government, an independent commission was set up to report so that salaries for Governor in Council appointees would be set in an independent way from government. That is the Burns Commission. The Burns Commission is the one that makes the
May 11, 1990

recommendation both for the salary ranges and for the bonuses to be paid when performance exceeds what has been predicted.
We are following the rules set out by that independent commission that I mentioned. It was initially set up well before this government took power.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, there is an important difference. At the present time, the government is asking ordinary Canadian workers, not to do anything to compensate for the goods and services tax and to hold back their wages so that they will not be adding to inflation. It is a matter of do as I say, not as I do, when it comes to this government.

Madam Speaker, the government keeps repeating that Canadians must tighten their belts but supports massive salary increases for CN's top executives.
Why are the top brass of Crown corporations like Canadian National getting salary increases that, on average, are four times those given their employees and four times the rate of inflation? Will the government immediately demand that CN's top executives make do with salary increases that are in line with those of their own employees, yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague first of all that we are very conscious of these salary adjustments. We have looked very closely at the performance in that area.
Average actual increases for senior public servants, including deputy ministers, Governor in Council appointees to federal agencies, board and commissions were limited to 4 per cent in 1988, and 4.2 per cent in 1989. That is very much in line with what we have given to the unions throughout the system.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Miniser of Finance. The GST is not yet in effect, but the Minister of Finance is already talking about raising the rate. Yester-
Oral Questions
day, he said he had at least a hundred good reasons for raising the rate of this new tax. In fact, the minister raised the manufacturer's sales tax four times: from 9 to
13.5	per cent. Here is my question.
Could the minister be very specific and inform the House today what the GST rate will be in 1992 and 1993? If he cannot, will he make a commitment today not to increase the GST?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to a quote that came out of a press scrum yesterday. I answered that question in the context of what had been done with other countries.
Of the other countries that have a value-added tax, a GST type of tax, about 18 or 19 have made practically no change in the tax. Other countries have made a change in the tax by raising their GST, the value-added tax rate at the same time that they brought down income tax rates. New Zealand is a good example of one of those countries. The United Kingdom is another example. Other countries have raised their tax to finance additional spending.
The only point that I am making, and I will make it again to the hon. member, is that different countries will treat this in a different way. The underlying point that I made in Canada was that any government, regardless of political stripe, will have to justify very carefully any change in the GST rate from 7 per cent.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, the minister also said yesterday that if workers demand wage increases to compensate for the GST, there will be an increase in interest rates. This is my question.
What happened to the 11.1 per cent interest rate in the minister's last Budget? Today, even without the GST, the Bank of Canada rate is at 13.75 per cent. When will the minister finally realize that his economic policies are a total disaster for this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I need only refer to a column that is in The Globe and Mail this morning by Ted Carmichael who indicates very clearly that the GST is a good policy for

May 11, 1990
Oral Questions
Canada and is the answer to a lot of problems that we are facing today.
I have just come back from Washington where I attended the meetings of the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund is very supportive of the introduction of the GST.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD in Paris, also indicates the significance of this tax in improving our competitive position.
If the hon. member is asking why we should change the existing tax, I say that the reason is because it will improve our ability to export into other markets. It will also change a situation where Canadian producers are paying about a third more sales tax than the imports they compete with.
The more obvious question is, why is the hon. member supporting no change in the policy? Why is he supporting the maintenance of a tax that is going to undermine our competitive position, undermine our ability to sell products in other markets, undermine our ability to create jobs in this country, and undermine our ability to get the deficit down? Those are the questions that he should be answering.


TREASURY BOARD
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is interesting that the Leader of the Liberal Party attacked the government for having the workers at CN receive only wage increases of 4 per cent while the senior executives averaged pay increases of over 18 per cent, because the Liberals voted for that back-to-work legislation on August 27, 1987.
The Minister of Finance has allowed extremely high increases for Mr. Crow. He is allowing very high increases for CN. The Conservatives have attacked workers for trying to make up for the increase in the GST.
What justice is there in this country when the corporate elite are receiving pay increases of 18 per cent, 39 per cent, 40 per cent and workers are not allowed to fight for the increase in the cost-of-living?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat my earlier answer. The wage increases for deputy ministers and Governor in Council appointees, the senior management of our Crown corporations and the federal public service are exactly the same wage increases that the government has negotiated with our unions.
I will say once again that these salaries were limited to a 4 per cent increase in 1988 and a 4.2 per cent increase in 1989. So I think there is equity in the system and a demonstrable restraint on the part of government in terms of compensation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, when CN vice-presidents receive pay increases of 39 per cent, through cash bonuses or whatever other mechanisms, I would like to see the government negotiate those same increases with workers.
What is the government's economic policy for all employees? Are the rich going to get richer and richer and richer, whereas employees cannot fight the GST? Is that the policy of this government?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has not understood my answers so far. The wage increases for senior public servants and GIC appointments are exactly the same as those that were given through collective bargaining to all the other employees. It was 4 per cent in 1988, 4.2 per cent in 1989 and that is comparable. I must say that in some groups that were collectively bargained the increases were higher. This is an average. It is an average, though, that applies to everybody.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Finance, or the other minister who is getting up in his place. We do not care whether he says it is 3 per cent or 4 per cent on average. The reality is that some senior people, whether it is the Governor of the Bank of Canada or whether it is CN officials, are receiving 39 per cent more.
Answer the question: Where is the justice in this country? Where is any sense of economic management when you are deliberately giving vast increases to those at the top while telling those who work for a wage, which is all they receive, that they should not negotiate to compensate for the increase in the cost of living which is going to result from the GST coming into place?
May 11, 1990


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, that is precisely the reason why the Burns commission was put into place, to have an independent body in the private sector to make recommendations as to compensation in the upper echelons of the federal public service.
We follow the recommendations of the Burns committee. It is a committee that has served this country well over the years. I believe that what they are doing is seeking equity and fairness in the compensation that we offer our senior executives.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who has repeated several times that the government target for salaries for senior government employees is 4.5 per cent.
The president of CN and other senior executives who got an 18.7 per cent increase are also, as executives of Crown corporations, indirectly employees of the government of Canada.
Jeff Rose, the President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees which represents 377,000 Government of Canada employees, has now said that he is telling his membership to look for an 8 per cent to 9 per cent increase because of the effect of the GST.
Is the minister responsible for the Treasury Board prepared to stand in his place today and tell that president that the government will negotiate that 8 or 9 per cent? Or, will he stand in his place and say that in the current circumstances those salary increases of 18 per cent for CN executives and 28 per cent to 35 per cent for the Governor of the Bank of Canada are immoral, wrong, and an act of hypocrisy and will be turned around in the current climate?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct somewhat the premise of the question. I never talked about a
4.5	per cent target. I talked about what actually happened back in 1988 and 1989. The increase for that group of public servants and GIC appointments in 1988 was 4 per cent and, in 1989, it was 4.2 per cent.
Those are facts. They are not targets, they are not goals. Those are facts. They are well in line with the compensation generally offered to all employees of the
Oral Questions
federal government. That is what we are monitoring, with the help of independent commissions, to ensure that our employees are paid fairly and equitably throughout the system.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Surely the minister will understand that there are, among provincial governments, about
400,000	civil servants in the country. Among federal employees, there are another 250,000 civil servants in the country.
Three-quarters of a million civil servants are being told to forget the impact of the GST and to hold their wage increase expectations at about 4 per cent to 5 per cent, at a time when the minister and the government are doling out 18 per cent taxpayer-dollar-increases to senior executives of the CN and, the greatest act of hypocrisy, a 35 per cent increase to the Governor of the Bank of Canada who wants to fight inflation on everybody else's back but his own.
Will the government call in the board of directors of both the Bank of Canada and CN, and direct that those wage increases be rolled back to be consistent with what ordinary Canadians are expected to bear in this time of fighting inflation?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite talks about wage settlements in the provincial sector, in other government sectors, or in the private sector. We have no lessons to take from the group opposite. We have the best record of anybody in the country in exercising responsible wage management and negotiations. We have the lowest rate of wage increases in the public sector and, in comparison to the private sector, we have been doing very well indeed.


PORTS CANADA
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the unconscionable expenses of the patronage appointees to the board of directors of Ports Canada.
Documents recently obtained from the Department of Transport detailed an absolute orgy of arrogance and abuse, with some directors claiming as much as $35,000

May 11, 1990
Oral Questions
over a period of three months on trips to conventions in Florida and high-priced wining and dining.
How can the minister possibly justify this blatant abuse of taxpayers' money at the very time the government is telling Canadians to tighten their belts and to do with less? How can he possibly justify that?


Hon. Kini Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take the question on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Transport, who is unable to be here today.
I am advised that the Canada Ports Corporation Board consists of 17 members who, in fact, live in all parts of the country and who are responsible for promoting the use of Canada's major ports. They need to travel extensively to attend board and other meetings and to perform that function of promoting Canada's ports.
Funding for their travel comes from funds provided from the revenues of Canada's major ports, which made a profit last year of $43 million.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I might as well direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board, because the Minister of Finance collects it and the President of the Treasury Board spends it.
In response to public outcry at these outrageous expenses, a member of the board said: "Ports Canada made between $50 million and $60 million in profits last year. Unlike other corporations, this one is successful. We can't nickel and dime ourselves."
Has the minister ordered an internal audit into the board's behaviour? In the interim, will the minister issue a set of guidelines to stop this blatant squandering of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to make undertakings in the House on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Transport, but I would be happy to convey to him the hon. member's opinion of these events and his sense of outrage.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I must say that you would not know that the last people who put wage and price controls and wage freezes into effect in the country were the Liberals.

However, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in Quebec, the minister said he had a hundred good reasons for raising the GST. Will the minister make a commitment now that he will not raise the GST? Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I find myself in the unusual position of being able to associate myself fully with the first part of the preamble to the hon. member's question where he expressed surprise at the feigned outrage of the Liberal Party on the matters that have been put before the House today.
On the question of the GST rate, I have responded to that in response to a member from the Liberal Party. That matter came up in the context of what other countries had done. I pointed out that other countries had raised the rate for a number of reasons. Some of them related to spending increases and some of them related to a completely offsetting reduction in their income tax rates. A number of countries, 18,1 believe it is, have made practically no change in their value-added tax rates.
But the underlying point that I made in relation to Canada-and I want to stress this very strongly-is that no government in the future is going to be able to increase the rate on the GST without being able to lay before the Canadian people, in a very clear way, some substantive reasons to support any change in the rate. At this point, we have no intentions whatsoever of making any change in that rate.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for being onside with my preliminary comments. I just wish that he had not voted with the Liberals in favour of the six and five program in the past.
The minister and the Bank of Canada have both been trying to sell Canadians on the GST, saying that the tax will have just a one-shot impact on inflation. Does the minister not realize that by refusing any guarantee
May 11, 1990

yesterday he destroys that argument? Does he not see that refusing a guarantee and refusing to say to Canadians that he will not raise the goods and services tax will lead to the very inflationary spiral that he says he wants to avoid?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend could contribute to ensuring that the GST rate does not go up in the future by supporting the government on the various proposals to control government spending that it has been making from time to time for the last number of years. Tax rates are related to government spending. If the New Democratic Party was at all concerned about the level of tax rates, it would not be so outrageously irresponsible in proposing increases in spending.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that student tuition fees and student debt have been growing throughout Canada at an alarming rate.
Now that the minister has received representations from credible national organizations, such as the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Canadian School Trustees' Council, the Canadian Federation of Students, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, pointing out the extremely destructive effects of the goods and services tax on education, will he eliminate the education tax that he is about to impose?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, there is no tax on education. There is no GST on educational services. That is a simple part of the legislation.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I find it increasingly surprising that these credible national organizations disagree with the minister, but that is another question.

Madam Speaker, since the minister refuses to eliminate the GST on education, is he prepared to cancel the
Oral Questions
cuts in transfers to the provinces for education, the same cuts he and the Prime Minister refused to touch? Will he cancel these cuts?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I find it very hard to confirm for the hon. member that I will remove a tax that has not been applied. Can he tell me where the tax is applied on educational services-


Some hon. members:: On books.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and then we can talk about it. But educational services are not subject to the goods and services tax.
The hon. member has made reference to the transfer payments that we make to the provinces. The transfer payments to the provinces will increase in this coming year in total by 3 per cent. That is exactly the same rate of increase for the total program spending for the Government of Canada. So, we are not asking the provinces to do anything more than what we are prepared to do ourselves.
I would also say that the impact of the changes in the transfer payments to the provinces that were announced in the last budget amounts to less than 1 per cent of their total revenues in year one and a little over 1 per cent in year two. Surely, in the interest of meeting the broad national objective of getting the deficit down, the provinces can adjust to that small amount of reduction in their expected growth of their revenues.


RAILWAY SAFETY
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the beleaguered Minister of Transport. I do not know who will answer on the other side today.
The government's blind drive to deregulate the transportation industry has created problems. A Canadian Press story this week indicates that CN's sloppy inspections permitted a rail car full of dangerous acid to travel from Sarnia to Montreal, not once, but twice. Thousands of Canadians were put at risk, including residents of Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall, to name but a few.

May 11, 1990
Oral Questions
What has the minister done to halt these breaches of the regulations?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice on behalf of the hon. Minister of Transport.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the National Transportation Agency decried CN's inspections and called for a study of railway freight safety across Canada.
Since this recommendation came from an agency headed by his former colleague, the hon. Erik Nielsen, will the Minister of Transport act now to protect Canadians from the foolhardy policies that the government insists on pursuing?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, God forbid that, by taking a question as notice, I should prevent the hon. member from having the full benefit of his supplementary. I can assure him that the goals that he suggested are the first priority of this government and I will be pleased to communicate his concerns to my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


ABORTION
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Seventeen constitutional legal experts from law schools across the country have clearly pointed out that the minister's legal justification for the abortion bill is seriously flawed. They have called it legal nonsense and they say the bill creates no entitlement whatsoever to abortion in the country.
Will the minister take the advice of the majority of legal experts in this country on the constitutionality and the appropriateness of this criminal legislation, and will she withdraw Bill C-43?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 is before the House. I have no intention of withdrawing it. I would be very pleased to take issue with the report of the legal opinions which was in The Globe and Mail earlier this week. Perhaps the hon. member would like to refer herself to my comments before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General yesterday where I did so.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, these constitutional legal scholars have sent these opinions to the minister. They are from Osgoode Hall, McGill, Western, UBC, the University of Ottawa and the University of Victoria, and they are all telling the minister, in very strong terms, that she is wrong with this legislation. Will she at least refer Bill C-43 to the Supreme Court of Canada?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the opinions that were proffered-and I have only seen the report in the newspaper about them-did not relate to the constitutionality of this bill at all. According to the newspaper report, they related to the interpretation that I made of their effect with respect to the possibility of provinces to legislate.
I would also point out that the article in The Globe and Mail indicated that one of the opinions solicited happened, in fact, to agree with me. I am not aware of the circumstances under which the opinions were solicited or how the question was framed.
I would also point out that the chairman of the Law Reform Commission of Canada agreed with my interpretation of the effect of the law.
One of the delightful things about being a lawyer is that there is an unlimited number of legal opinions that one can put forward. All statements with respect to the future impact of Bill C-43-and I reiterate again that the issue was not its constitutionality but its impact on the scope of legislation that would then be permitted to the provinces-are, by definition or their very essence, speculative because they will not be resolved until the matter goes before the courts.
I would conclude by saying that in one of the paragraphs of the article-and I am sorry I do not have the clipping with me-it states that the legal academics agree that provincial legislation will be struck down where it is found to be in conflict with the federal law or intended to subvert the intent of a federal criminal law. That was, in fact, the essence of my view and I stand by it.


PACKAGING AND LABELLING
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Canadian manufacturers at the retail
May 11, 1990

level are required to comply with the labelling and packaging act to provide bilingual and metric packaging. Yet American firms are accessing the Canadian market with labels in English only and without metric.
Canadian companies are caught in an unfair situation which will only worsen under free trade and the removal of tariffs. Why will this government not protect Canadian manufacturers from importers who are not complying with the Canadian law?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, indeed people have complained several times that imports were treated differently. I must say that since then, with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, we have set up teams to ensure that these products from abroad comply with Canadian laws. We are improving the situation, but our market is increasingly global. Things like that can happen. But I can assure you that since the manufacturers' association and the retailers' association communicated with us, we have taken measures at the border with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to deal with the situation, which has improved since then, Madam Speaker.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, the minister should know that in a letter of April 17 the national organizations which are in place to protect the Canadian retailers are saying it is not working. The minister should know that customs officers do not go around opening boxes at the border to look at the packaging and labelling on the products. They only check to make sure the proper papers are filled out.
Canadian manufacturers are fed up with spending money to conform with the act while their American counterparts are ignoring it. Is it not time this law was enforced? Is it not time that this government stood up for Canada instead of the United States?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I clearly stated a moment ago that obviously, in a situation like this, where Canada wants to increase foreign trade and open its borders so that our own people, our own manufacturers can sell abroad, such situations can at times occur when products enter our country. But we must not set up new non-tariff barriers and start harassing people at the border again. We must
Oral Questions
ensure that the law and regulations are clearly enforced. We have an interdepartmental committee that worked on it. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and officials from my own department met the manufacturers and retailers to explain the situation to them. We are taking the required action at the border. We enforce the law every day. But you must understand that we are in a free market, where borders are losing their significance all the time. That must be understood, Madam Speaker. We have no choice.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since the charges were laid against Michel Gravel, and up until today, the government has stonewalled on important and proper questions relating to the way this government does business.
It is now settled that Gravel took the money but the government has covered up on two serious questions, what Gravel did for the money and what Gravel did with the money. This week this cover-up has come unstuck. Is the government now prepared to answer these two questions?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General responded to a question similar to that yesterday. The hon. member knows that normal processes will be followed. The RCMP has indicated that it would be looking into these statements.
In terms of the broader area, the contracting procedures are clearly established. There are Treasury Board guidelines. These issues are examined on an annual basis by the Auditor General. There are the respective standing committees. There are the checks and balances.

May 11, 1990
Oral Questions
If the hon. member has anything specific in mind, perhaps he should come clean and say what he has on his mind.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will say what I have on my mind. Is it the position of the government that the only way we will find out what Gravel did for and with the money is if it involves criminal activity?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making a lot of assumptions and that is why it is very difficult and very inappropriate for me to make any comment. The RCMP is investigating this matter. Why would the hon. member want to interfere with the process of the RCMP investigation?


HOUSING
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. A week ago I asked the minister whether he had made representations to the Minister of Finance concerning the devastating impact of high interest rates on housing construction. Since then, additional information has come forward showing a sharp decline in construction and a further reduction in the application for building permits.
Why is the minister sacrificing the residential construction industry and home buyers? Why is he content to let the industry twist in the wind?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, quite clearly housing starts are down but they are down to levels which are still 50 per cent higher than when this government took office in 1984. They are still at a very substantial level, just under
200,000	a year. That certainly is anything but the devastating picture that the hon. member is trying to paint.
Quite frankly, there is no question that housing starts have levelled off, but they are certainly still well above figures from the past and 50 per cent above the figures when the government took office.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, the minister knows very well that once the housing industry shuts down it takes another year to get it started again.
Yesterday in the finance committee I put a question to Mr. Crow concerning the impact of high interest rates on housing. In his answer it became evident that the government fully intends to continue with its high interest rate policy.
In view of that, what plans has the minister of housing for preventing a complete collapse of the residential construction industry and therefore a shortage of housing?


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, certainly there is no indication of a complete collapse of the residential housing industry in any way, shape or form. In the last few years there have been some very high prices and very hot markets in housing across the country. The hon. member has been indicating that he feels we should be doing something to control those prices and to keep housing affordable.
It is interesting to note that in the Financial Post today, Frank Clayton, the president of Clayton Research Associates, who is very well known in real estate economic circles, has said that housing prices got so out of whack compared to income that this situation now is a very welcome development for a great many people.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and also concerns the Gravel affair.
We have had many police inquiries into this issue. We have had charges laid and we have had a conviction in the case of Mr. Gravel. We have had convictions in the Brodilaf affair in Drummondville, yet the evidence has never come out.
Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not consent now to a full royal commission of inquiry into the contracting procedures of the government between 1984 and 1988 as I have been asking for in this House for the last four years?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member has a charge or an allegation which he can substantiate, why does he not come clean and lay it on the table with the appropriate consequences?
May 11, 1990

Oral Questions
I indicated to the hon. member that the contracting procedures are clearly established. Treasury Board guidelines are clearly established. These things are examined by the Auditor General. Parliamentarians have the opportunity to examine all of this through the respective committees.
Why does the hon. member not do his homework and expose whatever he has before a parliamentary committee? He has that source available to him. Why does he not go to work on it, rather than sling the kind of innuendo that he is suggesting here in the House?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, with respect, it is not a matter of my making charges. People have entered pleas of guilt and have been convicted. That is not the issue.

I should like to direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier he told my colleague from York Centre that the RCMP are investigating this case.
Yesterday outside the House of Commons the Solicitor General indicated that the RCMP are checking the evidence to see whether an investigation is warranted. Yes or no, is there an investigation? Is this not proof that the minister himself blames others instead of doing his job?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, why does the hon. member not let the RCMP do its work? As the Solicitor General indicated to the House yesterday, they are checking into this matter and they will obviously take whatever action is necessary. Why does the hon. member insist on interfering with the process of the RCMP?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There will be a single question by the hon. member for Carleton- Gloucester and a single question by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


BILINGUAL LABELLING OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
For at least two years now, Consumer and Corporate Affairs officials have been dragging their feet about the labelling issue. Canada does have labelling legislation to ensure that labels are in both languages, English and French. They must also indicate the contents of products for sale.
We are importing ever more products from the United States, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Would the hon. member put his question, please.


Eugène Bellemare: I want to know what the minister intends to do in the immediate future about labelling and the labelling legislation which is being ignored by Americans who have been marketing their products in Canada for some time now.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I have somewhat already replied to this question earlier. We should not overlook the fact that Canadians are above all the retailers involved in the distribution of these goods in Canada.
As I said earlier to your colleague, my predecessor met last fall with the people involved in the retailing business. It is not easy in a country where there is such a free movement of goods from coast to coast, across the borders, and even from Europe and Asia, to stop each and every item when entering Canada.
We have met whit the presidents and CEOs of the various organizations involved in the distribution of goods and we have informed them of the Canadian legislation and regulations. Together with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, we have reinforced these measures and I can tell you that we have already seen an improvement in the situation since last fall and we will keep up our improve it further.
That is what I can tell my hon. friend and I think that people in the end will benefit from these measures.

May 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.
While the Minister of Finance argues for wage and price restraint to combat inflation, we find that the top five executives of Canada's Crown owned Canadian National received wage increases of 19 per cent last year.
CN President, Ron Lawless, got the smallest increase of $41,000. That is an entire year's salary for an ordinary Canadian. My question to the minister is: How can the minister justify these outrageous, fat-cat salary increases for the corporate executives of CN while, at the same time, getting ready to kick ordinary Canadians in the teeth both with the GST and with the possibility of wage and price controls?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I believe I answered that same question about five times today.
I would like to repeat briefly for my hon. colleague who wants to have a specific answer that, in terms of the top management of the Public Service and the Crown corporations-the Deputy Ministers and the GIC appointments-wage increases for 1988 were 4 per cent, and for 1989 were 4.2, well in line with wage increases in the Public Service of Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Department of Justice for the year 1988-89.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA
A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada for 1988-89.


PETITIONS
Barry D. Moore: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions numbered as follows: 342-5928, 342-5932, 342-5937, 342-5958 and 342-5968.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STRIKING


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fortieth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT


Barry D. Moore: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-34, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, with amendments.
May 11, 1990



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, without amendment.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings for the above-mentioned reports.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition certified correct as to form and content for members and friends of Branch 128 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Sydney.
In part it states that the government of Canada has introduced changes that will reduce homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the costs of long-term care, and whereas the veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have petitions signed by hundreds of individuals in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace who strongly oppose the goods and services tax which they say is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment and they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and service tax.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity- Spadina):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 36 it is my honour and duty to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians in Toronto, Thornhill, Oakville, Huntsville, Willowdale, Minden, Bramalea, Scarborough and other places, including Vancouver, who are asking Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador to stop the use of their lands for NATO-NO-RAD attack training, to demand that the low-level flight
Routine Proceedings
training for NATO and NORAD in Canada cease, and to oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed tactical fighter and weapons training centre at Goose Bay.
They ask that Parliament redirect Canada's NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal people to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and toward promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I actually have three sets of petitions here, all dealing with the goods and services tax. The first highlights the bad or poor planning by the government. They oppose it as an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians which will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment. They call on the government to reject this tax. I have hundreds of signatures in that regard.
The second group of petitions I have, again with respect to the goods and services tax, come from the occupational therapists, the physiotherapists, the social service workers, the speech language pathologists and ideologists who feel that it is unconscionable to put a health care services tax, in the form of a goods and services tax, anywhere in public institutions or in the private sector in those areas.
The third set I have relates to the industry of books, magazines, and newspapers. The fact is that for over 120 years it has been the cornerstone of our democracy, culture, education and literature and has been not taxed. They reaffirm the historic principles embodied in a free tax status for printed word and ask the government to please ensure that it retains the zero rate in the GST legislation for these regulations.

May 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Last is a call to a large gathering here on the Hill this Saturday at noon. Please bring your concerns to the attention of this government. Hopefully it will listen.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by Canadians who are calling on the government to scrap the goods and services tax and are calling all other Canadians to join them in a rally on Parliament Hill tomorrow at noon to protest the goods and services tax.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present this petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the goods and services tax, particularly the high unemployment, higher prices and higher interest rates which will be created according to the government's own documents. The petitioners, of course, can voice their concern here on the Hill tomorrow afternoon against this terrible tax.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present several hundred signatures in opposition to the goods and services tax.
I think it is worth noting that these petitions come from Canadians in a variety of circumstances. A number of them are from seniors on low incomes, modest income tenants, very high income home owners, several dozen are from the riding of the Minister of Supply and Services, and a number of others are from small businesses.
It is my pleasure to remind all these people who filled in these petitions to come to Parliament Hill tomorrow at noon, Saturday, May 12, to protest.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by a variety of people from different municipalities in the greater Ottawa area.
These people are resentful of being taxed to death and they want to give Parliament a message. They also ask Parliament to stop wasting our tax dollars and to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of a number of residents in the Outaouais region,
petitions that were circulated by residents. Your petitioners ask Canadian taxpayers to join them in a demonstration on the Hill tomorrow, at noon. They are fiercely opposed to the GST and ask that the bill be withdrawn.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition under Standing Order 36 certified correct as to form and content.
One hundred and twenty-five Canadians are expressing their opposition to the goods and services tax, calling upon the government to eliminate waste as a way of cutting back on the need to raise more money, and further inviting people to come to the rally on the Hill tomorrow at noon.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Vancouver, New Westminster and Coquitlam, British Columbia.
These Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax and have signed the petition and sent it to the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for presentation in this House.
I am pleased to present this petition calling for Parliament to reject the goods and services tax. I am sure if these Canadians could fly to Ottawa, they would want to be at the rally on Saturday to protest this tax on the lawn of Parliament Hill.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by people from Ottawa, Nepean, Aylmer, and some of the communities surrounding the Ottawa-Nepean area. These people are very concerned with the imposition of a goods and services tax. Their statement says that they are fed up with government waste eating up their tax dollar. These people will also be on the Hill at noon tomorrow where there will be a rally for people who oppose the goods and services tax.
I invite all my constituents of Nepean to join me. I will be here for sure.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, first of all, I have heard the last number of petitions from the


May 11, 1990

Liberal caucus on the GST. I found it quite interesting, especially since the Liberal majority in the Senate allowed the GST to go through in principle at second reading just a week ago. I always find it curious how Liberals say one thing in one House and do the opposite where they have a majority in the other House.
My petition relates to the fact that the government has cut back core funding for the women's committees across this country. I believe that we not only need reinstatement of this money for this year, but we must have reinstatement for a number of years in the future. We call upon the government to provide long term guaranteed funding for these very necessary centres right across this country.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from several Canadians asking that we cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform, pointing out that now haircuts will be taxed, diapers will be taxed, heating fuels will be taxed, not to mention one of our most sacred things of all; reading.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Barry D. Moore: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 268.


Mr. Funk: For each year from 1985 to 1988, did taxpayers who claimed farm losses against off-farm income have their farm losses restricted under section 31 of the Income Tax Act and, if so (a) what number (b) what was the average amount of reassessment (c) did any of them file objections to reassessments and, if so (i) what number (ii) what number were successful in having their farm losses allowed as a result (d) did any of them appeal their cases to the Tax Court and, if so (i) what number (ii) what number were successful in their appeal?
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: (a) (b) For the taxation years 1985 to 1988, 393 taxpayers who claimed farm losses against off-farm income had their losses restricted under the provisions of section 31 of the Income Tax Act. The average amount of reassessment per year and number of returns reas-
1 were	as follows;	
	($)	t of returns (1)
1985	8,382	3291986	15,513	2001987	36,772	931988	265,248	17
(1) (many of the 393 taxpayers adjusted had more than 1 year reassessed)
* (c) Number of Objections Received:	256**
Results of Objection: Allowed in full	78
Allowed in part	56
Withdrawn by Taxpayer	33
Late filed	14
Confirmed	131 312**
i Appeals to the Tkx Court		58*'
Decisions of the "Ihx Court:		
Judgements: Favour of the Taxpayer	10	
Favour of the Minister	35	
Allowed in part	3	48
Consent Judgements:		
Favour of the Taxpayer	3	
Allowed in part	9	12
Appeals Withdrawn by	5	
Taxpayer		
Appeals quashed	2	67**
*	Statistics dealing with Objections & Appeals only cover the period January 1,1989, to March 31, 1990, due to availability.
*	* The difference in the number of Objections and Appeals received
and the number disposed of results from inventory on hand prior to January 1, 1989.

May 11, 1990
Government Orders


Barry D. Moore: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question mentioned by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to Questions on the Order Paper.
On March 9, 1990 a question of mine was answered in part. It related to the business done with certain legal firms which had Conservative senators as members of those firms.
The nature of answers given in this House are very important. If I can read from the answer given on March 9, 1990, at page 9063 of Hansard it states that the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office did work with a law firm January 21, 1988. The amount of the bill for professional servies was $24,862.86. That was information given in this House.
Since then we have tried to get that particular bill through access to information, and we have been told in writing that the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office do not have those documents.
How can that information be given in the House of Commons, saying that these documents exist and that that is the amount of the billing, and at the same time or later on we can be told by the PCO that it does not have these documents?
I would like to have the parliamentary secretary look into that point. We understand the importance of Questions on the Order Paper. They must have accurate and the information we are given must be complete. The same applies to access to information. When we get two completely different answers, it is obviously something which concerns this House very much.


Barry D. Moore: Madam Speaker, I will pass on the hon. member's remarks to the government House leader. We will return to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At eleven o'clock there were nine minutes remaining in the intervention of the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the minister refused to add a preamble as a context for Bill C-18. He also refused our amendments, stating that the department and the minister are responsible for implementation of the multiculturalism act. The minister has the duty to work toward the elimination of racism and discrimination in all aspects of Canadian life.
In a later section referring to implementation of employment equity for minorities, a Liberal amendment to establish a commissioner of multiculturalism and our alternate proposal to monitor through the Human Rights Commission also were turned down. At report stage we tried again to include more limited amendments, and once again the minister refused them and offered no improvements himself. Ironically he brought in 100 Tories to vote down my simple definition of multiculturalism.
Because the government resisted any improvements to Bill C-18 and offered no improvements itself and because of budget cuts for funding of multicultural programs which have taken place over the last year, we can only conclude that the government is interested in token political gestures toward multiculturalism. A new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will have no real clout to implement multicultural policy, and the minister will have no influence in cabinet or with other colleagues to influence necessary changes because there was nothing added to this bill to give it teeth and to give a clear mandate to the minister.
May 11, 1990

We were told by the minister that the new department will have no additional resources but merely will have present personnel transferred from the Department of Secretary of State. It will have responsibility for literacy and voluntary action as well as human rights, multicul-turalism and citizenship, which is quite a tall order. Although there would be the cost of a new director and support staff, we wonder where this funding is coming from in as much as community groups have been cut back so drastically.
This refusal to improve Bill C-18 has been disappointing to us. It must have been even more disillusioning to persons who are working in front-line programs and as advocates for a strengthened multicultural policy in Canada.
Over the past year since this bill was introduced there have been severe cut-backs in funding to advocacy groups, a discontinuation of the citizen instruction and language training program, and a complete emasculation of heritage language programs which are basic to the transmission of culture. A federal funding total of $4.1 million was removed from these programs. These are programs that teach 60 different heritage languages to
140,000	in 850 community schools across Canada.
At the same time, ironically, the minister of trade was given $14 million to try to teach Pacific Rim languages to adults. Does this make any kind of sense? Does this show that the multicultural minister has clout to get money for languages? Indeed it does not, and it bodes very poorly for a future department.
However, I would like to commend the minister for one thing he has done. He has consistently stated that funds for race relations programs are his priority, and I agree. This is an urgent concern in Canada. I only wish that he would support existing groups that have this as their goal.
Why has he refused funding for advocacy groups and refused the request of 40 organizations for funding of a media watch project that was deliberately targeted to deal with racism, images and so on in the media, which is very important in this field? Why has he instead decided generously to fund a politically appointed advisory com-
Govemment Orders
mittee? Why has he very secretly, recently through his personal staff, set up a new hand-picked race relations network, which is competing with existing groups?
It was evident in the comments of the spokesman for the minister this morning that this government and this minister are threatened by advocacy groups who have in their mandate an obligation to try and work toward the improvement and the implementation of multicultural policy and the elimination of racism. They think that if they establish new groups, appoint their own political appointees, have complete control over what they say, and have everyone say "yes, yes, you have wonderful programs, to the minister", this is the way to go. This is no commitment to democracy. It is certainly not a sound way to operate a multiculturalism department. I do not know what the minister is afraid of.
The first annual report of the Multiculturalism Act which was tabled a couple of months ago is disappointing. It describes various multicultural programs quite adequately, but it does not really get at the meat of the operation of the Multiculturalism Act, which is to try to influence and change federal policies and the policies of federal departments and institutions, to promote greater equality, to promote the elimination of systemic discrimination, and to promote multiculturalism. This is the main goal of the Multicultural Act. There is nothing in that report that allows us to know what has been done between departments or with federal institutions, if anything at all has been done.
The minister of a new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship should be the lead minister to act as a catalyst to bring about institutional and attitudinal change in all our government systems. This is what we want. It is analogous to the role of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women whose job it is to monitor and promote sexual equality in all aspects that come under federal jurisdiction. This is the kind of thing that should have been spelled out in Bill C-18.
Several examples over the past year come to mind where the minister could have influenced public policy and institutional change in government. I do not think he took an active enough stand. The first was multiculturalism in the media. We had a number of incidents brought forward of concerns about stereotyping and the insensi-

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
tivity, particularly of the CBC Crime Connection program and Disparaitre on Radio Canada.
Did the minister or his staff do anything constructive to get to these networks and to CRTC to make sure that we have a better way of monitoring and ensuring multiculturalism in the media?
The question of hatred propaganda. The minister spoke out against racist pins from Alberta, but he really did nothing to meet with ministers to bring in new legislation or tougher restrictions under the Criminal Code. I doubt if he talked to the Attorney General about the question of Sikhs and turbans in the RCMR
The question of an advocacy role, a pro-active role by the minister in entrenching multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canada in our Constitution, is vital. The minister should have been out front and foremost to do something about this matter.
Also I referred to employment equity. The minister's own department is lacking in this regard since it has only one visible minority person in a senior position.
I would like to go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but you are telling me that my time is up. I wish I had more time to talk about citizenship. I want to say we are very disappointed in this bill. We are disappointed in the defensiveness of the minister who was completely inflexible and would not bring in any changes of his own. We wanted a strong department of citizenship and multiculturalism.
Bill C-18 could have been an effective vehicle to promote a truly multicultural Canada with equality for all Canadians. We regret that it is so limited. We will not oppose this bill because we want a department. We hope in future years it will be improved, but we cannot endorse this very unsatisfactory bill with any enthusiasm at all.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. I know that she speaks with a great deal of passion and understanding of the issues of multiculturalism and racism in Canada.
I would like the member to make some comments on what she had hoped would be-


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
This morning, when the minister's parliamentary secretary spoke to Bill C-18, the Chair said there would be a period for questions and comments, but when she realized there was no question period at the third reading stage, she interrupted me immediately.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that there are no questions and comments at third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lopez):: The hon. member may now proceed with questions and comments for the hon. member who just made her speech. The hon. member has the floor.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I actually regret that there was no opportunity to ask questions of the representative of the government because it certainly was not a very bold declaration of the government's commitment to multiculturalism in this country.
My question to the member concerns her remarks. I would like her to expand on what she hoped would be forthcoming in this legislation as it deals with citizenship.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am particularly glad the member asked this question because I think the government representative really was not presenting the facts as they occurred in committee. I put forward very major proposals in regard to citizenship, and this was in response to concerns of the Canadian Citizenship Federation as well as other groups.
I think it is very important that we deal with multiculturalism within the context of Canadian citizenship and that Canadian citizenship really comes first. It is very important that all people who come to Canada identify with something that is bigger than their own ethnic origin and heritage and this quite often takes some time. We really ought to actively promote and educate people to be able to identify with Canada and Canadian society.
As you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Canadian citizenship we are talking about citizen-
May 11, 1990

ship in a country that is multicultural. That is what is so wonderful and exciting about Canada and I just think it is really sad that the government, first of all in this bill, did not emphasize the citizenship aspect.
I tried to put in a special definition from the Citizenship Act to refer to it. I do not know why the minister objected. I also tried to change the name of the act to put the word "citizenship" before "multiculturalism", calling it the Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act which I believe would give the perception to people that we are all citizens of Canada first, regardless of our specific ethnicity.
I was sorry that this was not a major emphasis in the act. I know we will have the Citizenship Act later and I look forward to that, but I think it is very important that we promote multiculturalism within the framework of Canadian citizenship and that we promote something that is called "Canada" which we all belong to and is common to all of us regardless of our particular ethnic origins.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this particular bill in the House today. I believe that Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship merits our support, but it is flawed.
There are some very real major problems which I would like to identify so that we can do something constructive about them when the opportunity arises.
There is a certain amount of cynicism about the bill. Some people are wondering whether it is a symbolic effort on the part of the government in response to a group of Canadians who have often been denied, and perhaps not treated as equitably or with as much sensitivity as could have been exercised.
Of course Canadians generally are really quite knowledgeable about the smoke and mirror competency of this government on a number of issues. There is often much glitz and puffery in everything that it undertakes. Therefore there is nervousness; there is cynicism. It is really unfortunate because I think fundamentally it is an issue that is particularly important in Canada as we know it today.
I want to review just briefly a bit of history. Both parties are often most anxious to point out Liberal lack
Government Orders
of achievements. I would hope that, before this debate is over, they could commend the Liberal Party for some of the initiatives that it has taken in the past with respect to multiculturalism.
It was in 1971 that the Liberal government introduced a multicultural policy, and I shall quote three of the objectives that were brought forth at that time:
1.	To support all of Canada's cultures, by assisting, resources permitting, the development of interested and needy cultural groups.
2.	To assist members of all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society.
3.	To promote creative cultural encounters and interchange among all groups in the interest of national unity.
It was in 1982 that the Liberals took another first step. At that point in time, the concept of multiculturalism was sufficiently entrenched to warrant recognition in Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution Act, 1982. I think that is a historical moment of some significance.
Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps recall that these Liberal initiatives were congruent with the United Nations subcommittee on the protection of minorities and the prevention of discrimination, a committee that gained prominence because of the human rights issues that were surfacing at the time. The point to be made is that the Liberals undertook some very important initiatives, and this is an attempt to continue to develop those policies. In that sense, they are truly laudable.
As I indicated initially, what has happened is that there is some nervousness out there because people are wondering if this is a symbolic gesture. Why do they ask if it is a symbolic gesture? Everyone who follows the proceedings of the House knows that there have been substantive and substantial cuts in the area of multiculturalism. In light of that fact, why is this being promoted? There is no provision for a commissioner who will ensure that the policy is going to be enforced, that the various initiatives which are going to be undertaken and the objectives that have been set will be realized.
Is it real? Is it serious? Is it really a commitment? Some people will know that there was a rather harsh cut to the citizenship and language instruction agreement. It penalizes new Canadians who want to learn one of our two official languages.

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
Another point that has made people cynical and nervous about this whole initiative is that there have been no changes allowed. If the government is truly serious about this initiative why has it not allowed even a minimum of change?
I should point out, as well, that there is no definition of multiculturalism. When we talk about multiculturalism, are we talking only about people who come to Canada from different language backgrounds? Are we also including people of religious backgrounds?
We all know that there are cultures and various socio-economic groups. For example, the poor have a culture. Are we including the culture of women, men, the elderly, youth, the west, the Atlantic provinces, the north, Quebec, Ontario? What do we mean by "multicultural" or "multiculturalism"? There is a suspicion that it is not known what is meant. There is a further suspicion that it is not even known what culture in itself really is, because we are cognizant that there are many definitions out there.

Is this a purely symbolic gesture? Is this a genuine commitment to a group that deserves some special consideration? Why were cuts made in the budget for multiculturalism? Why is there no definition of the term itself? Why is there no commissioner to ensure the objectives are met and, if they are not met, to ensure these deficiencies are identified so that we, in Parliament, can try to correct them?
Where will we take the staff to fulfill that new department's mandate? Will they be civil servants? I have nothing against that. But will these people have the knowledge needed to enable the department to meet its objectives? The basic question is this: Is this only a token gesture or is it a real initiative? You probably remember the TV add about a certain hamburger chain where the lady was asking: "Where's the beef?" With this bill, many persons ask the same thing: "Where's the beef?"


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to deal with this important legislation the purpose of which is to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Canada has always been a country that has welcomed people from all over the world who come here seeking freedom, peace and properity.
From the very first French, Irish and Scottish immigrants to the post World War arrivals of European immigrants, and the recent waves of Asian nationals, we have all found in this country a place where we can make our dreams come true.
Like thousands of immigrants who have become Canadian citizens, my family and I are very grateful to Canada and Canadians for accepting us as brothers and for allowing us to fully participate in the life of our community, our city, our province and our country.

I feel that the most concrete way in which we can express our gratitude is to pursue an active role in the country we have chosen. We want to see progress toward greater harmony and prosperity. Our objective is to create a Canada which reflects the ideals and ambitions of its citizens.

As a member of one of Canada's ethnic communities, was able, like many others, to bring to this country a wealth of culture, tradition and expertise which undoubtedly contribute to a large extent, not only to the specific character of Canada, but also to its unique social and economic vitality. Clearly, stronger, more vibrant and more dynamic ethnic communities mean a stronger and more productive Canada.
For instance, Canada already benefits from the fact that it can dialogue and negotiate with the rest of the world in both its official languages. But when it taps the linguistic wealth of its cultural communities, it can readily have access to Europe and Asia which are among the most valuable markets in the world.
But in order to achieve the ambitious goal of building a Canada for the 1990s which accurately reflects its citizenry, we must first develop a successful dialogue, not only among the founding nations of this country but also its various cultural communities which, over the years, have contributed to the richness of the Canadian mosaic.
May 11, 1990

Mr. Speaker, this dialogue between the various components of our society must be based on mutual knowledge and understanding of our diversity, and even our difference.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) expressed this notion so well when he said that there is no majority in Canada anymore, and that one way or another, we are all members of a minority.
Once we have perceived and accepted this reality, it becomes much easier to develop a cultural dialogue and to accept others as equals.
Fighting racism, harmonizing diversity, developing a consensus in spite of differences, providing real equal opportunities represent tough challenges for any country or people.
A recent study done in the United States shows that, despite the noble battles fought by great black leaders such as Martin Luther King and our perception of progress, racism is almost as prevalent today as in the sixties. In some regards, it may be less visible than when segregation was legal but its practical consequences remain about the same. Unfortunately, Canada is far from immune from this social cancer.
By the year 2000, three Montrealers out of five will be of ethnic background. We are already almost half and half. It means that Canadians of every origin, particularly those living in large centres, must quickly adapt their mentality and behaviour to the reality of minorities, especially visible minorities.
It will take time, energy and above all tolerance.
We also need moral and political leadership. We are no longer satisfied with symbolic gestures, token appointments and bandaid solution.

The present government has clearly not understood Canada's multicultural reality of the 1980s and understands even less the coming reality of the 1990s. Despite the electoral promises of 1984 and 1988, the situation today has not improved. The lack of government direction has produced nothing but stagnation, confusion,
Government Orders
and, in my opinion, a deterioration which will sooner or later heighten social agitation.

In order to enhance its image vis-a-vis the cultural communities, the government has tabled a bill on multi-culturalism.
Instead of giving multiculturalism the same support as that given to bilingualism by the Official Languages Act, the bill introduced by this government merely sets the legislative framework for existing programs and extends the principles of multiculturalism to the various governmental branches.
This fooled no one, neither Canadians nor the representatives of our cultural communities.
The Tories are looking for the ethnic vote, but their lack of vision of a strong, united and multicultural country is obvious. This government is putting through a bill regarding multiculturalism and establishing a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship while, at the same time, making cutbacks in the heritage language programs.
How can multiculturalism be promoted in Canada when the means to achieve that goal are been cut?
It is the same with official languages. The government introduced and amended an existing act but did not implement the regulations, making the act inoperative.
The Conservative Party is nothing but a political party, a government without vision, without a cause and with no backbone.

The same half-hearted approach was taken by the government in the area of appointments. With seemingly impressive numbers, the government claims to have treated cultural minorities well in this regard. However, looking closely at the appointments, they have been at low levels in crown corporations and the bureaucracy, and often in strictly advisory organizations.
Canada's cultural communities deserve better. To everyone's benefit, we should be able to find Canadians of ethnic backgrounds involved in all sectors, in decisionmaking roles at the highest levels of the bureaucracy, right up to the presidency of crown corporations.

May 11, 1990
Government Orders

Everything has yet to be done. And we certainly cannot rely on the conservative government to expand on the measure. It has proven its incapacity to see the changes in our society and to respond fairly and with compassion to the needs of Canadians of all origins.

I am proud to be Canadian, and I am proud to be a part of a cultural community. I am also proud to be associated with a political party which has always been conscious of Canada's multicultural reality and which has never hesitated to reinforce and develop the role of our communities in the Canadian mosaic.
Canada is a multicultural society made up of native peoples, francophones, anglophones, and ethnocultural groups and all institutions should reflect this.
When I see the current discord on both sides of the language issue it makes me sad. My Canada is a generous, tolerant, and compassionate country. If the language and the culture of the French minority in Canada and of the English minority in Quebec cannot be preserved and promoted, how can we expect that the ethnic languages and cultures will be preserved and promoted. Every time we attack and diminish the value of multiculturalism we increase assimilation and that is not the Canadian way of life.
Canada is a model society in the world, the best country in the world. Regardless of our origins, let us work to keep this country together, living together and recognizing and accepting our differences. It is the way the rest of the world will live in the year 2000. We should work toward that objective and give our example to the world as we have for the last 150 years.

Madam Speaker, Canada stands for tolerance, generosity and compassion. Canadians can live together in spite of their differences.
This new department must promote Canadian unity and the Canadian way of life if Canada is to survive.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his very eloquent and moving speech, as a Canadian, about
Canada, his country and my country. He mentioned several things and I agreed with much of what he said.
One of the things he talked about that I was particularly interested in political band-aids and that some of the multicultural activities of the government seem to be, what I would call, tokenism and looking for the ethnic vote. He also said that the situation is worsening. I wonder if he would elaborate on that.
I know, from the point of view of racism and discrimination, that we have had increasing concerns over the last year. There have been quite a number of incidents of this nature. There was concern expressed today in Statements Pursuant to S. O. 31 about some of the attacks on Jews in various parts of the world.
Here in Canada, we had such a strong protest against allowing Sikhs to enter the RCMP. They have a religious symbol which is very important to them, which is their turban. We had racist pins being circulated and other paraphernalia from Alberta. We had a number of very tragic, long-term cases revealed. One was the Donald Marshall case and there was another case in Winnipeg of discrimination against native people. There are many other things. Certainly in the Indo-Canadian community there have been concerns as well, the rise of the skinheads being one.
I would think these are symptoms that there is tension in Canada. The government, in many ways, has tolerated this and allowed it to escalate. I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on this, along with any other solutions he could suggest.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's compliments and I thank her for allowing me to develop my thoughts on this question.
Canada is a mosaic. The only way to succeed is for us to accept our differences, to recognize our cultural traditions and differences, and to try to live together in harmony. For 150 years this country has stayed together, but lately we have a serious problem. I do not want to enter into the Meech Lake Accord debate because I think it divides us and I would like to speak on things that unite us.
For example, a couple of weeks ago on a national television program, The Journal, I saw people walking on the Quebec flag, burning things, and saying things. When we show that on national television, there is an impact. I know that makes news and the journalists are looking for very appealing events. But many people who watched that program were given the impression that English
May 11, 1990

Canada thinks that way toward French Canada. I strongly believe that that is wrong.
The government says: "We do not have to give CBC a unity mandate." We have to find something to keep the country together and we should use our institutions like the CBC. The departments need a goal to keep the country together which is not an easy thing.
It is almost the year 2000 and we can see what is happening in the Soviet Union and Europe. We are already together. In order to succeed, and to continue to give an example to the rest of the world with our way of living together-celebrating our differences and loving the same country, with different perspectives and different priorities-we should all be Canadians. I believe that the government has to show the leadership.
For political reasons, the government has not shown the leadership needed to keep the country together. We have no cause. Why should Canada stay together? We have to show leadership. We cannot keep the country together only by economic aid. There has to be a reason to be Canadian. Quebec should not stay within Confederation because only it benefits economically. If that is the only reason for Quebec staying in Confederation, one day or another, when Quebec has a stronger economy, it will say: "Canada, we do not need you anymore. We are going to leave."
To stay together, Canada has to have a cause. It has to represent something and, as national politicians, the federal government has to give that kind of message and show leadership. That is the only way we can achieve national unity in the country.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and support the principle of Bill C-18.
At the outset, I would like to make perfectly clear that, because of the refusal of the minister to entertain reasonable improvements to the proposed legislation during committee debates, I have some serious concerns about the adequacy of the legislation.
The bill establishes a new department of multicultur-alism and citizenship following the earlier Canadian Multiculturalism Act which, in itself, establishes objectives for multiculturalism policy in Canada. Although the new department will have the power over most matters
Government Orders
relating to multiculturalism and citizenship, and also the responsibility to enforce implementation of our multicultural policy, the proposed legislation is lacking in many specifics.
My colleagues and I reluctantly support Bill C-18. We whole-heartedly support the principle, but we do feel that the current legislation fails to adequately address the need for a true and vital program of multiculturalism in Canada. That has been a policy of the New Democratic Party for some time.
The bill requires specific improvements imperative in order to establish an agency that would carry out the objectives of the federal policy on multiculturalism. There are several concerns which we continue to have about the particulars of the legislation, such as the questionable ability of the new department to carry out its mandate and objectives.
For example, the present staff members who are to be transferred from the Department of the Secretary of State are simply insufficient to carry out the expanded responsibilities of this new department with its enhanced mandate. Extra staff members with very diverse backgrounds will be needed. It is imperative that staff members who are hired are sensitive to the dynamics of Canada's cultural mosaic.
It is critical that there are sufficient funds available for the deployment of those community-based multicultural programs. If not, then the new department will simply be a form of window-dressing, another example of political tokenism which has been the hallmark of this administration.
My colleague from Vancouver East has spoken eloquently about the cuts and about the needs which are not addressed in this present bill. For example, multicultural organizations have been cut over a three-year period, I believe, by some 50 per cent.
We were very concerned to hear that funds for the citizenship instruction and languages textbook program had been slashed by 50 per cent in 1989, and that the program is slated to be eliminated this year.
These are government initiatives that are simply going in the opposite direction. They are the antithesis of a strong multiculturalism policy.

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
The minister knows full well that the act states the obligation to promote an understanding of the value of Canadian citizenship, and to encourage the participation in the social, cultural, political and economic life of Canada. But how can the minister promote these lofty ideals when his government has in fact slashed the very foundations needed to implement those same programs?
When this bill was first introduced in the spring of 1989, we felt that it was more of a housekeeping measure rather than one which set forth a specific mandate to administer the multicultural act in Canada. My New Democratic colleagues at that time felt that the bill should define specifically multiculturalism, and that it should lay out specifically ministerial responsibilities to implement the policy of multiculturalism in our federal institutions. This bill fails to do that.
Since this bill was debated at second reading last fall, several things have changed which weakens our support for what could have been a very good piece of legislation.
First, in committee, the minister refused to allow reasonable amendments to this bill which would have strengthened it considerably. The suggested amendments included the specific role of the minister and the department in enforcing multiculturalism in federal institutions, a specific reference to the elimination of racism in Canada, the provision for employment equity and the monitoring of the agency by a non-governmental body.
In addition, the budget of the government has made drastic cuts to Secretary of State funding for multiculturalism. These cuts, as I have mentioned already, seriously undermine the ability of our community-based programs and our advocacy groups to function accordingly.
We have seen further cuts to advocacy groups such as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the citizenship language training programs, while at the same time the government has been dumping millions of dollars into the construction of a heritage language institute. Here again the government prefers to create expensive central institutions rather than fund worth-while community programs that are so badly needed across Canada.
The minister had an opportunity in committee to make these reasoned changes that are necessary to create a truly workable piece of legislation, one which New Democrats could unconditionally support, but he refused to do so. He refused to give himself the mandate that is so clearly needed to really make things work.
Thus it became apparent that the bill was really window-dressing, and window-dressing is simply inadequate with such an important issue.
New Democrats firmly believe that equality rights must be the primary objective of any policy of multiculturalism in this country. Long before my New Democratic colleagues and I had the privilege of serving in this Chamber, leaders such as J. S. Woodsworth, J. Coldwell and Tommy Douglas spoke out strongly and eloquently about prevailing injustices toward Canada's ethnic minorities. They spoke out about the long history of violations of basic human rights which, regrettably, are an indelible part of Canada's history.
We fought with vigilance the shameful and brutal treatment of our Japanese citizens whose lives were literally ripped apart and whose pride of Canadian citizenship and identity were torn asunder when they were humiliatingly interned during the Second World War. Canada has only recently recognized the need to redress this national crime against our Japanese citizens.
We have pressed for the need for full recognition of our aboriginal peoples, including the right of self-government and the need for a negotiated settlement of native land claims.
We continue to protest the injustices in our present immigration policies. We continue to deplore the systemic discrimination in employment against visible minorities in this country. We continue to fight against the growing intolerance in the incidents of racism in Canada.
Whether or not it is expressed in our Constitution, multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. More than one-third of Canadians come from origins which are not aboriginal. They are not French or English. Their numbers are increasing rapidly.
Together these non-indigenous groups form the largest segment of the Canadian population. In many communities out west, particularly in the Vancouver area, for
May 11, 1990

example, non-English, non-French descendants are actually the majority. In recent years people have come in increasing numbers from Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East and from many Latin American countries.
Canada has truly become a rich and colourful mosaic, a celebration of culture diversity rather than a homogeneous melting pot as is evidenced in our neighbour to the south.
This accelerating pace of ethnocultural change has not come without its costs. According to official pieties, Canada was born and raised in the spirit of cultural pluralism. Its culmination is the present policy on multi-culturalism. Would that we were born to such a perfect world. Unfortunately, the demons of racial and cultural prejudice have never quite been exorcized from Canadian society.
Incidents of racism and intolerance are etched deeply in our history. For that matter, they are increasingly easy to find in the headlines today, from Alberta-made posters decrying turbaned mounties, to the skinhead rallies in Toronto; from increased hostility toward Hong Kong immigrants in the Vancouver area to growing tensions towards east European immigrants in the mari-times.
The growing tensions are symptomatic of something much deeper and very threatening. At their heart lies the discriminatory hierarchy that differentiates among Canadians and treats some of our citizens as little better than outsiders. Exposure of institutionalized racism in our justice and in our police systems, such as the wrongful imprisonment on a murder charge of a young Indian, Donald Marshall, and the evidence exposed in Manitoba's aboriginal justice inquiry reveal all too clearly the dark side of our national soul.
Canadian petitions to prevent the RCMP from accommodating orthodox Sikh requirements for dress are indeed profoundly disturbing, particularly when one cuts through the misguided arguments of Canadian tradition and finds that we are left with the most painfully frequent argument that Sikhs and their traditions are simply "unCanadian". "Let them take their foreign paraphernalia and go home" is the rallying cry of a vocal faction of our Canadian citizens.
Government Orders
The searing racial intolerance of this argument takes us as a nation a long way from our avowed belief that Canada is among the world's most tolerant of countries.
It seems likely that opportunities for racism and growing intolerance to other ways of life are likely to grow as the composition of Canadian society becomes increasingly diverse. It is symptomatic of a reaction to an accelerating pace of change that will see within the next two decades 20 per cent of the populations of our major cities belonging to non-white minorities.
In conclusion, one hopes that there is no half-way position in human rights. Either we accept the proposition that no race, religion or culture is intrinsically better than another, or we will continue to act and to react in ways that are hypocritically at variance with our declared pluralistic and democratic principles.
We have a lot of work to do to ensure that Canada remains a country recognized globally as a tolerant nation. Canadian norms are multicultural and pluralistic. There are many equally valid ways and equally legal and productive ways of being Canadian. That is our reality.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to commend the hon. member who just spoke. I am very proud to have him as a member of our caucus. I know that he started on his speech just a short while ago, which is a real sign of a professional.
I want to ask a couple of questions to clarify one point about funding cuts. There has been one cut as a result of this past budget which, perhaps, should have been added to his list. I refer to the $4.1 million that were cut for heritage language programs. These are the programs for children of immigrants right across the country who are in many hundreds of different classes. It is wiping out completely federal funding for that program.
At the same time that the government is cutting funding for heritage languages under the multicultural department, somehow in this time of cut-backs it has found $14 million for the Minister for International Trade who apparently is going to try to educate adults in Pacific Rim languages. If anyone here has tried learning Japanese or Chinese, they will know that it is not something you can do very quickly as an adult. Yet at the

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
same time the government is cutting off a very natural evolution of language training for children.
First, would the hon. member like to comment on this situation?
Second, what does he think of the government's priorities and what they mean as far as the Minister of Multiculturalism's position in Cabinet and his ability to get funds for essential programs is concerned as compared to the Minister for International Trade who does not seem to have any problem?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very legitimate point, one that I had touched on but perhaps not embellished.
The biggest concern that we have with the current legislation is simply the fact that, again, we are dealing with the concept of window-dressing. We are attempting to demonstrate that we are creating an institution which is going to do the job it has set out to do. In fact no piece of legislation, no created department, no created mandate can do the job if the funding is not there at the community level.
It is one thing to pump millions of dollars into creating central institutions, which this government is wont to do. The reality of the problem, in terms of promoting a workable policy and mandate for multiculturalism across Canada, is to put the funding in at the community level for the very programs that are needed in language training of our new citizens and in helping the many community advocacy groups which so desperately need help.
The simplest way to look at it is to consider the analogy of the initial cuts of some $1.6 million to women's programs. While cutting those very necessary community based programs, the government somehow miraculously was also able to justify spending the equivalent amount of money, some $1.6 million, for upgrading the Senate chamber. When we look at it in terms of priorities, it is very obvious that the government is very narrow-minded in determining where its priorities should be.
We say that the funding priorities have to be at the community level and have to be put into the programs that are required in order to make this kind of legislation really workable.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-18, which is an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Although the bill is lacking in strength, the current legislation is eminently better than what we have today. It is the appropriate way to move.
The main purpose of the bill is to establish a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Under that heading there are many areas for which the department will be responsible. It makes me wonder whether, with the projected budget for the 1990-91 estimates of $155,000, just how it is going to achieve all of the goals that it has set out in the guidelines.
I look at the Department of the Environment and the budget estimates that were set up for it and I see the same situation. I do not know why the government tries to set up a new department and allows the estimates to come from each department having each department competing for the same dollar. It makes it very difficult for the minister of that department to achieve his goals or to arrive effectively within the projected guidelines of the department.
The focus of Bill C-18 is on the machinery of government. The new department will consist of five branches at departmental headquarters. They will be multiculturalism, citizenship registration and promotion, literacy, voluntary action, and human rights. We all realize that every one of those areas is an area that certainly requires a tremendous amount of compassion and assistance, not just from members of Parliament but from all Canadians.
Since 1971 the Canadian multicultural policy has evolved. I am very pleased and proud to say that it was enunciated by a Liberal government. The main purpose of the policy was to support all of Canada's cultures to assist the development of interested and needy cultural groups, resources permitting; to assist members of all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society; to promote creative cultural encounters and interchange among all groups in the interest of national unity; and to assist immigrants to our country in the acquisition of one of Canada's official languages so to become full participants in Canadian society.
That is pretty heady stuff, but very necessary. Yet there is not the teeth in the bill to achieve all those things. There is not the funding provided in the bill to achieve all those things. They are very necessary if we are to maintain the cultural mosaic that we have here in
May 11, 1990

Canada in which we all live together, where there are many Canadians like myself who were born of Canadians, but an equal number of people who are not Canadian born have adopted Canada as their country.
As immigration continued through the 1970s and 1980s the policy of mulliculturalism took root within the many ethnic communities of Canada. By 1982 it had become sufficiently entrenched to warrant recognition in Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
International developments and progress in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms helped the policy of multiculturalism take root. At the United Nations the Subcommittee on the Protection of Minorities and the Prevention of Discrimination gained prominence through its work.
The Canadian policy of multiculturalism, with its emphasis on citizen participation, human rights and cultural diversification, matched a variety of goals established by the United Nations to foster tolerance and understanding. In addition, multiculturalism was also intended to promote national unity and help better define a national identity. Thus the policy of multiculturalism as established by Liberal governments met both domestic and international goals.
What seemed like a policy without flaw was placed under increased strain throughout the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s. Racism manifested itself with increased frequency, and the rapid growth of ethnic communities led to criticism of multiculturalism on the grounds that the policy did too little or too much to help immigrants and thus left them in cultural "ghettos".
The Conservative government enacted the Multiculturalism Act again in 1989 when Bill C-18 was introduced in the thirty-fourth Parliament. Conservative action on multiculturalism is in part an attempt to make inroads into a substantial voting block with a high level of political participation. These groups have provided longstanding support for the Liberal Party. Whether Conservative policies are eroding the support is open to speculation.
Government Orders
My party, the Liberal Party, endorsed the concept of a separate department of multiculturalism in the 1988 election platform. At second reading of Bill C-18 the party again supported the concept but expressed reservations about this bill and suggested amendments in committee. At third reading the party supports the notion of a separate department but still has serious reservations about this bill.
Although the establishment of a department is a step in the right direction, the lack of guaranteed funding to each specific branch within the department could very well cause problems if each branch has to compete more vigorously for a decreasing amount of money. I mentioned that earlier and I compared it to the new Department of the Environment where each department puts forward its request. They talk about the issues. They are all competing for the same dollar.
Another weakness is that the bill fails to provide an adequate enforcement mechanism, such as a commissioner of multiculturalism who would monitor and enforce the proper delivery of multicultural policy.
While the concept of the bill is a welcome one, this government's actions are large symbolic. This bill could have been much stronger. It could have established institutional organs to help better define and enforce multicultural policy, guaranteed levels of funding for the department, and a policy path that would expand the impact of multicultural policy.
Hence, multicultural policy would not service a few client ethnic groups but rather educate all Canadians of our multicultural heritage about the principles of racial and religious understanding and about the concept of national unity and the need to develop a Canadian identity while retaining one's ethnic culture.
On March 31, the Conservatives terminated the citizenship and language instruction agreement. This agreement provided textbooks to the provincial and territorial governments for half the class instructional costs and up to the full amount of costs for citizenship textbooks. How is national unity to be promoted and how does Canadian identity become defined when the federal government withdraws from progress that could strengthen both?
Quite recently I attended a meeting of the heritage schools in the Ottawa-Carleton area in which my riding is located. I cannot remember the exact number, but there were at least 20 heritage schools operating in this area. They have had drastic cuts in funding. These

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
people were trying to retain a small portion of their heritage for their children in order to pass it on from one generation to another. They have no idea from where they are going to get the money. If this government is really serious about multiculturalism in this country, that money would be reinstated.
We Canadians are very fortunate to live in this cultural mosaic that is called Canada. As I mentioned earlier, many of us are Canadian born, but there is equally a great number who come from other lands from around the world who have chosen Canada as their country.
We must not be smug or casual about our way of life. We see great division in this country today, a division that is extremely distressing for people of all cultures. I would just like to mention one. This morning my colleague stood up in the House of Commons under Standing Order 31 and mentioned the desecration of a cemetery, anti-Semitic actions against a Jewish cemetery in France. We cannot tolerate this kind of action.
Our Sikh community has been discriminated against probably more in some parts of the country than in others. There have been great discussions with regard to allowing turbans in the RCMP.
Our native peoples have been discriminated against for years. They were the original Canadians. Yet they probably have been the most discriminated against group of people that this country has ever seen.
Again, I have been very pleased to stand here and speak on this bill this afternoon, a bill that we have to support. Although it is weak and although it does not provide enough, if Canada is to move ahead and recognize the cultural mosaic that we are, then we must have an act to establish a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on some of the problems that I have heard in debates in the House. There seems to be a number of people in the Liberal Party who are opposed to the fundamental concept of multiculturalism. They seem to be opposed to any separate department or any attempt to allow the development of multiculturalism or the support of programs. They feel that that is inappropriate.
I would like the member to comment on whether that is close to the Liberal Party's position or whether her statements are it. Where does the Liberal Party stand on the promotion of multiculturalism?


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I cannot say that I am pleased to hear a member of the New Democratic Party ask a question that is so divisive.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Silly nonsense.


Beryl Gaffney: It is silly nonsense, as my colleague says.
The multiculturalism policy of this country was started by the Liberal Party. We are all very proud of what is happening in our country today. To make a statement like that is idiotic, smug and divisive. I do not wish to comment on it any further. I find it absolutely appalling that a member of this House would stand up and make a statement like that.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I feel that the Liberals are very touchy. There are members of that party who have said in this House that they do not support the concept of multiculturalism.
The hon. member talked about politics. It seems that the hon. member was more concerned about what the Tories did that might cut into their vote pattern than on the principle. I support multiculturalism in terms of principle, not because it is going to have some impact on a voting block.
The Liberal member gets very indignant about that, yet she stands there and says that what she is concerned about is that the Conservatives may make inroads into the ethnic community. The New Democratic Party and I support multiculturalism, not because of its political implications but because we will do it on principle.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, just a very brief comment on that: again, an appalling question.


An hon. member:: An appalling statement.


Beryl Gaffney: An appalling statement, you are right. If that is the only reason this government has proposed Bill C-18, then that is not a reason for establishing the department of multiculturalism and citizenship. The government has not put any money into the bill; it is spreading it out over a whole group of departments and there are no teeth in the bill. I am really questioning the
May 11, 1990

government and its motive in establishing such a department.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to talk to a principle and a philosophy that we desperately need for the Canadian experiment to become a reality in our country. Although founded by the aboriginal peoples of our land, the reality of Canada emerged with the arrival of the English and the French. We have added to the stream which is Canada with that third more important and growing sector, the multicultural dimension.
That reality was recognized in the early seventies when the principle and philosophy of multiculturalism was brought forward in the framework of a bilingualism policy by my predecessor for Mount Royal, former Prime Minister Trudeau, in October of 1971. It was at that time of the B and B commission that some serious observations were made about this third strand in our society, the multicultural community. Although we all knew that that sector was there and was enriching us all, we did not quite identify the kind of measures that were needed to make sure that this new kind of Canada would grow in tolerance, understanding, appreciation and respect for the differences.
We were, in this experiment, very different from the American experience. One did not come here, like one would come into the United States, and immediately salute the flag and forget one's roots. That is one way to proceed. In Canada, people were invited to bring their culture and their heritage. They were told to respect their roots, honour their ancestors and add to the Canadian experience, never denying who or what they were.
I think that is a very exciting dimension, but it has problems inherent in it. When one comes from lands of intolerance or lands that promote discrimination or fight over language, race, creed or culture, there is obviously the tendency to bring along those inherent structures and that frame of mind which has developed through history and through geography.
We say to those people: "You have now moved to a country that has a new concept. Be part of the mainstream; be proud as a Canadian". We say to you, through public institutions, whether it is through our broadcast-
Govemment Orders
ing services, radio or television, whether it is through the printed media, whether through magazines, books, or any other ways in which we express ourselves in a cultural sense in this country, "We admire who you are; we want to know more about what you are".
Madam Speaker, those are perhaps idealistic ways and, perhaps, some people would say, a very Pollyanna view of how Canada is to grow and flourish. I do not believe that that is being Pollyanna. I think it is perhaps somewhat visionary. It could be realized if a truly multicultural bill were put into this House, as a bridging mechanism for all Canadians and not directed strictly to visible minorities, not directed strictly to our aboriginal founding peoples, not directed to minorities per se, but directed to all Canadians in an inter-active way, so that we can learn to appreciate, respect and even love each other.
My colleague from the Ottawa region alluded to a comment I made earlier today with respect to desecration of sacred land, of consecrated ground, cemeteries. I cannot think of any more mischievous, nefarious, and hurtful way to attack a community than to attack a place where families go to pay respect to ancestors who have given of themselves and passed on.
That is not the Canadian way; that is not the tolerant way; and that is not indicative of the love and affection we share for each other regardless of race, religion, language, creed, or country of origin. These are acts of racism we have seen manifest against our aboriginal peoples, as we have seen in the Donald Marshall and other cases with respect to our Indian population, as we have recently seen through Disparaitre on Radio Canada.
This was an insensitive documentary, very one-sided, presented by a woman, also very narrow-minded, who was named to head the fiftieth anniversary celebrations in Quebec, which was to celebrate all women and all women's contributions in Quebec. However they forgot to include visible minorities in their planning, forgot to include English-speaking women in much of their planning. They went ahead, 3,500 of them, and raised their glasses in a toast to the wonders of Quebec and Quebec women. Yes, I can tell you that we can toast the wonders of Quebec and Quebec women. But forget the narrowminded people who have forgotten to open their minds. That is why we need a bill like this.

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
I can tell you about Madeleine Parent. She is a wonderful women 71 years of age, with a long line of history and family in Quebec, a trade unionist who fought against racism, fought for the under-privileged, fought for employment equity, and fought for the right of all women to have their place equally in this society. It didn't matter their colour, but it was important that a voice spoke out.
I can tell you about women from the Indian community who fought for the rights of the Indian woman to be recognized as a person with fair and equal rights with her brothers in this society.
There are many areas that need to be approached. The problem with this bill is really an unfortunate one and makes me question the government's thinking. Unfortunately, the whole question of the definition of multicul-turalism is unclear. That is regrettable. Perhaps it will evolve in time and amendments will be adopted, because they are desperately needed. From strong support from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council in 1987, 1988, and 1989, we now have serious reservations from them on May 11, 1990, as they see the cynicism behind this bill, the lack of sincerity because of its weakness.
They are very unhappy about the definition of multi-culturalism. They are very unhappy that the bill does not link itself to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. They are unhappy with these weaselly words "should", "perhaps", "may", "shall", nothing that is directive or concrete.
There is nothing that will ensure employment equity. That bill, too, which is coming up again, is a sham.
The bill is weak, but the principle and the philosophy is important. As the term does not include "multiracial" I was wondering if the multiracials are included? As it does not include the aboriginals, are they included in this mandate? Is this to promote integration of men, women, and children, and if so, how? What are the educational parameters? What is the relationship with our provinces? Is it at the First Ministers' table? What kinds of directives and powers are given to this minister and his ministry, because it is important, if we believe in a vision of Canada, for all people to understand. Is its purpose to ensure a sensitivity and an upgrading on the employment equity act? Will there to be grants and support to cultural groups, or is it another song and dance, an
opportunity for all of us, including myself who might take advantage of it, to go and hand out a grant?
That is not its purpose. It is too important. We should have laid out ministerial responsibilities. We should have ensured that projects like the heritage language project, aboriginals communication, which is not only for aboriginals, but for the whole north, should never have been cut.
There are so many serious funding questions to be asked. Since it is important to move ahead with this bill, I flag them as questions, not as a destruction of the concept. It is a pretty package. The question is over its content.
What about staffing? All members of this House know that if you do not put sufficient funding into a project, you do not end up with a proper goal. We cannot realistically expect projects of principles and philosophy to grow if they do not have staff and management and some funds behind it.
I want to know how this will be put it into effect so that we get knowledgeable representative people who reflect the whole society, men and women of all races, colours and creeds, who can work together to implement a wonderful philosophy that is the Canada of tomorrow. It will be a unique nation among nations if we can meet the goal.
Supporting this policy would be a joy. I support it, but it is not the joy I would have liked, because the objectives are not as focused as I think they should be. The issues, policies and programs are not sufficiently clear to address what is fundamentally a very vital issue as we depend more and more on immigration. We have to make sure that everyone, even if they have been here for hundreds of years, learns to live, respect, grow and glorify in our own differences. Otherwise, the will is puffy and pretentious and does not do what it was meant to do. I think that would be an unconscionable message and not one that I think the present minister of state would want to leave. That is not the nature of this man. I believe he is a person of goodwill but I think he is being frustrated at the ministerial table. That is most regrettable.
I have said most of the things that have been in my heart with respect to this bill. I thank you very much for the patience to listen.
May 11, 1990

In my riding I am seeing increased intolerance between racial groups who have come from many parts of this world; from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, the Far East, from all parts of the globe. They are not getting alone right now, either as newly arrived or as the indigenous population.
This ministry, and this minister, have an incredible challenge for all of us. Together we must ensure that he has the funds, staff, and mandate to see that something concrete and helpful takes place in this country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend a question from her particular area of expertise. Of course, she has many areas of expertise, but I am thinking particularly of communications.
The member knows, I am sure, that one of the major achievements I would hope for the Canadian Multicul-turalism Act, and for a new multicultural department and the minister for that department, would be to make the communication networks of Canada multicultural. As various speakers have pointed out today, it is so very important because of the effect of TV, the portrayals on TV and the background staff of TV and radio, and all aspects of the media. I am thinking of a couple of situations that we were concerned about which we mentioned in committee. I do not think the minister intervened to do very much about these situations.
One was the program that she mentioned, Disparaitre, on Radio Canada that, as she knows only too well, was bordering on racism. The other was the CBC Crime Connection program in Vancouver at a time when there was extreme tension around increasing immigration, particularly from Hong Kong. It did a series on Hong Kong and pictured many Chinese Canadians as being connected with crime. That was a kind of stereotyping. It was not deliberate, but it had a tremendous impact and it was very upsetting on both sides of our country.
I wonder what the hon. member could suggest. How would she see the CRTC guidelines tightened up perhaps and, beyond that, much greater leadership and influence from a multiculturalism department and its minister in preventing this kind of negative stereotyping and stimulation of intolerance that very frequently occurs in our media.
Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. We have had a lot of interesting side trips together on the child care issue and I think we have shared some serious concerns about the future of our country.
I am also pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications here in the House today because the kinds of questions that I was just asked indicate the fundamental importance of the building of a sense of national unity. As he has said, and I agree, the end goal of national unity can only be reached if there is a sense of national consciousness and a sense of national understanding. The national consciousness and understanding are in the bill. The government forgot the national unity, but it is part of the whole. If we want to live together in unity and in mutual respect, we have to know each other.
One of the problems is portrayal. It is not only the face of the multicultural and the multiracial on the little box which speaks to you. It is also those who are hired behind the scenes to pick the news and to reflect what is important from their country of origin because they understand the issues better than we do. They sensitize us to the international world. They also effectively allow us to know each other from coast to coast and up to the far north. Portrayal is very key.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has brought in some very good amendments, as we have, and, in fact, the government also has with respect to the multicultural and multiracial dimensions of Canada in the bill, including the aboriginal peoples.
We have also brought in the employment equity observations which one of the hon. member's former colleagues, the former member for Broadview-Greenwood, felt very keenly about. She talked about the employment equity situation in the broadcast media- that is radio, television, film and all aspects of cultural properties-with respect to the hiring and view of women in our society.
With respect to racial tolerance, or the intolerance that is being manifested out there, journalistic freedom must be protected at all times. It has to have the right and, in fact, the obligation to portray things as they are. They cannot be forced through change and through misrepresentation. But the more one sees of the illness caused by racism, or any of the isms in our society, then the more the Minister of Multiculturalism must take the

May 11, 1990
Government Orders
kind of educational and public relations actions that will enable society to speak out when that kind of judgment, or that sick approach comes to the fore. If one does not speak out, then that silence is taken for acceptance, and that is not what one wants. Never does one want the media to change what the reality of today is. We would expect the media to cover it fairly and honestly. Journalistic freedom is very important in this society.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, of all the times I have risen in the House as a member of the opposition, never before have I wished so dearly that I would not have to be standing here in opposition.
In the matters of multiculturalism and citizenship, I would have hoped that the development of this department was an attempt by the government to take us to the next step of helping us to define what Canada is. It would have been a wonderful thing to stand here and speak without having to make any kind of criticism-opposition, possibly, but in the sense of being able to make what are sometimes called friendly amendments to the proposition before us. Unfortunately, that is not the case and, in spite of the fact that it is not, I am not going to go criticize too much criticism, because that has been well done by other speakers.
I know time is limited and I would like to dwell on some other things with respect to this department in this context.
In this context, let me start this way. I am white, that is rather obvious. If you were to look at the spelling of my name, Madam Speaker, you would probably conclude, and rightly so, that I am an Anglo-Saxon. You could draw some conclusions from that as well. I willingly add that I am also Protestant which makes me a WASP.
In the context of what is going on in our country today, I certainly speak for the members of my Party who say it is inexcusable that organizations in this country are trying so hard to steer their communities towards an English-only approach. I say that as a WASP who cannot accept that. I would also say, being a monolingual White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, in the context of this very thing in Canada today and having had to look at myself within that context, that I would suggest that a lot of the
problems from these groups stem from a feeling of arrogance.
As a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, I do not have to learn another language. Almost all those who have ever come to our country have accommodated to what is essentially my culture. I think that is a tremendously large part of the problem we are facing today. It is unfortunate, and I would say to those who are of British origin: "Smarten up! There is no particular reason why you should feel arrogant. There may be some reasons for you to feel culturally disadvantaged, but there are ways to overcome that as well."
I would hope that there are few in the House and in the nation who do not feel joy, if you will, at the skirl of a Scottish bagpipe, and when you add the drums, you have an added pleasure. Is there anyone in this nation who has not heard a Welsh choir? That is certainly part of my culture. Is there anyone in this nation, particularly those watching who are here today, who would deny the English the tradition of what we are doing at this moment, and what I am doing at this moment?
I would say to those of English origin: "Get involved within your own cultural milieu in your communities. Envelope that which is British and develop a greater appreciation for the other cultures within your community as well."
I know that co-operation among linguistic, ethnic or cultural groups cannot be fostered by law. As a matter of fact, when people are forced into that kind of co-operation, it has the opposite effect and animosities are thereby engendered. As law-makers, it is possible to assist the co-operation which we are aiming toward and of which we are part.
This is the third reading of the bill which establishes the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. A great opportunity has been lost because the government was not willing to envelope some of the suggestions made by the opposition parties. Those suggestions would have gone so much farther toward aiding the evolution of a nation of which we all so proud and of which multiculturalism forms such a great part. The problem is that that did not take place. Now, all we can express is a feeling and a prescience of what we would hope would
May 11, 1990

either be amendments to this or the next succession to this concept within our nation.
One of the surprises I had as a Member of Parliament was being introduced to Citizenship Court. That prompts me to suggest that the name of the department is reversed. It would have been so much better had it been the department of citizenship and multiculturalism. That is not the case, but a good case can be made for that being what should have occurred.
As a member of Parliament, one of the greatest pleasures I have is going to Citizenship Court. There are three or four different reasons why I find it so pleasurable. The first one reminds me that it was not always possible to be a Canadian citizen. When I was younger, there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship. When I went across the country and entered a different school, the first thing the teacher asked was: "What is your national origin?" Of course, my answer was: "Scots." That is why I referred to the bagpipe first in my references to the wonderful things which have come out of the British Isles in the cultural sense.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think there would be a disposition on the part of the House not to see the clock for a few moments to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks. I believe that he is the last speaker on this bill, and we could then dispose of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the Chair is aware of such an understanding between the parties, she will, of course, not see the clock.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I thank the members, and on that basis I will make my remarks shorter.
Briefly, I would like to go through the points that do occur to me in relation to Citizenship Court. Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have thought about being away from Canada. I find that after being out of the country for two or three weeks, I feel something. Originally, I did not realize what it was, and then I understood that it was being away from home. That gave me a far better understanding of what it is to be a Canadian and what being home means.
Government Orders
The fourth thing citizenship and Citizenship Court and my role in Canada brings to mind is my wife. Perhaps that should be the first. However, I think of her because my wife is a naturalized Canadian who came to this country from Germany. Her original nationality was Polish. The vagaries and stupidity of war intervened into the life of that young girl who was born in Poland, causing her to go from one country to another and one citizenship to another. That certainly exemplifies some of the stupidities that occur in this country.
As a Canadian, is there anything more touching than to see those new Canadians, people who have chosen to live in Canada, but at the same time have brought their language, their culture, their wonderful ethnic addition to this country?
I have received a tremendous amount of correspondence from people within my constituency in connection with multiculturalism, and with trying to maintain that mosaic which we are in Canada, decrying the cuts in funding to the schools which operate within our communities. I have received letters from as far away as Edmonton, from the Multicultural Council in Saskatoon, and the Cambodian Association. It is tremendously touching when you hear the way in which they express their concern at the cuts in the funding to these schools. I cannot emphasize it enough. Here are letters from the Norwegian community, the Ukrainian community, the Jewish congregation, and the Hindi School. A special mention should be made of the Jewish Canadians within our community whose synagogue was defaced not that long ago.
I thank all these groups for having sent letters to me, and I am sure many other members of Parliament also received letters.
It is unfortunate that funding to the heritage schools was cut. It is also unfortunate that specific reference to racism was not addressed in the bill. Whether or not it is true, I suspect that racism is at the core of much of the tension functioning within our society today. I can only suggest that there was a lost opportunity in not going the full distance with this department.
The words of the song in the musical South Pacific are, "You have to be taught before it is too late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You have to be carefully taught". If it is

May 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
true that you have to be taught to hate, it is likely also true that you have to be taught to love.
I would suggest that a tremendous amount of potential has been lost within the formation of this department for helping us as Canadians to love one another more.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 (Mrs. Champagne):: It being two o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   ACT OF INCORPORATION OF DESJARDINS MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis) moved: that Bill S-15, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to give you details about the Act to amend the Act of incorporation of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company, and act to permit Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company, a federally incorporated company, to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec.
Bill S-15 is similar to Bill S-5 passed by the Senate on June 29, 1989 to authorize The Safeguard Life Assurance Company, the other life assurance company of the Desjardins Movement, to come under Quebec jurisdiction.
All the organizations or body corporates of the Desjardins Movement operate under Quebec laws, except the Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company and its
recently acquired subsidiary, Laurier Life Holding Limited which controls Laurier Life Insurance.
Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company does most of its business in Quebec. The Desjardins Movement wants to merge Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company with La Sauvegarde in order to consolidate its operations in Quebec and thus benefit from potential synergy within the Movement. This initiative was taken in the over-all context of the restructuration of the Desjardins Movement initiated last year.
A change in jurisdiction is necessary since the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, which Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company now comes under, does not allow mergers with a company under provincial jurisdiction. This change also follows a decision taken at the March 21, 1990 special meeting of the Company's members that was convened specifically to authorize the continuance of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company under Quebec legislation and to introduce a private bill to that effect in the Canadian Parliament.
All members of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company, in other words, all policy holders, were mailed an invitation to this meeting, with a proxy form enabling them to vote. The vast majority of them voted in favour ot the proposal.
The company that will emerge from the merger of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company with La Sauvegarde will become number one in Quebec in the insurance sector.
The government's policy for charter repatriation is to grant such requests from mutual insurance companies unless the policyholders object, which is not the case for Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance. Furthermore, the federal government recognizes that a financial institution's decision to come under one jurisdiction or another at a particular time depends on the amount and kind of business it does and on its plans for expansion.
The federal government wishes to accommodate the desires of financial institutions in this regard. To this end, I move that the House pass this bill and I believe that hon. members would agree to refer it to the finance committee instead of the legislative committee as mentioned in the introduction.
May 11, 1990

I thank everyone for their co-operation in this matter.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the motion of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) concerning this Life Assurance Company. We, in the opposition, also agree to his suggestion that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance instead of a legislative committee. Since the bill will be studied in the finance committee where we will have the opportunity to put forward some ideas and suggestions, I will not pursue the matter any further this afternoon.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I also wish to inform the House that the New Democratic Party supports the bill at second reading and is quite happy to have it referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
We note that this is the second time this year that the Desjardins group has had to come to this House to ask for special legislation to regroup itself under Quebec law. We are wondering if this is not because of the delay of the federal government in bringing forward a new
Private Members' Business
framework for financial institutions and we are thinking that maybe the other approach is better. Therefore, we are hoping that the finance committee will take this opportunity to look at these factors also.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
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 2.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 14, 1990