1990-05-29

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association's report on the eighteenth annual meeting of delegations of the Canadian and European Parliaments held in Brussels and The Hague from April 23 to 26, 1990.

The main conclusion we came to, and I think it is very important to say it in the House, is that increased parliamentarian involvement is being requested by both
this Parliament and the European Parliament which is having increasing significance as Europe forges ahead to 1992.
Clearly, we recommend that the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association be more involved in developing with this government how to strengthen the agreement to find effective new ways to reach out to the new Europe.
Canada has a framework agreement with Europe, but as Europe changes toward 1992, members in this House should be involved in developing and making sure that Canada becomes part of the new Europe.
We can do this in several ways, and specific recommendations have been made in this report both for the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as for the Minister for International Trade. I trust that these recommendations will be well received by both ministers, as well as the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, because Canada must come to an agreement in science and technology with the new Europe.
Indeed, the Secretary of State for Canada, who is in the House today, as well as the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, will be pleased to know that the European Parliament wants to work with them as the new Europe for 1992 is developed. It brings 12 countries together. It wants Europe-Canada relations to increase in both cultural and educational training areas as well as in small business opportunities through the Business Community Network.
I urge the ministers and this government to work with parliamentarians in this House from all parties to enhance the relationship between Canada and the new Europe.
We have a great opportunity here, Mr. Speaker. I urge all of us to get involved and be involved in making this happen.

May 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from a number of petitioners in central British Columbia from a variety of communities.
They point out that the choice to bear or not to bear children is a matter of personal choice and not of criminal law. They feel that criminal sanctions do nothing to address the reasons why women seek abortions or to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, they are calling upon Parliament to refrain from imposing any criminal sanctions against abortion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of people from a variety of communities in central British Columbia who are opposed to the 7 per cent goods and services tax.
They are calling on the Liberals in the Senate to do the honourable thing, listen to the people of Canada and vote against the legislation as opposed simply to holding more public hearings.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from Kamloops and other parts of central British Columbia.
The petitioners are concerned about the future of passenger rail service and recognize that the government has cut back severely in terms of VIA Rail. They feel that this was exactly the opposite to what ought to have occurred, and are asking the government to invest in a decent passenger rail service for Canada because of its environmentally friendly nature.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another topic, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from petitioners in Kamloops who are asking that the government consider introducing a bill of rights for children. They point out a whole variety of areas in which children are living in poverty by increasing numbers. They feel a comprehensive bill of
rights for children would be the appropriate course of action to take.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of residents of Quebec, and more specifically, of Montreal, Quebec City, the riding of Chambly and several other communities.
Your petitioners call upon this House to consider that the choice whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term is a personal choice and not a matter for the Criminal Code. Furthermore, your petitioners state that criminal sanctions fail to address the reasons why a woman wants an abortion and do not in any way reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions to this House from British Columbia and from virtually every province in the country.
The petition states that the choice to bear children or not to bear children is a matter of personal choice and not one of criminal law.
It goes on to state that the Canadian Medical Association already has guidelines and regulations in place concerning abortion. Criminal sanctions do nothing to address the reasons why women seek abortion and do nothing to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
These petitioners call on the government to refrain from imposing any criminal sanctions against abortion.
The total number of these petitions is 30. There are some 3,600 signatures altogether on them. The petitioners come from my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby and Surrey, B.C. There are 406 signatures from Kingston and the Islands. The other petitioners are from Toronto, Ottawa, Regina, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and from Nova Scotia.
Women and men across Canada who believe in women's integrity are all asking this government to refrain from bringing in criminal sanctions against women.
May 29, 1990


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I too have some petitions to present, which are duly authorized under Standing Order 36, from voters in Saskatoon who point out that the choice to bear children is a medical and personal matter and not a matter of criminal law.
They point out that the Canadian Medical Association already has sufficient guidelines concerning abortion. Criminal sanctions, they point out, have no reasonable effect on why women seek abortions and do nothing to reduce them.
They call upon the government to refrain from imposing any criminal sanctions against abortion.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition, which includes the ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners.
What is said next in this petition is very important: "in certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy".
This petition speaks on the question of the right of a woman to choice in the matter of abortion. It reiterates that it is a matter of personal choice and not of criminal law.
It also indicates that the Canadian Medical Association has guidelines. In fact it states that there is nothing in the criminalization of abortion that reduces the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
This petition comes predominantly from Saskatchewan and Alberta, from communities such as Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, and Calgary.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition signed by 251 people in my riding who would like the government to withdraw the goods and services tax.
They feel that it is inflationary, that it is on the back of the consumer, and that it will diminish our capacity to be competitive on the world market. They also feel that it will hurt tourism in Alberta.
Routine Proceedings ABORTION


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions to the House today, both of which have been certified correct under Standing Order 36.
The first is a petition signed by residents primarily of Dawson Creek and Delta, British Columbia. They pray that Parliament refrain from imposing any criminal sanctions against abortions such as the legislation this House will be voting on later today.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians from all across the country on the route of The Canadian. It was the route of The Canadian since it is no longer there.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to legislate and bring in programs and measures so that we can have an effective VIA Rail passenger rail system in Canada.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland who strongly oppose the goods and services tax which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians. It will hit them not only with higher taxes but higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment than already exists in Newfoundland.
They humbly pray that Parliament reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to table in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by about 2,000 young Quebecers. The petition supports the Meech Lake Accord, the Accord that meets Quebec's five minimum conditions and recognizes Quebec as a distinct society and one of the founding peoples of Canada.
These young people ask the government to do everything in its power to ensure that the Accord is ratified and, in the event the Accord is defeated, to undertake a

May 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings
complete review of the present political system since it will then be clear it is impossible to agree on improvements to the existing system.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Chibougamau in the riding of Roberval, concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Thx Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Your petitioners reject the conclusions of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas and ask that Chibougamau be recognized as an isolated area under the present tax benefits system.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour and duty to present petitions from the Royal Canadian Legions of Tignish, Bloomfield, Ellerslie, Wellington, Miscouche and O'Leary which are upset that the veterans of Canada have fallen victim to the government budget cuts.
Royal Canadian Legionnaires believe that our veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted. They believe that these budget measures should be dropped.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present some 200 petitions which I think you will agree are very important and somewhat unique. I hope they will be treated very seriously by this government.
They are petitions that were signed in the Chinatown community of Vancouver by thousands of citizens representing many business people, shoppers, and concerned citizens of Chinese origin, as well as others who characterize our multicultural Canada.
The petition is in Chinese and English. We regret that there was some procedural difficulty as a result of this. Many signatures are written in Chinese characters, evidence of how very strongly these people oppose and are worried about the GST.
The petition states that the undersigned residents of Canada avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right.
It goes on to state that the 7 per cent goods and services tax will hurt small businesses, costs will go up, incomes will go down, and it will be an accounting nightmare. The tax will also hurt consumers as prices of thousands of items and services go up.
Therefore the undersigned petitioners call on Parliament and the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax.
I present these petitions with great concern from Vancouver East.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to submit to this House petitions with over 1,000 names which are over and above the 25,000 names that have been submitted on behalf of the people of London, Ontario.
These people call upon this government to withdraw its grief and suffering tax and essentially restore a fair taxation system.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are many hundreds of signatures on this petition.
These people are asking and begging this government to cancel the goods and services tax because it will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by numerous Canadians from the London area of Ontario.
These petitioners are concerned about cuts to Canada's rail service. In their petition they indicate the importance of rail service for the tourist industry in Canada, as well as how important it is for rural communities in Canada. They also point out that it is the safest and most environmentally friendly mode of transportation.
They urge the government not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger service in Canada.

Although the petition is an older one, and although the government has ignored the petitioners' request already, I am sure they would be delighted if the government would live up to its obligations and reinstate rail service in this country.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today under Standing Order 36 to present three petitions from some of the good citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It will come as no surprise to the government that they are petitioning the government with respect to its goods and services tax. It will also be no surprise to the government that they are asking it to rescind the goods and services tax since it will be completely unfair and regressive. They ask the government to go back to the drawing-board and come up with something fairer for the Canadian people.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 once again to offer to this House a petition against the goods and services tax from people in various communities throughout British Columbia.
They are simply asking that the goods and services tax be rejected. They state that if reform is to be brought in, the taxation system should include an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They ask the government to cease with this present proposal.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions today with several hundred names on them from communities such as Espanola, Massey, Tehkummah, Webbwood, and other communities throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area, in which the petitioners call on the government to reject the goods and services tax.
They point out that it will cause an onerous burden on small business, that it will be an unfair hardship to lower and middle income Canadians, and that it will have an adverse effect on inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 263, 272, 276, 277, 281, and 283.


Mr. McGuire: From January 1, 1986 to January 1, 1989, were there any search and rescue incidents in the Halifax Search and Rescue Region to which aircraft from C.F.B. Summerside were tasked to respond and, if so (a) what number were there (b) were any of the incidents located closer to C.F.B. Summerside than to C.F.B. Greenwood and, if so, what number?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
(a)	202.
(b)	From January 1,1986 to January 1,1989,152 search and rescue incidents, to which aircraft from CFB Summerside were tasked, were located closer to CFB Summerside than to CFB Greenwood. However, from 1981 to 1986, the reverse was true. The majority of search and rescue incidents were located closer to CFB Greenwood than to CFB Summerside. It should be noted that the average incident occurs over two hundred miles or approximately one hour flying time from either location. In addition, although CFB Summerside may have been closer to more incidents than CFB Greenwood, the average difference in distance between the two locations and these incidents is only 35 miles. This translates into approximately ten minutes flying time.


Mrs. Maheu: Has a grant been awarded for a feasibility study on setting up the "Race Relations Network" and, if so (a) to whom has the grant been awarded (b) in what amount (c) will the study report be tabled in the House of Commons?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: No.
a)	b) and c) not applicable.

May 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Ferguson: Have any producers received cheques for drought assistance under the Canadian Drought Assistance Program administered by the Department of Agriculture and, if so (a) what number (b) what number have received or will receive letters requiring them to reimburse some or all of those monies because of (i) a correction in the determination of eligibility due to changes in the so-called "trigger yields" (ii) a failure of the Department to correctly crossreference the application and certification (iii) any other errors made by the Department and, if so, which ones (iv) other factors and, if so, what factors and, for each factor, what is the explanation?


Hon. Charles Janies Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Please see attached.
a) and b) On March 30, 1990 out of about 120,000 payments made there were 1,608 producers whose payment exceeded the amount which they were actually eligible for under the program. The following is a break-down of that number by reason for overpayment:
i)	1,320 due to a change in yield data supplied by the provincial Crop Insurance Agencies between the time of the interim and the final payment;
ii)	17 due to a failure to correctly cross-reference application and certification forms;
iii)	44 due to processing errors within the program administration;
iv)	55 due to errors made by producers on their application forms;
172 due to the fact that producer payments were less than what had been received under the greenfeed program (50 percent of payments made under the greenfeed program were deducted from CCDAP payments).


Mrs. Sparrow: Is the government prepared to disclose the details of the remuneration received by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and, if so (a) what is his basic salary (b) does he receive any tax-free benefits and, if so, what are they (c) does he receive any salary supplements and, if so, what are they (d) does he have a pension plan and, if so, is it indexed to the rate of inflation (e) does he receive an annual salary increase and, if so, at what rate?


Hon. Michael Holcombe Wilson (Minister of Finance):: la.	It is Government policy to release the salary ranges but not the specific salary of an individual.
lb.	No.
lc.	No. See also attached Sec. 6(3)(c) of the Bank of Canada Act.
ld.	Yes. As an employee of the Bank of Canada, the Governor is a contributing member of the Bank of Canada Pension Plan. The Governor is treated according to the same rules as other members.
Any pension payments under the Bank plan are adjusted annually on January 1, by the average of the Consumer Price Index for Canada for each month in the twelve-month period ending on the thirtieth day of September in the immediately proceeding year.
le.	There is no statutory provision for automatic increases in the Governor's salary on an annual, or any other basis. (See attached Sec. 6(3)(c) of the Bank of Canada Act).
Article 6.3(c) of the Bank of Canada Act
6.(3)(c) The Governor and Deputy Governor subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, shall be paid such salaries as the directors determine, but no such remuneration shall be in the form of a commission or be computed by reference to the income or profits of the Bank.


Mrs. Maheu: Was Ralph Agard of Toronto commissioned in recent months by the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship) or his office to do a feasibility study on establishing a new race relations network and, if so (a) what were the terms of reference provided to him (b) who was responsible for setting the terms of reference (c) who did Mr. Agard consult (d) did the Minister, his office or the Secretary of State Department have any input into who would be consulted (e) what amount was Mr. Agard paid (f) were other costs incurred by Mr. Agard or any other persons on this project and, if so, what costs (g) since April 1, 1985, has he received any other contracts directly or indirectly from the Minister's office or the Department (h) will the Minister table the study report in the House of Commons?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Yes.
a) According to the terms of reference of the contract, the mandate was to give advice on issues relevant to both Departments (Secretary.of State / Multiculturalism and
May 29, 1990

Citizenship Canada) to ensure that the Minister is kept fully aware of all issues facing client groups of the Departments.
b)	The Office of the Secretary of State and Minister of State, Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
c)	See Annex A.
d)	No.
e)	$6,075.00
f)	Yes. Travel cost of $790.
g)	No.
h)	This report does not constitute a document that is normally tabled in the House. However, subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, it could be made available by placing a notice of motion for the production of papers on the Order Paper or pursuant to a written request addressed to the Department.
RESPONDENTS / REPONDANTS
1.	Mr. Aziz Khaki, President
The Committee for Racial Justice 1414 West 12th Avenue Vancouver, B.C.


[Stage Direction]
2.	Mr. Valmond Romilly, President Harambee Centres Canada 3536 Point Grey Road Vancouver, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
3.	Ms. Yvonne Blackwood, President Tropicana Community Services c/o Royal Bank of Canada
243 Laird Drive Toronto, Ontario M4T 3V5
4.	Dr. Karen Mock, National Director
League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada 15 Howe Street Downsview. Ontario M3H 4Y8
5.	Mr. Fo Niemi, Executive Director
Centre de recherche-action sur les relations raciales 1650 Berri, Suite 220 Montreal, Quebec H2L 4E6
6.	Ms. Kamala Jean-Gopie, President Urban Alliance on Race Relations 229 College Street. Suite 310 Toronto. Ontario
[Stage Direction]
Routine Proceedings
I.	Dr. Suzanne Birks, President Canadian Human Rights Foundation 3465 Cote des Neiges, Suite 301 Montreal, Quebec
[Stage Direction]
8.	Mr. Abayomi Coker, Executive Director National Capital Alliance on Race Relations 150 Montreal Road, Suite 309
Ottawa, Ontario K1L 8H2
9.	Mr. Benjamin Teitelbaum Acting National Chairman Canadian Council on Minority Rights 3575 boul. St. Laurent, bureau 416 Montreal, Quebec
[Stage Direction]
10.	Dr. Marsha Haug, President
Citizens Against Racial and Religious Discrimination 4815 Maryvale Drive N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2A 3A1
II.	Mr. Alain Jean-Bart S.O.S. Racisme Canada c/o CLSC Park Extension 469 Jean Talon West Montreal. Quebec
Mr. Boudria: Between September 4,1984 and June 1,1989, were any individuals appointed to any of the Regional Advisory Councils of the Federal Business Development Bank and, if so (a) what are their names (b) (i) on what date (ii) to which Council was each one appointed (c) has any of them ceased to be a member and, if so, in each case, on what date?


Hon. Thomas Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Insofar as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned, the response is as follows:
Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island
Name	Appointment	Cessation
	(d/m/y)	(d/m/y)
Frank Abram Moores	01-06-87	
Frank William Nichols	01-06-87	
Anna Albert Guimond	01-06-87	
Michael N. Burge	01-06-87	
Donna Marie Thompson	01-06-87	
W.R. MacKinnon	01-06-87	
Lloyd A. Diamond	30-10-87	
Douglas Moores	01-06-87	22-03-88

May 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Province of Quebec		
Name	Appointment	CessationClaude Gerin	17-12-86	31-12-88*Jacques Dumas	17-12-86	31-12-88*Blair Touchie	17-12-86	31-12-88*Raymond Mercier	17-12-86	31-12-88*Luc Vaillancourt	17-12-86	31-12-88*Michel Perron	17-12-86	31-12-88*C. Dino Vondjidis	17-12-86	31-12-88*Anne Dixon-Grossman	17-12-86	31-12-88*Andre Letourneau	27-01-87	31-12-88** = Date of mandate expiry	Province of Ontario	Name	Appointment	CessationDaniela Anna Clara	01-06-87	John A. Elliott	01-06-87	Yavar Ali Khan	01-06-87	Bob Bohdan Leshchyshen	01-06-87	Aline Levesque	01-06-87	Glenn Grice	01-06-87	Alex Christie	01-06-87	Barbara Molot Sugarman	01-06-87	Robin Jeffrey	01-06-87	12-09-89Province of Manitoba and Saskatchewan	Name	Appointment	CessationGarth Walls	01-06-87	James E Fairman	01-06-87	Penny Paget	01-06-87	Wilfried K. Eckl	01-06-87	John Gregory O'Hanlon	01-06-87	Gerald L. Dorge	01-06-87	Ralph C. Yapp	01-06-87	Donna-Marie Gurr	01-06-87	George H. Dram	01-06-87	05-09-89Province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories	Name	Appointment	CessationGabrielle Decorby	01-06-87	Chuck W. Newton	01-06-87	James Fredrick Kalmacoff	01-06-87	Richard C. Fraser	01-06-87	Rita Pasiciel	01-06-87	E.M. (Al) Davison	01-06-87	William R. Bauman	01-06-87	Richard Hobbs	01-06-87	Nels Nelson	01-06-87	29-01-89Province of British Columbia and the Yukon	Name	Appointment	CessationRobert B. Leeson	01-06-87	Patrick James Lett	01-06-87	Dirk A. Yzenbrandt	01-06-87	Victor E. Kurceba	01-06-87	Olga Ilich	01-06-87	Milton H. Cook	01-06-87	Fred C. Garnett	01-06-87	02-02-90James Frederick Butchart	01-06-87	Bill Tsakumis	01-06-88	08-09-88**
** = Appointed to Board of Directors


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask leave to move a motion that the House adjourn to discuss a matter of utmost urgency and importance, namely the constitutional crisis which is building and facing Canada.
There is less than one month remaining for expiration or ratification of the Meech Lake Accord. With a great many threats and predictions of dire consequences that may face Canada on June 24,1990,1 believe that there is need for this House to debate this constitutional dilemma rather than to remain silent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beaver River has applied under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate on a matter which I am sure all members of this House agree is a very important one.
However I must point out that the matter is being raised on a daily basis. The hon. member has another course to follow by which she could debate the matter.
As a consequence, today I am not inclined to grant her application. It has nothing to do with whether or not the matter is serious. We all know it is serious. At this time, and I say at this time, I think it would be inappropriate.
I thank the hon. member for giving me notice, and I thank her for her intervention.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find your ruling on the application somewhat strange because the question has not been debated in the House recently-
May 29, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. It is not appropriate to argue with the Speaker's ruling.
At the time the reform committee considered the whole question of applications for emergency debate, it was recommended that the Speaker give no reasons at all.
All that the Speaker did in this case is remind hon. members that the matter has been raised continually, which of course it has been, and that there is for the hon. member another approach to the matter.
I have great respect for the hon. member, but he is not in order in arguing with the Speaker on an application for an emergency debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: moved that Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. He said: Madam Speaker, two years ago this House unanimously adopted Bill C-93, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Since the passing of this landmark legislation, this government has shown again and again that it is committed to creating a society whose citizens will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Two weeks ago this House sent forward the legislation to establish a department of multiculturalism and citizenship which is an administrative instrument to execute policies that will aid in nation building. Not too long ago, Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute received second reading and is now being considered by a legislative committee.
Today, it is with great pride that I stand to initiate a debate on the second reading of Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
Government Orders
Before I go further, I would like to inform the House that before the end of the year I plan to introduce a new citizenship bill. Together, these pieces of legislation will demonstrate the continuing commitment of this government to ideals of multiculturalism and equality.
This legislation reaches the very heart of our identity as Canadians. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is an initiative based on an unmistakably Canadian approach to the building of our nation. As a people we believe in the limitless potential of Canada and we acknowledge the vast richness our diversity brings. But we know the cultural diversity which we hold so dear is problematic, for the very elements of that diversity are used by racists to denigrate our peoples. That is why this government has given such a high profile to fighting racism and racial discrimination.
In any society plagued by racism and racial discrimination, the struggle against these evils is important. However, in a society such as ours, which has declared itself multicultural, the struggle becomes a moral imperative. Our history is filled with ideas and individuals who have striven to move us closer to realizing the multicultural vision of our country.

The origins of Canadian multiculturalism predate Confederation, with the aboriginal peoples. Subsequently, generations of people from all over the world chose Canadian citizenship over all others. These people, Canada's past and present, have worked hard to build this country.

Canada's democratic system of government has responded to the character of our diverse people by recognizing the primal importance of human rights. We have witnessed the evolution of citizenship rights in this country from the opening of our first Houses of Parliament, to Canada's first Bill of Rights in 1960 and, more recently, with the signing of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution.
Today, and every day, we must never forget that we are all citizens of the first nation in the world to enshrine the multicultural character of our country in its laws. As both a philosophy and a program, multiculturalism is recognized as a positive and progressive force in our nation building.

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
Within this multicultural framework, political unity and cultural diversity are both seen as priorities. Thus, through decades of legislative tradition and active Canadian citizenship, our dream for Canada has taken shape. Our dream is of a Canada where differences are respected, where all Canadians enjoy the same opportunities and are judged on their individual merits, where people of all origins can live together with dignity and hope. Yet, in spite of these laws, in spite of our good intentions, this vision has not yet been fully realized in our pursuit of a better society. Sadly, daily examples of these shortcomings are all around us. Racism and racial discrimination have been and continue to be a burden on the soul of this nation. It is a disturbing reality, entire cultures discriminated against, denigrated and exploited, Canadian men and women treated as second-class citizens, living lives filled with bitterness, frustrated hopes and sorrow or, worse still, accepting that they are somehow deserving of the dehumanizing wrath of racism.
Ask Donald Marshall and he will tell you of his years of pain.

Today, we are more conscious of the manifestations of racism around us. I am proud to say that this government leads the way in this new awareness.
We listened to Canadians of all origins and all walks of life, and we have taken their legitimate concerns to heart. In response to their appeals, we developed our multicultural policy, and we have struck out on a new path with new hopes for a more egalitarian Canada.
However, most important is that today we must realize that eliminating discrimination is one of the most effective ways to build a more tolerant society.

Implicit in our efforts is a faith in the power of the human intellect, in the ability of Canadians to seek and find the truth. In our desire to put the dead ideas of the past to rest and advance as a society, this is the process through which we will move forward into the next decade and shape our history.
We are entering a new era. More than ever before, Canadians will provide the most valuable kind of leadership, and all our leadership will be through the power of ideas. Our Canadian creed will be recognized as one of
knowledge and understanding. It will reject the doctrine of racism with all its false assumptions. It will reject the pseudo-scientific concept of race.
Madam Speaker, this is not a minor or purely academic consideration. It is fundamental to our understanding of the truth. The idea of race is based on the long-held but discredited notion that cultural or physical differences are more than external, that they are biological, that a black person is inherently different than a white person, or an East Asian.
Of course, there are profound consequences to accepting that there is more than one race in the human species. When we accept this notion we tend to reinforce claims of biological superiority or inferiority. We make discrimination intellectually feasible. We make it seem rational.
There was never an Aryan race, only a German people living alongside a Jewish people, both members of the human race. Yet we know where this erroneous belief in two separate races eventually led.
Forty years later, in the nation known as South Africa, there is no white race living in the same territory inhabited by members of the black race-only black and white South Africans, equally members of the human family.
Geneticists and anthropologists have discarded the concept of race because they have found it a useless construct for meaningful analysis of differences between groups, yet racist myth-making abounds.
There are countless myths that feed on the same false premise of race. Our task then is two fold: first, to destroy the fraudulent foundation of "race" on which racism rests; second, to address the actual practice of racism-what we call racial discrimination. We must fight discrimination and prejudice everywhere it happens; in our places of work, our schools, our neighbourhoods and in our relations with each other. Without question, this is one of the principal challenges in Canada today. It is a challenge that cannot be met with old ideas, empty rhetoric or simplistic solutions. This is the weakest kind of approach, devoid of any sense of conviction.
Instead, our challenge must be met with measures to promote institutional change, public awareness and education. It calls for political will at all levels of govern-
May 29, 1990

ment and, above all, the support of ordinary Canadian women and men.
The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is an essential element in this process of change. It will be an energy centre for our national efforts and I believe it will open the door to a better life for all of us.

The foundation will respond directly to the two areas of concern I described earlier, which are the concept of racism and its practice. Some of the most brillant minds in this country will be involved in studies that will shed light on the actual extent of these problems and help wipe out, once and for all, the false premises and myths used by racists to propound their theories. When we reach this goal, racists will be isolated and clearly perceived as frauds and shameless liars.
The foundation's research will not be of the "ivory tower" kind. In fact, it will generate concrete guidelines that will be useful to all groups concerned about racism.

These ideas will be circulated and shared and, as a result, the Canadian public will know more about this widespread problem. Yet, we also recognize that the practice of discrimination will persist. Racism will continue to claim its victims. For this reason, the foundation will have a distinctly pro-active mandate. It will help to develop concrete strategies to confront discrimination and conquer it.
Of course, the foundation cannot do it all alone. It will seek to forge partnerships with all segments of society. Programs and training approaches will be developed to assist business, labour and public institutions to free themselves from the web of systemic discrimination.
Madam Speaker, I have great hope for the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Members of the House know that this foundation will not be a magical solution to bigotry, to prejudice and injustice, even if we would like it to be; but it will contribute to the solution. The foundation will complement the work this government is undertaking with all our partners dedicated to eradicating racism. It will strengthen our efforts to promote our most significant public awareness campaign, commemorated on March 21, the International Day for the
Government Orders
Elimination of Racial Discrimination. As well, the foundation will be a resource for community organizations working in support of equality.

Madam Speaker, we Canadians have never been content to stand aside and let inequality, polarized situations, and unhealthy divisiveness take over our communities. We know that the social cost attached to any social injustice that segregates minority groups is very high.
With courage and confidence, we have opted for a common-sense approach to correct past injustice and advance our cause. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation will be a major milestone in our march towards the future.
As part of this continuum, the foundation is also concerned about the present. We could have chosen a better time to affirm ourselves as a diverse nation, to reject arbitrary divisions that separate us from our neighbours and to focus on the fundamental truth that all people on this earth are one.

I am proud to remind all members of the House of the commitment made by the Prime Minister in this Chamber on September 22, 1988. In the context of the Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement, the Prime Minister said, with the unanimous support of the House:
We cannot change the past. But we must, as a nation, have the courage to face up to these historical facts-in commemoration of all who suffered these injustices, we will establish a Canadian Race Relations Foundation to foster racial harmony and cross-cultural understanding in Canada.
Madam Speaker, together we will embrace a new age of Canadian wisdom; a diverse Canadian people united as one nation.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on a subject I care about, namely Bill C-63 on the Race Relations Foundation.
I believe it is important that this foundation be established in the immediate future as a way to control rising racism. In a country that is looking more and more

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
for scapegoats, ways must be found to increase tolerance among diverse groups.
Before continuing, Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify some points: first, the myth that racial discrimination does not exist in Canada. Unfortunately, that is totally false.
Increasingly, the media report conflicts in all areas of life, from the schools to the legal system and the working world.
Second, the myth that all Canadians are treated the same and that they all have equal opportunity. In principle, that is quite true-it is in the law. In practice, it is a different story.
Just try to rent an apartment if you have a different accent or are a different colour! Although not everyone is racist, there are still far too many racists.

We, in this society, have a lot to do and the government must show the way and promote inter-racial harmony. It must hire people in senior positions who know and understand what is happening. It must hire people from the milieu who can suggest means by which to create a climate of tolerance and harmony, not by noting the differences, but by accentuating the common grounds. It is only together that we can build a country. Individuals cannot make it on their own.
The aboriginal people of Canada face racial prejudice and discrimination on a daily basis. They are often denied their ancient right of self-determination. They represent but one group living discrimination on a daily basis. What is the present government concretely doing to correct the situation?

Madam Speaker, our society is increasingly uncertain about the future. Free trade, the GST, the Meech Lake Accord all get Canadians' adrenaline levels up. Many causes of tension and hostility are often taken out on the latest arrival, the person perceived as different, even if he or she was bom here. Surely someone must be to blame for all our troubles?
No group is safe. Therefore it is important that the Race Relations Foundation not waste years studying the Canadian situation-I think that we all know what it is.
From the first year of its mandate, it must be proactive, both by setting an example and by advertising in the media.
"Barriers between blacks and police must be understood before they can be removed," appeared in The Toronto Star on May 21; "Hate wave," The Ottawa Sun on May 22; "The spectre of racism," The Ottawa Citizen on May 17; "Canadian racism angers Apache," Time Colonist on March 16; "Racism by any other name," the Vancouver Sun on February 26; and, "Rally condemns silence on racial bias," The Edmonton Journal on March 25.
These are a few of the headlines we are reading in our newspapers throughout Canada. Racism is on the rise. It has been slowly building up in the last few years and is ready to explode as soon as a crisis occurs. Crisis situations are now part of our daily lives. The country has never been so divided, so lost, and so insecure. We can thank the Conservative government for that.
When children are showing contempt for other children because of a difference in race or culture, we have a lot of questions to ask ourselves.

Often without even knowing what they are really saying, Madam Speaker, children make statements which reflect the prejudice of the adults around them. I am not saying that all adults teach their children to be intolerant, although too many certainly do, but through their comments and jokes, they sometimes project a degrading image of all the men and women they feel are different. Their children are the adults of tomorrow and it is on the basis of the values they have received when they were tots that they will pass judgment on others later on.
Madam Speaker, there are already too many stereotypes and cliches we must seek to destroy and it is a task for pioneers. It is essential that the Canadian Racial Relations Foundation should act without delay. It should not follow in the footsteps of this government which, by failing to make a quick decision in connection with the Sikh turban issue, only succeeded in aggravating the situation. If the Foundation wants to justify its existence, it should go ahead and take preventive measures. It
May 29, 1990

should not only react, because then it would already be too late.
Madam Speaker, I want now to read to you the mandate of the foundation, for it is very wide in scope and we should watch very closely to make sure that things are really happening, and that the Foundation is not satisfied only with drafting expert reports which will end up on shelves and represent its greatest expenditure.
The purpose of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation is to undertake research to further understanding of the nature, causes and effects of racism; to assist the public and private sectors in eliminating racial discrimination; to act as an information centre about race relations resources and establishing links with a great many educational institutions including libraries; to facilitate the exchange of information relating to race relation policies and programs; to assist in the development of professional standards; to increase public awareness of the importance of eliminating racial discrimination; to support the development of effective policies and programs for the elimination of racism and racial discrimination.
When we look closely, we see how easy it is to make a lot of nice speeches without actually doing anything. We must practice what we preach-first within the government, then within the Foundation-by putting into key positions members of every minority who know the problem and can suggest short-, medium- and longterm solutions. It is too easy to say we understand a situation when we have not experienced it. The Minister would probably reply that it is not necessary to be sick to understand the disease, but it is then easier to understand what is happening and to propose solutions to day-to-day problems.
It is those who have experienced prejudice and discrimination who can best come up with corrective and preventive measures.

Intolerance is on the rise. I would like to cite an article from The Toronto Star of February 23 that states the following:
Many Canadians pay lip service to the ideals of tolerance to ethnic
minorities while harbouring racist or discriminatory sentiment, a new
poll suggests.
Government Orders
"Reading between the lines, there seems to be a lot of bigots out there; it may be that up to one-third of Canadians are bigots" pollster Angus Reid says of the survey of 1,505 adults conducted in February 7-15.
The Angus Reid-Southam News polls found that a majority of Canadians (54 per cent) believe intolerance toward ethnic minorities is on the rise and that recent incidents of discrimination are indicative of a darkening mood in race relations across the country.
Generally, 60 per cent of Canadians accept the proposition that "treating minority groups with generosity" is a special and desirable aspect of the country's character.
But when it comes to specifics an equal number, (59 per cent) say ethnic minorities should abandon their customs and language and become "more like most Canadians".
Up to now, the government has not done much to prove its commitment to racial harmony. It seems to regularly add fuel to the fire. The refugee backlog clearance program is but an example of their lack of commitment to those who wish to become part of our Canadian society.

Madam Speaker, we are seriously wondering for whom the government wants to create the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Does it want to award research contracts to certain people by taking budget funds previously given to support groups? Unless they have other funds available we have not heard about-
In this era of budget cuts, it is important that the money be allocated fairly and effectively, and not only to support researchers whose reports will be read then set aside for an indefinite period of time or will be used for speeches and conferences. The government must act now. It must bring the fire under control before it is too late.
The main purpose of this bill, Madam Speaker, is to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation with a view to facilitate the exchange, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise in order to contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canada.
I can only support such a bill while, at the same time, wondering when the government will take concrete action. When indeed will it prove to us that harmony within this country is a priority? When will the government consider important to invest in what is working well instead of making cutbacks? When will it understand that it is essential to work with the people in the field who are the real experts? It is certainly not through

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
cutbacks that this government will show us its commitment to social peace. Or was that just more idle talk?
Madam Speaker, this government has not been sensitive to the problems of pay equity and discrimination in the workplace. A study published on March 21 by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council shows that only 2.9 per cent of the public service officers are from visible minorities. Such percentage is far from being representative of their place in the workforce, of which they make up 6.4 per cent.
Is that the example the government is setting? More to the point, how can a government preach something it does not want to practice? It seems to me that this is another case of double standards.

In its 1989 annual report the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated that visible minorities were underrepresented in occupations throughout the country and that hiring and promotion practices reinforced their present concentrations in less well-paying jobs.
What is the Conservative government doing to change the situation? Keeping people at a lower financial level of society does not enable them to feel pride in their work and in themselves. Ignoring this fact will not cause it to correct itself. I agree that there is a lot to be done, but saying it is not enough. It is high time the government makes a move to correct the situation, not in a year or so, but now.
What is the good of having a race relations foundation if we do not start doing what we can to cut off useless tensions? If the Conservative government cares about Canada, it will start by reconstructing the Canadian society by investing rather than cutting funds. It is not normal for a government that wants to be taken seriously when it talks about racial harmony to start by cutting funds to the Heritage Languages Program of Secretary of State.
This program was designed to promote racial harmony and national unity by providing an opportunity for the preservation and understanding of ethnic languages and cultures. Such actions promoted the positive values associated with cultural preservation and promotion and,
moreover, heritage language training provides Canadians with a competitive edge in the global economy. The net result of a prosperous economy and high standard of living is greater unity and harmony.
In a time of hardship and social tension it is even more important to promote understanding and tolerance. It is not the time to cut and have people suddenly feel like second class citizens.

Madam Speaker, we must change people's attitudes, and we cannot do this with words and reports. We must act. It is high time that all the media-radio, television and the newspapers-started reflecting Canada's cultural diversity and included more members of ethnic and racial minorities within their ranks.
The Conservative Government should start paying close attention to what is going on if it really wants a united Canada. It must show leadership. It must have more employees-in decision-making positions-representing these minorities. How can it ask others to do what it does not do itself? It must get an example.
Madam Speaker, if we want Canada to remain a nation, we must learn to live together. It is important that we learn to accept each others' differences and that we unite to create a positive force on whose diversity will make this country a better place to live. We must stop wanting to change everyone to correspond to our own image. We must be willing to discover, to assimilate and to share. A country can only survive when people live in harmony. Discord only breeds destruction.
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Government must invest in the human potential that exists in this country. The Race Relations Foundation is a first step, but from the very beginning it must be in touch with the support groups that are most familiar with the problems.
The foundation will only be useful if it is truly aware of the problems and provides short-and long-term solutions. It must be willing to look at the real problems and make a genuine commitment to implement solutions. Policies must be followed by concrete action. Otherwise, the foundation will be just one more agency receiving funds to write papers that will not be taken seriously by anyone.
May 29, 1990

In concluding, I want to say that while I accept the concept of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, I think it is important to see what kind of concrete policies will come out of the foundation. Let us hope that this time, the Conservative government will make a real contribution to the unity of this country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak on Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. We support this proposal to establish a race relations foundation in Canada, which was a part of the Japanese Canadian redress settlement. We must remember, as we debate this bill, the terrible injustices that were perpetrated against Canadians of Japanese origin during World War II. I want to take just a moment to quote from one of the summaries of the Council of Japanese Canadians.
Between 1941 and 1949 the Canadian government forced 21,000 Canadian residents of Japanese ethic origin from their homes, confined most in detention camps, sold off all their real and personal property, and forced them to scatter across Canada or to be shipped to war-torn Japan. Over 17,000 of those victimized by the Canadian government were Canadian citizens. The government claimed that this denial of the civil and human rights of these Canadians was necessary to ensure Canada's security.
Today, government documents show this claim to be completely false. They show that the treatment of Japanese Canadians during and after the Second World War was motivated by racism and political opportunism.
They show ministers of the Crown used their emergency powers to achieve a political objective: the destruction of the Japanese Canadian community in British Columbia.
This is to the shame of all Canadians. For 42 years, victims who were scattered across Canada, families that were broken up and scattered because of these atrocities, tended to internalize their feelings of hurt and humiliation, while many Canadians added shame and stigma to these wounds. Their community in British Columbia, and in my riding of Vancouver East which was the heartland of the Japanese Canadian community, was never re-established.
In the early 1940s, CCF members of Parliament, particularly Angus Maclnnis from British Columbia, spoke out against these injustices. They in turn received much abuse. The NDP continued to call for an end to the War Measures Act and continued to press for the
Government Orders
need for an official apology and redress for these great injustices.
Prior to the last election and following the earlier United States settlement, the Government of Canada finally took action, and we supported it. Along with an official statement from the Prime Minister acknowledging the injustices, modest individual settlements were made to survivors. There was a commitment to fund community activities and $24 million for a new Canadian Race Relations Foundation was approved.
I was present at a number of gatherings of Japanese Canadians. They celebrated the redress and commemorated the events of the 1940s in such a way as to ensure that these injustices would never be forgotten or repeated. I was very moved by the feelings that showed in the faces of elders. I remember so many of the older women, who were undoubtedly widows by this time, sitting quietly around the walls of a large room. It showed in their faces that their pride was restored. The misplaced guilt, which we as a country imposed on them, was assuaged.
Their children and grandchildren, who are leaders in our communities today, had fought hard for justice and for redress. They established a very strong organization, the National Council of Japanese Canadians.
We must continue to recall this and other acts of racism and discrimination in our past, as well as in our recent history. It is important to do this in order to prevent such acts from ever recurring and to make people think more about the racist attitudes that are all too prevalent today.
On March 21 I said:
History shows that racism has been a sickness in Canadian society and is a cancer that is growing. In 1914 East Indians on the Komagata Maru, who were British subjects seeking refuge, were turned away at the Port of Vancouver.
Jews were refused sanctuary on our eastern shores in 1939 and many died in concentration camps. In 1885 racist legislation imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants, followed in 1923 by an Immigration Act to exclude Chinese immigration altogether, and men who had built our railroads were isolated and deprived of rights.
They were deprived of having their families in Canada.
Blacks who settled in Nova Scotia-

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
-who were among our earliest settlers were ghettoized and continue to be ghettoized. They suffer discrimination to this day.
Redress for Japanese Canadians who suffered during World War II will not erase the hurt. But the greatest tragedy in Canada has been the treatment of aboriginal people who shared their land with us. They continue to suffer from institutionalized racism in every facet of their lives.
Over the past year we have witnessed racial discrimination in our justice system in the case of Donald Marshall and Helen Betty Osborne. We heard Philippe Rushton's racist theories. There were frequent complaints about stereotyping in the media. There were ongoing protests against turbans in the RCMP and racist pins circulated from Alberta. And skinheads continued to recruit young people to facism.
Only this month we were deeply saddened and sickened at the desecration of Jewish graves and all that this symbolizes.
Fortunately, most Canadians abhor such racist acts that are, of course, perpetuated by a very small minority. We may abhor inside ourselves and within our circles of friends and family, but not enough Canadians express this abhorrence publicly.
I would like to come back to Bill C-63, which is to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. As I said earlier, part of the funding, the $24 million endowment which is to be given to establish this foundation, was as a result of the Japanese Canadian community. I understand now that it is $12 million on behalf of the Japanese Canadian community and $12 million additional.
In his press release some time ago the minister stated that one of the purposes of tabling this legislation is that it underlines and strengthens the commitment to equality for all Canadians expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Multicultural-ism Act.
I would like to comment particularly on that point. I think it is very important, and I am sure representatives of many ethnocultural organizations across the country will agree, that this foundation, in conjunction with the government and all of us, must really work to strengthen our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to adequately protect minority rights. There is increasing concern about this across Canada. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has presented this, as has a group called Coalition 33 which is working specifically on this. It is located in Vancouver.
There are concerns that minority rights are not adequately protected under the Charter. Some wanted Section 15, the equality section of our Charter, to be entrenched in Section 16 of the McKenna accord, which would reaffirm equality.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council asked for entrenchment of multiculturalism in the body of the Constitution in the same way that the languages of the original two founding nations and the aboriginal peoples should be entrenched. They also call for reaffirmation of the Charter to be added to the McKenna accord and removal of Section 33, the notwithstanding clause.
Coalition 33 has said that Section 33 of our constitutional Charter permits the federal or provincial governments to ignore our basic rights and freedoms by using the notwithstanding clause. This is a very serious situation and I think they are doing an excellent job of beginning to document why they feel this way and why it is important to have some changes to protect minority rights. We cannot take this for granted.
I hope the foundation will research these questions and will recommend solutions, if we have not found solutions by the time the foundation is established, and that the federal government and First Ministers will ensure the protection of minority rights.
The minister also mentioned the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. I, quite frankly, do not see that this is a primary responsibility of the new foundation. As we have said repeatedly in this House, in committee and elsewhere, it is the responsibility of this government to adequately monitor and implement the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It is particularly the responsibility of the Minister of Multiculturalism, who should be the lead minister in this regard.
I will not belabour the point, but that is why we felt it was so important to have this spelled out in amendments to Bill C-18, in the new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, particularly in the role of the minister. Unfortunately, this was refused. As I say, I will not dwell on that again, but this kind of abrogation of responsibility really creates cynicism in people. I hope very much that none of the disappointment will be repeated in this foundation as we move toward its implementation.
May 29, 1990

The minister stated in a press release of January 31 that the foundation "will play a vital role in the national effort to rid our society of the scourges of racism and racial discrimination by undertaking research, raising public awareness, and assisting business, labour and government and public and private institutions in their efforts in this area".
This is very, very important. First, let us look at research. One of the major areas in which the foundation could start is in analyzing the stereotypes and myths which exist in society today and are being perpetuated, often by the media I am sorry to say. They must document and present accurate facts.
It is important, for example, that we look at public attitudes to immigration where there is frequently an undercurrent of racism. We need to determine what these attitudes are, dispel the myths, provide accurate data about the positive effects of immigration in Canada and make positive recommendations in this area to the government.
I think of one other example of the kind of myths that are perpetuated. This often happens when there is stress in the community, as we have had in Vancouver with increasing immigration. It is grossly unfair that Hong Kong immigrants have been blamed for this.
When this issue was researched more carefully, we found that it was speculators who were escalating the price of housing; that sellers of homes, who wanted to get the most for their houses, certainly contributed to it; and that a lack of adequate planning, particularly on the part of the city, led to the so-called "monster houses" which were built, not by immigrants, but by developers. This shows how common myths need to be dealt with and facts presented in the process of increasing understanding and, hopefully, warm acceptance of immigrants. This is certainly a major role for the new foundation.
It would be extremely important that a foundation on race relations also work with aboriginal groups who have experienced the greatest degree of racism in all facets of their lives. There are many, many skilled persons and organizations available to assist in this process and to document facts. There are many skilled people from the aboriginal communities who have public relations skills
Government Orders
and art skills who could help with public programs which would promote greater understanding.
Media watch programs are very important. It is very important that a new foundation would monitor and sensitize the media when there are incidents of stereotyping or discrimination. I could mention a number of them. I was involved in one myself when I was speaking in Saskatoon to the Chinese cultural society there. The headline in the paper the next day read: "Chinese say" so and so. Of course the people at that meeting were very offended because this was implying that they were not Canadians, not Canadians of Chinese origin, but that they were Chinese. It was very misleading. So the changing of media attitudes is very important, not only of reporters, who are often not at fault, but of the people who develop headlines as well.
Another function of the new foundation would be to raise public awareness. It is extremely important this new foundation work through existing networks, and organizations and the media directly. It is very important that this not be an isolated academic kind of foundation. I assume they will be contracting out projects as well. They need to consult with persons who are directly affected and people who are working with race relations.
I would like to mention two people whom I know. Sadie Kuehn in Vancouver and Olivia Chow in Toronto are both people who have worked, not only to document racism in their communities-the black community and the Chinese community-but have run as school trustees and worked to change the school system to have positive race relations. Those are the kind of people we need to have involved.
We need to encourage more action in the public as a whole and raise public awareness. I was reminded at a meeting on Sunday that it is not good enough just to be concerned, that it is not good enough for us just to speak out here in Ottawa. Individuals must write to the editors of our papers locally to counteract the racist attitudes that are often expressed. We need people phoning in to hotline shows where perhaps there is the worst kind of bigotry expressed.
Another objective of the foundation is to counteract discrimination in justice. I think we would all agree that it is very important to concentrate on early education. Teacher training and retraining must focus not just on facts, although any foundation could help to provide facts, but on cultural sensitization as well. It is very important that people be tuned in to the cultural sensitivities. To do that requires more than the help of a foundation, of course, but I am sure that could be part of

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
training programs that they might stimulate. We need changes to the curriculum to ensure that accurate racial and ethnic history is taught, which is very important. And, of course, there should be many kinds of multicultural-multiracial events in schools.
Will the foundation that is being proposed be able to provide resources for schools and for this kind of pubic education? I hope it will. I hope there will be funds also to commission films and documentaries, particularly for TV, which will present positive images as well as accurate facts.
The foundation should also be able to contract out work to ethnic groups to produce accurate ethnic history with positive images. I am thinking particularly of the kind of thing that the black community does during Black History Month. This has been a very effective way, not only of bringing together the many diverse elements in their own community-and it certainly helps some of us to be more aware of the diversity within that community as well-but of making people proud of the contribution of black people in the early history of Canada and angry at the intolerance and racism that people have experienced.
I wonder if the foundation will also research past injustices such as the Chinese head tax, discrimination against Ukrainian, Italian and German Canadians and the Komagata Maru incident. There has been a lot of work done on this already and we do not want to delay government action in acknowledging particularly the Chinese head tax and the Inclusion Act, and its meeting with the Chinese Canadian National Council regarding its very modest redress proposals. However, while we do not want to delay government action, certainly a foundation would be concerned with such documentation.
The foundation will be a national resource located in Toronto. I would like to point out to the minister that some westerners, with our usual paranoia, usually paranoia based on facts and experience, may feel some concern that the foundation should be very much sensitive to racism as it is expressed in all areas of Canada and should not be just central Canada oriented. It is very important to have links to the different regions. In
British Columbia, my province, racism has largely been related, although not exclusively, to Asian people. In Nova Scotia I am sure the concerns of the black community will be uppermost. Of course, concerns of aboriginal communities is a top priority.
The foundation, the minister says, will work with business and labour. I hope that this means they will look at job ghettos and the exploitation of visible minority people who work as domestics, as farm workers and in the garment industries. I hope it means that employers will be pressed again, although this is a government responsibility as well, into implementing mandatory meaningful employment equity.
I also hope that affirmative action will be encouraged in a different way within union leadership and membership. I have been at conferences where union leaders have asked how they can reach out more to minority people, both as members and in the community. The promotion of languages classes related to the workplace might be another thing that would be of concern to the foundation.
It is interesting that the government mentions government and public institutions as being another area of concern, but mentions it last. I would say that it should be first. We cannot continue to condone systemic discrimination in our public and government services. This is a job which, of course, is the responsibility of government and of the Human Rights Commission, which is grossly underfunded, but I am sure the foundation will also be concerned with this and, hopefully, will shame the government into some action since it does not seem to be able to take it on its own.
This bill will be going to committee. I hope that we will be able to ask more specific questions and have open discussions. I also hope that the minister will be much more open to the opinions of witnesses and the opinions of all of us on committee, all party members, and their suggestions. This has not been the case in the past unfortunately.
The answers to many of these questions will depend largely on the selection of the board members for the
May 29, 1990

new Race Relations Foundation. It will depend on how they are selected, how they are appointed, and their links with the larger community.
If there are more political appointees by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, this will destroy confidence in a new foundation. It is unfortunate that this is the way this government acts. The minister himself has done some political recruiting of his own race relations network which develops cynicism in the race relations community generally.
They are quite capable of developing their own networks. They do not need the minister to recruit his friends to recognize and fund a network and take funds from legitimate existing organizations. I think it is an insult to autonomous organizations. We do not want this to happen in a new foundation.
It is very important that there be wide consultation, as the minister has mentioned, but it needs to go further than that. There need to be nominations of board members by groups that are concerned with racism and groups that have knowledge in this field, so that this becomes an objective group, not a group of political appointees.
Board members will include academics but should not be only academics. It should include on the board persons in the front lines who know the hurt of racism and whose anger demands action. It should include representatives of labour, business, ethnic communities, ethnocultural organizations, and human rights activists. These must not be partisan appointees.
If a race relations foundation is to fulfil its mandate, there must be a commitment to develop practical strategies for changing the racist attitudes in individuals, in communities, and in institutions. This is what would be useful to communities, not only academic studies.
The committee must look at all these questions. In particular, we must hear from Dr. Lloyd Stanford who, I understand, prepared an excellent report that went to the Department of Secretaiy of State, then was hidden. We have tried every means that we can think of to have access to that report, which I have been told by objective people is a very important report. We do not know why the government has repressed this information. Even the Library of Parliament has not been able to get access to
Government Orders
it. It is very important that we hear directly from Dr. Stanford in committee.
In closing, I would like to quote an activist woman of colour, whom I mentioned earlier, Sadie Kuehn, who made the following statement. I think she was doing this in relation to art projects that might be developed in the school community. The title of the article is Racism Hurts and reads:
Racism hurts the individuals who are subject to personal humiliation and pain, to insults and rejection, to stereotyping and name calling, the racist jokes and denial of opportunity, and sometimes even to physical violence-all because of the colour of their skin or their ethnic origin.
It especially hurts children-young people seeking their way in the world, only to discover that many of the dreams open to their classmates are closed to them. During these formative years, such experiences can have a long-term impact, creating an acceptance of others having a right to treat them in unjust and degrading ways.
But the hurt goes beyond individual victims. Racism poisons the entire community where it is allowed to live. A community riddled with hatred and fear can never achieve its potential in success and richness. Its culture will be inevitably distorted- either explicitly, or by omission of the contributions of those who would have a great deal to offer if circumstances allowed.
If racism is a product as well as a producer of fear, how can it be challenged? What can be done?
I am sure that a foundation on race relations is not the complete answer. It is only people speaking out who can really make changes, each of us in our own hearts, in our attitudes, and in our communities. But certainly we support the proposal to establish a Race Relations Foundation. We hope there will be broad hearings that will allow people in different regions of Canada to be heard. It would be an excellent opportunity for a committee to go to different communities. I offer the support of our party in that respect.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this initiative on the Race Relations Foundation. I say this with a little regret, because one of the reasons we support such a foundation is its obvious need, a need that is unfortunate simply by its identification.
As the member who spoke a few minutes ago indicated, in Canada there is in a different climate, an atmosphere that we as Canadians cannot take great pride in noting. In fact, as a writer in one of the local papers indicated the other day, there seems to be a resurfacing of xenophobia, a hatred, a fear of foreigners, "a state of mind that has been spreading with increasing speed in the so-called civilized west whose people are beginning to vent their anxieties in a variety of ways, and

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
in the process an old historical verity is repeated that those who suffer first are the ones who are widely perceived to be as 'other'".
If this foundation is to address anything, it is to address that particular notice or identification of a state of mind developing in Canada, most unfortunate in its occurrence. I say that it is unfortunate because we have come slowly to a realization that the character of this country is in a state of evolution, a state of development, and a state of change.
Canada is first and foremost a multicultural country, a country that identifies itself as one, wherein all races and cultures of origin have an equality of position that suggests to each and everyone that there be dignity and a sense of pride expressed by each of the individual participants in those communities with a reciprocal respect by all other individuals from similar communities.
When I said I would support this foundation with some regret, it is because that need underscores the fact that there has not yet been an acceptance throughout all our country that the nature or fabric of our society is fundamentally, unequivocally, irrefutably multicultural.
We need instruments, symbols, and institutions that drive home the point that each and every one of us lives as individuals in collectives, all on our own in support of one another but always as Canadians whose rights are never in question because of our racial origin, our country of origin, our culture of origin, or our language.
I wanted to take a second look at this legislation and how and in what context we were establishing this type of a foundation. I went to the Statistics Canada figures for Ontario and Quebec, being from central Canada, and noted that in Ontario in 1986 the percentage of the population that identified itself as something other than French or English in origin was 62 per cent, and 34 per cent indicated multiple ethnic origin. There is already an evolving society wherein members are intermarrying and producing children who are no longer as attached to the past tradition or culture of their parents but one that is evolving and shaping a new Canadian dynamic.
In Toronto, the city where I come from, those figures are at least as startling. I am sure it would surprise many members in this House to know that in the population of Toronto, which is somewhat over three million, 70 per cent identifies itself as being neither French nor English and 28 per cent indicated a multiple ethnic origin.
Those figures are important for those of us who indicate, as did the previous speaker, that we have to consider this not only in the context of a multicultural act but also in the context of all constitutional debates, wherein we are seeing a debate centred upon two poles: anglophone and francophone, English Canada and French Canada.
We have an image of a monolithic society that is homogeneous in the extreme, but those statistics would suggest the complete opposite. In fact an entity like Ontario with a population of nine million plus is no longer so easily identifiable as a bastion of anglophone-English Canada but really a paragon of multicultural, multiracial society that should be viewed in the context of evolution toward a higher goal.
If I was able to quote those kinds of figures for Ontario, we can also take a look at Quebec. In Quebec, according to Canada Statistics figures, 17 per cent of the population identifies itself as being neither French nor English in origin, and 7 per cent of that population identifies itself as having more than one ethnic origin other than English or French. In Montreal, 36 per cent of the population is neither English nor French in origin.
That draws to mind that what we need to do in our country is to come to firm grips with the realities that the demographics now present us. We have not had that opportunity. Unfortunately much of the debate has centred around rights provincially and transferred on to race, culture, and language. In a truly multicultural society there should be no such threat. All cultures and languages deserve and indeed have a right to have the security of being able to generate the dynamics that are required for that culture or that language to continue to grow, to continue to develop in the context of a Canada in evolution, an evolution that takes into consideration the very valid, valuable construction and participation that have taken place in the past and continue to take place today.
May 29, 1990

As we look toward this foundation I recall what has happened over the course of the last several days in my own city of Toronto. I look again with regret that we need such a foundation in order to break down the walls of fear, the walls of ignorance, the walls of suspicion, and the walls of insecurity.
It is unfortunate that when we speak of multicultural-ism the focus turns out to be one of racism. I say that knowing full well that the recent incident in Toronto that appeared to be racially motivated has now generated a series of very hostile reactions and very counterproductive comments by the press, officials and spokespersons from the various communities.
As my colleague from Montreal who spoke before me has indicated, what we need is a new direction that is positive in its promotion, in its engendering of those new symbols that hold Canada up as a land of tolerance, as a land of equality where we no longer simply pay lip service to these ideals but we live them out. We can only live them out if those symbols have the substance which many of us hold dearly and promote. If this bill is a small first step in that direction, it should be lauded.
I have some concerns that I hope the minister and his government will address. I am very concerned that this foundation not displace the rest of the advances that we are beginning to make in the whole concept of establishing multiculturalism as the ethos of this nation. In that light, I was disappointed some weeks ago when the federal government established a Heritage Languages Institute with a budget of a mere $6 million, but at the same time having a Department of Communications continue with a budget of approximately $300 million for the promotion of two official languages in areas outside of provincial jurisdiction. In the context of the figures that I gave a few moments ago, if we are to give substance to the principles which we espouse in bills such as this one, then what we need to do is put our money as well behind those symbols, behind those institutions.
It is very valid for this government or for any government of Canada to promote the two official languages. It is even more valid for that government to expend funds so that its citizens develop a sense of pride, a sense of belonging to a country that is of their making and theirs to hand to their descendants.
Government Orders
Last week we saw the establishment of a multicultural department mandated to promote "all" ethnic communities and yet retaining a minimal budget, just as it had when it was another department of the Secretary of State.
If we are going to give substance to those principles which we say identify Canada and its values, then surely we must put behind that the substance of dollars to indicate that we are serious.
Do not get me wrong, Madam Speaker, there is no one in the ethnocultural communities who is out there on bended knee, cap in hand, begging for money from the federal trough. That is not the case. My colleague, the critic for multiculturalism, has spoken eloquently on that. Rather, they are looking for substantive indications that there is an element of seriousness about where the government is going its policies, its programs and in the debates that affect the nation.
Today we are talking about establishing a foundation. Half the budget is going to redress the wrongs that the government on behalf of Canada has recognized were committed in World War II against its Canadians of Japanese origin. It is perhaps a first step, a very small first step to recognizing that, as a country, we have a great way to go to redress some of the errors that we as a society have perpetrated upon ourselves and people of other origins. I noticed that the previous speaker mentioned those of Ukrainian, Germanic, Chinese and Italian origins. Those are black marks on our history. We cannot rewrite history, but certainly we can make an admission of the errors that we no longer want to repeat.
In the whole context of establishing this new error free Canada, if you will, establishing a paragon of social organization, the one thing that is forgotten is the vision of Canada that people from ethnocultural communities present. Perhaps, as an aside, this debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on the fact that while the country is being tom by petty rivalries among the provinces and egos of politicians with respect to the Constitution, 40 per cent of the population in Canada have no part in rendering those kinds of decisions, those kinds of games and gamesmanship that is part and parcel of the Constitutional debate. Almost regrettably, a true vision of a united Canada, where all provinces and all peoples are treated with the kind of equality and deference that we

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
would accord to ourselves, is coming from the ethnocultural and multicultural community.
I said that we need the symbols, we need the institutions that allow us to permeate these principles and these concepts throughout the whole gamut of society. Yet in a two hour program aired a week ago by CBC, a Crown corporation, discussing the question "Is Canada dividing itself?", a bare seven minutes made some reference to what the program identified as 40 per cent of Canadians being of origins non-Anglo, non-French. Not one representative from that 40 per cent of Canadians, who have a different view and a different vision, I dare say a very dynamic and energetic vision of Canada, was deemed worthy to be present in the debates. This in a two hour program by a Crown corporation that receives the bulk of its funds from the Canadian government.
Those are not complaints by the ethnocultural community. They are complaints of Canadians who want to see this country together, where people can live in harmony and in dignity, where no one suffers the humiliation of being scorned, being put aside or, even worse, discriminated against.
This foundation can take those first steps to help redress some of that. The onus is on the minister through his department and through the instruments of the Multiculturalism Act and the Department of Multi-culturalism to be able to promote and initiate programs that are needed to have a change in the mindset that is tearing all Canadians apart. Never again should we be able to stand in this House and listen to errors and sins of commission and omission that the previous speaker indicated Canadians are guilty of having committed.
We have to generate a spirit of positiveness and security. Without that, we lapse into unease and unease translates into a heightened sense of nationalism and ethnicity, both of which breed xenophobia and bring with them racism and discrimination.
In Canada, we have the opportunity to meet a challenge and to forge a new direction that requires a change of policies, not only on multiculturalism, official languages, immigration and refugees, but we need instruments and leadership to convince all Canadians that multiculturalism is something to be proud of rather than to be feared.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks there is a connection between the increasing racism in society, particularly in Canada in the last few years, and the economic policies and the economic situation that we have all been very concerned about.
If we look at what is happening in Canada, particularly in the last three or four years, we find a society that is increasingly insecure. For example, people were very worried about free trade. People are becoming increasingly concerned as various social programs are cut: family allowances, pensions, the Canada Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance, the type of safety net that people have expected.
There has been a tremendous housing problem in some of the largest urban communities, certainly in his community and mine, Toronto and Vancouver respectively. The jobs of people who are living close to immigrants in some of the downtown areas, the inner city areas, are not very secure. Their parents are worried about the future for their kids and being able to get them into education, and education costs are going up and assistance is going down.
Does the hon. member think, as I do, that the economic situation creates insecurity in people and is responsible, to quite a large degree, for the fear of immigration which in turn translates into increasing fear of coloured immigration perhaps and other acts of racism?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, it appears that the hon. member is in sync with the realities that we promote on this side of the House. In a very brief answer to her question, the word is yes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the House be in agreement if we were to call it one o'clock and allow the hon. member to be recognized after Question Period, instead of having him start over again?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
May 29, 1990

At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the distinguished International Commission of Inquiry on the Fate and Whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg has concluded, and I quote chairman Irwin Cotier: "the evidence is incontrovertible that he did not die in 1947 as the Soviets claim" and "we have a responsibility to humanity to determine the fate and whereabouts of Wallenberg who is credited with saving more lives during the Second World War than any single government".
The commission reviewed thousands of pages of evidence, documents Wallenberg's years of imprisonment, releases new information including eyewitness reports of his fate, and includes discussion with the late Andrei Sakharov who worked closely with the committee.
The report concludes: first, Wallenberg did not die in 1947; it is compelling that he was alive in the 1950s and 1960s and credible that he was alive in the 1970s and 1980s; second, the burden of proof is on the Soviets to rebut this evidence which they have not done; and, third, without contrary evidence, the committee must assume he may still be alive and should be released.
In welcoming President Gorbachev today, I ask the Prime Minister, in the interest of Canada's only honourary citizen, Wallenberg, to appeal to President Gorbachev for Wallenberg's release if he is still alive and, at least, to fully disclose the fate and whereabouts of this lost hero of the holocaust.


SOVIET JEWRY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute and congratulate one of the true leaders of the world, President Mikhail
Gorbachev. As a result of his introduction of glasnost and perestroika into the Soviet Union, breathtaking changes have occurred in the U.S.S.R. and, indeed, in all of eastern Europe.
As chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry, I particularly want to thank Mr. Gorbachev who is visiting our country today for permitting thousands of Jews to leave the Soviet Union. In 1986, only 914 Jews were given exit visas. This year it is expected that 150,000 Jews will be allowed to leave the country.
I would, however, ask Mr. Gorbachev to do his utmost to condemn and eradicate the ugly anti-Semitic actions which are occurring in the U.S.S.R. While glasnost has meant a more open society where freedom of speech is more prevalent, it is most regrettable that it has given rise to increased anti-Semitic actions. We urge him to curb these insidious actions.
In closing, I salute Mr. Gorbachev for writing and orchestrating a new chapter of hope and good will for the peoples of the U.S.S.R. and many east bloc countries. The struggle has just begun and there will be many problems, but are on the right path.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications was given a petition with over 150,000 names yesterday asking the government to ban children's television programs that suggest violence as a normal way to solve conflicts. Almost all such programming comes from the United States. In that country, the average number of violent acts in cartoon shows was 41 per hour. The minister's answer was to refer the problem to the CRTC.

The Minister of Communications is all talk and no action. Here is what we propose to deal with this serious matter.
The Broadcast Act is at the report stage in the House. We are not going to deal with it until the fall. Therefore, let us amend it and give the CRTC the power and direction to Canadianize children's programs, that is, to make them less violent than the American programs.

May 29, 1990


ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, one of the final statements by the former Minister of the Environment was to commit Canada to stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000.
On Friday, May 18, 1990, the Minister of Forestry reassured us all that the minister's commitment is a government'commitment. However, last Wednesday, the Prime Minister waffled on the stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions. On Thursday, the new part-time Minister of the Environment repudiated the commitment, while on Friday, the Minister of Forestry recommitted the government to stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions. And the government wonders why Canadians are confused.
We urge the part-time Minister of the Environment to make a clear statement in the House and inform Canadians as to exactly where his government stands on carbon dioxide emissions.


BILL C-21
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 1989, the House of Commons passed Bill C-21 which incorporates the much needed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In particular, the changes include a 45 per cent increase in funding for labour force development. The strategy is to increase the quantity of training and skills development in Canada, as well as to increase the quality and relevancy of this training.
Yet, for seven months, the passage of this legislation has been the victim of a misguided political power play. Do those responsible realize that this delay is already having regional consequences?
In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton alone, assistance under the UI job creation program is in limbo, and the applicants under the self-employment incentive program are anxiously awaiting the passage of Bill C-21.
I say to members opposite and those in the other place: "Let's get on with it. Let's look at the big picture. There's much more at stake here than simple political gamesmanship."


GREAT BED RACE PUT ON BY THE CHRIST-ROI HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, on May 16,1 had the pleasure to inform this House of an activity put on by the Christ-Roi Hospital Foundation, namely a bed race to raise money to upgrade the hospital's medical equipment.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it has been done!
Having participated in this bed race with 700 others, I realized how enthusiastic and eager people are when it comes to such a laudable objective.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of 1,000 volunteers and the continual encouragement of 5,000 people all along the course, this event was a tremendous success.
As proof, the goal of $100,000 was reached.
Thanks go to foundation president Louise Roy and, on behalf of all users of the Christ-Roi Hospital, to everyone who made this project a reality.
Congratulations and be back next year!


IMMIGRATION
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Economic Council of Canada came before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to tell members that, although the data was not complete, the "economic benefits of immigration are really very small".
The subtle suggestion was that immigrants are not worth the perceived problems attributed to immigration: strain on the social infrastructure, depressed wages, competition for jobs, social tensions, increased education costs, and any other ills that a lethargic government looking for a scapegoat might wish to attribute to newer Canadians.
The data is there and it tells a different story. Total immigration in 1988-89 represented a mere 0.61 per cent of the Canadian population. For the previous four years, it was 0.59 per cent, 0.39 per cent, 0.33 per cent and 0.35 per cent respectively. When we factor out emigration from Canada, we see that net immigration for the last
May 29, 1990

four years totalled only 350,000, less than 90,000 per year or a mere 0.35 per cent of the population.
The minister might well counsel the government to adopt a pro-active, energetic immigration policy rather than allow the dissemination of the view that immigration is a cause of problems facing Canada when an intelligent analysis sees them as a solution.


THE SENATE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, recent events have clearly shown that Canadians reject the Senate's continuing battle to frustrate the will of the elected Parliament. Canadians reject the Senate's continued use of that place for repeated partisan purposes. I am sure that the people of Canada will also reject the battle being waged by a number of senators to maintain and enhance their privileges.
The resignation of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod has highlighted the desperate need either to reform or abolish the other place. At a time when all Canadians are being asked to accept restraint in government spending, it is shocking that the other place continues to guard jealously ancient privileges and spurn the introduction of modern management practices.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, seniors across Canada have received an innocent looking leaflet entitled: The GST: Information for Seniors.
The leaflet states that 84 per cent of Canadian seniors will receive a tax credit of $190, paid by cheque four times a year, by filling out the GST credit form. It also reminds seniors that they will be protected by social programs fully indexed to the cost of living.
As a result of this leaflet, many seniors now believe that they will be receiving four cheques of $190 each year, and that the GST credit, like other social programs,
will be automatically and fully indexed. This simply is not the case.
The GST credit will not offset the increased cost of the GST and $190 is not enough to compensate seniors for the GST they will pay. Because the GST credit is not fully indexed to inflation, fewer and fewer seniors will be eligible, even though they remain at the same fixed income. It is time that seniors learned the truth about the GST.


LITERACY
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has declared 1990 to be International Literacy Year. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is committed to the objectives as set forth by UNESCO.
Canada has strong linguistic traditions, not only in French and English, but in the richness and diversity of the many languages spoken by native peoples. Unfortunately, it has been estimated that as many as 30 per cent of aboriginal youth, ages 16 to 24, do not possess reading and writing skills of a grade nine level.
Widespread illiteracy has profound implications for society as economic costs to Canadians run into the billions of dollars as a result of unemployment and the other consequences of illiteracy. The well-being of the family and an individual's feeling of positive self-worth are adversely affected by the poverty and social alienation associated with the inability to read and write.
The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will travel this week to four regions in Canada to meet with native leaders and educators. It is our hope that, by receiving information firsthand, the committee will be better able to make realistic and productive recommendations to Parliament regarding the most effective means of tackling this significant issue.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Kanata I attended a powwow with hundreds of aboriginal people and other citizens sponsored by the Odawa Friendship Centre. I wish all members could have experienced the sensation of watch-

May 29, 1990
watching these people, with their traditional dress, demonstrating their spiritual and cultural heritage, using their aboriginal languages. Both the young and the old were well represented. I experienced a sad realization that some governments and some of our political leaders fail to appreciate and to honour the distinct societies of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
If there is a First Ministers' Conference to deal with the Meech Lake Accord, governments of the First Nations cannot be excluded and territorial leaders, who represent northerners, must be at the table.
I encourage all Canadians to honour our true heritage by welcoming aboriginal peoples to participate equally in completing the circle of confederation.


QUEBEC VILLAGE OF YESTERYEAR
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Village of Yesteryear, a historic site in Drummondville, will open again this year on Friday to receive many visitors throughout the summer season.
This educational and cultural tourist centre is the recreation of a village according to the customs of people who lived in Quebec between 1840 and 1910.
Dressed in period costumes and equipped with old-fashioned tools, the craftspeople perform all the trades a rural community needed to live in the last century. You can also enjoy the finest Quebec cuisine.
This year, nineteenth-century farming techniques will be highlighted.
Many Canadian, American and foreign producers regularly make films there.
Mr. Speaker, last year, more than 185,000 people visited the Quebec Village of Yesteryear. I therefore invite hon. members and all Canadians to come and visit this heritage village.


FOREST RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in Halifax the part-time Minister
of the Environment said that the government was going to make Canada green. We all know that the best way to make Canada green is to plant trees, and that is exactly what this government is not doing.
Tree planting agreements worth over $1 billion have expired and, despite the Prime Minister's commitment on February 2 that they would be renewed, the Minister of Forestry has failed to deliver.
If we are going to develop environmental programs and have our forests protected, agreements in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec should be renewed now.


THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Peterson, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, should probably sue his own party's federal masters.
In their current long race to the federal leadership, and now in the provincial membership drives which anticipate an upcoming provincial election, it is my opinion that the Liberal Party continues to use members of the ethnic community for their own gain in respect of voting membership and delegates.
Several sitting Liberal provincial members, including the Solicitor General for Ontario, now find themselves in jeopardy of losing their upcoming nominations because of these questionable Liberal Party tactics. They can thank their federal counterparts for the example set by delegate voting practices in the federal leadership race. Indeed, it is a most irregular practice which questions the ethical integrity of the Liberal party and threatens the very core of our electoral process.
Overlooking the abuse of party membership and thus supporting the practice for their own gain will backfire in the end. The Liberals, Mr. Speaker, will ultimately reap the wild wind.
May 29, 1990

Oral Questions
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD	[Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to the visit to Canada of Soviet President Gorbachev.
As we said in a statement issued today, we in the Official Opposition welcome this visit and look forward to it strengthening relations between our two countries.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Canada's agreement for wheat sales to the Soviet Union expires next summer. Yet we understand that the Soviet Union has recently secured arrangements for the purchase of wheat from Argentina and the United States. The Soviet Union is one of Canada's most important wheat customers, taking one-quarter of our exports.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada and Soviet President Gorbachev be signing a new wheat agreement during the President's visit to Ottawa today and tomorrow?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. Leader of the Opposition the need to co-operate on a bilateral basis with the Soviet Union, particularly in the area of trade and cultural exchange.
We have had a ongoing trade relationship with the Soviet Union, particularly in the area of grains and oilseeds. The existing long-term agreement between Canada and the Soviet Union will expire on July 31, 1991. Preliminary discussions have already begun on renewal under the auspices of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, and obviously the Prime Minister will be raising this issue with Mr. Gorbachev during the bilateral exchange that will occur on the occasion of his visit.


ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question as well for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We know that Canada and the Soviet Union occupy a large part of the vast, ecologically fragile Arctic region.
We know that Canada and the Soviet Union last November signed an agreement on the Arctic environment that put sustainable development at the forefront of their bilateral relations.
Therefore, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what concrete action has been taken since this agreement was signed and what will the Prime Minister of Canada actually do to protect the fragile Arctic environment and have true sustainable development in this important region of our world?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this was raised during the reception at the airport. When the President arrived he mentioned the importance of co-operation in Arctic matters, and particularly the enhancement and preservation of the environment in that very sensitive and delicate area.
This will obviously be a part of the bilateral discussions, as well as items such as the future of the European architecture, the Baltic republics, the ongoing bilateral relations that exist between Canada and the Soviet Union, the ongoing disarmament talks, and of course east-west relations in a general sense.
Obviously the point that the Leader of the Opposition makes is a very valid one. Both the Prime Minister and the President have indicated that this will be a topic for discussion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. When members of the Official Opposition were in the Soviet Union recently they were disturbed to hear reports of a possible decision by the Soviet Union to shift its nuclear testing to sites in the Soviet Arctic in 1995.

May 29, 1990
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister of Canada request that the President of the Soviet Union publicly reject such a proposal because of the adverse effect it would have if implemented on the fragile environment of the Arctic, and because of the way it would contradict the stated Soviet view that there should not be further nuclear testing and, in fact, nuclear armaments should be reduced in the Arctic. Will this request be made?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course we are concerned about the possible implications of increased testing in the fragile Arctic environment, particularly at a time when we are intensifying environmental co-operation between Canada and the U.S.S.R. We obviously will be raising this issue and expressing our deep concern. This will be conveyed directly to the President and in other ways that will come to our disposal.
I can assure the hon. member we share his concern and that this matter will be taken up during the bilateral discussions today and tomorrow.


LITHUANIA
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who has to be aware that the Lithuanian community in Canada is deeply concerned over the changing situation over there. Will the Prime Minister raise this issue with his distinguished visitor and, more specifically, is the Prime Minister prepared to ask President Gorbachev to remove all sanctions which aggravate the conflict rather than solve it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada has been made clear. It is to continue to ensure de jure non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states. Of course, we have urged, and will continue to urge, restraint upon the Soviet authorities in their actions against the Baltic states. We call on both Vilnius and Moscow to engage in productive discussions and negotiations in an attempt to resolve this matter.
As for Canada, we are considering ways and means in which we can support Lithuania and other Baltic states in this quest for greater self-determination. Those discussions will obviously be a veiy central part of the visit between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the President of the Soviet Union.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will certainly know that there is a shortage of medical supplies because of the blockade, and I hope that the Government of Canada will find ways to help to alleviate such problems.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question on another point. He knows that next year the Soviet Government will host an international conference on human rights. As a prelude to this conference, is the Prime Minister ready to recommend to President Gorbachev that he take all necessary steps to relax general travel restrictions on all its citizens and particularly, to ensure that Soviet Jews can leave the Soviet Union without threats.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I should think that my colleague knows full well to what extent respect for human rights is a matter which the Government of Canada defends with utmost determination in all institutions.
As to the specific problem he has raised, he also knows that our government supports the notion that Jewish people should be free to leave the Soviet Union and that this issue will also be the subject of discussions later today between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his counterpart.


BILL C-43
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
If Bill C-43 passes today, this government will once again have relegated women to second class citizenship. Today a doctor in a Halifax hospital said that that hospital will no longer provide abortion services if this bill passes. Doctors in Winnipeg say they will no longer provide reproductive health services. Other doctors, afraid of criminal prosecution and jail sentences, will require signed statements, witnesses and expensive psy-
May 29, 1990

chiatric evaluations. One doctor has said, and I quote: "What this law is doing is-"


Mr. Speaker:: I am having some difficulty with the question. I would like the Leader of the New Democratic Party to put her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, doctors from one end of this country to the other have said that this law will cause-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put the question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: In light of the potential denial of basic medical services and dignity, will the Minister of Justice take the last opportunity to prevent this unjust violation of women's rights and see that the bill is defeated today?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister, of course, can answer. I must say though that the question is speculative at the very least.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, even a question that is out of order requires a response, I think.
A great many things have been said about the potential effect of Bill C-43, which may or may not be accepted by the Elouse today. I will simply repeat what I said in the legislative committee, that no doctor who is practising medicine according to the canon of ethics of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Canada need fear anything from Bill C-43.
I also made it very clear that should the bill be accepted by Parliament, in the period between its acceptance by Parliament and its coming into force-which as the hon. member will be aware, will be some time, depending on the speed with which the Senate deals with the bill, were it to be passed because that is anticipatory-that I believe it is the obligation of the government to ensure that all people who are affected by the bill are clear as to its effect.
In my profession of law, we regularly have courses and opportunities whereby lawyers become aware of new obligations that may apply to them, et cetera. I believe that were this bill to become law, the government would have a similar obligation to make sure that doctors in Canada are aware of the genuine implications of the bill
Oral Questions
and not implications that have been communicated to them by scaremongers who wish to detract them from the ethical practice of-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Yesterday in Montreal, Dr. Jean Guimond, a spokesperson for the monitoring committee, talked about the impact Bill C-43 would have on women and on doctors. He said, "They are forced to lie, to distort reality, to say what is not true-"
My question for the minister is: What does she have to say to Quebec women who denounce this bill as sinisterly hypocritical?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said in English: No doctor in Canada need fear Bill C-43. What is described in the bill as legal conforms to the Canadian Medical Association's code of ethics. If the bill is passed by the House, I would assure all physicians in Canada that they have nothing to fear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this government has said that it cares about Canadian families. Yet we have over one and one-half million children in this country living in poverty. We have half a million children relying on food banks. The government says it cares about Canadian families, but only spends .0004 per cent on family planning and contraceptive research.
Why does the government not bring in a humane family policy which will feed our children, clothe our children, provide shelter for our children, instead of sending women and doctors to jail?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware of the fact that the government has announced its intention to increase research and family planning and the dissemination of information with regard to family planning.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!

May 29, 1990
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP ask questions and then they shout down the answers. Surely, they should give the House the courtesy of receiving the answers.
The hon. member should be aware of the fact that between 1984 and 1989 the child tax credit was increased by more than 50 per cent.
She should be aware of the fact that poverty, including child poverty, in Canada has declined.
She should be aware of the fact that the government made major commitments to dealing with issues such as child sexual abuse and family violence.
All these are initiative which show the commitment of this government to the family in Canada. They are important commitments. They deserve her support.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister deals with the meetings the Prime Minister had with his provincial counterparts in an effort to break down the resistance of those who oppose the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister report briefly to the House and the Canadian people in general on the current negotiations and tell us if possible, if we can expect that a way out of the constitutional deadlock will be found soon?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can add anything to that which was outlined to the House yesterday by the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, other than to say, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, that Senator Lowell Murray has travelled to Newfoundland to meet further with Premier Wells, the objective still being to narrow the differences, to try to bring about an appropriate process and to outline and explore what approaches might be employed in bringing those premiers who have not seen fit to support the Meech Lake Accord to do so.
As soon as we can report some definitive progress in that particular area, I am sure that the Prime Minister or someone on behalf of the government will outline that to the House. While progress is being made at the present time, it does not appear that sufficient progress has been made to call a First Ministers' conference.
It is fair to say that that would be the objective as we move toward ironing out some of the details which have been raised as a result of the bilateral meetings between the Prime Minister and the premiers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the consultations have been going on for some time. Canadians are worried. They would like to have the assurance that the government is in control.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if a federal-provincial conference of First Ministers will be held this week? Where will it be held, on what day and, if not, why not?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I cannot answer that question precisely, Mr. Speaker. The objective, as I said and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the House yesterday, is to narrow the differences.
I think it is fair to say that progress is being made.
Senator Murray will return from Newfoundland later today. He will be briefing the Prime Minister on the results of his bilateral discussions. Perhaps some time later this week we can report to the House.
I regret that I cannot give him a definitive date at the present time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since other countries do not allow their key industries to be taken over by foreigners, will the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology explain to us how Canada benefits when our key industries are taken over by foreigners?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I do not have the same perception about foreign ownership in Canada as my colleague from Willowdale.
May 29, 1990

What I have to say is that foreign investors in Canada are welcome from the moment they are considered to be of net benefit for the country.
Canadians know very well that we need new technology and that we need to keep and develop our labour force.
Canadians also know that those foreign investors bring to Canada investment which will provide net benefits. I know that my colleague knows that very well.
If he were to compare the 1984 figures with today's, he would see that there is no comparison to when FIRA was in place.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, so much for the theory and the rhetoric.
Let us look at the facts, what the minister talked about himself.
First, research and development is on the decline under this government.
Second, in terms of the record number of takeovers welcomed by this government, we have now seen that 46 per cent of Canadian manufacturing is foreign controlled.


Some hon. members:: Question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We have seen how Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is setting the basis of his question. I think that that is done and that he should put his question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. As his country has lost 107,000 manufacturing jobs since January of last year, when will the minister announce new measures to stop this job loss, to give Canadian manufacturers a level playing field?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as usual my friend forgets to refer to the jobs which have been created by foreign investors who have invested here in Canada. It is wrong for him to say that we have less money for research and development. But that has always been the song by the Liberal party.
When we consider the number of jobs created in this country since 1984, we see there is no comparison with what the Liberals did before 1984.
Oral Questions
Once again, we are proud of what we have done in terms of job creation and industrial development.
We will continue to welcome investors from abroad, if they respect the net benefits for Canada.
We have many examples of success stories, something which he knows very well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
I am hoping that the Minister of National Defence has had an opportunity to read the speech given by the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs on Saturday in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "It makes little sense to retain nuclear weapons whose only target can be our new friends in Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This sounds remarkably like something I said to the Minister of National Defence just last Thursday, something for which he felt it appropriate to ridicule me and to reject.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Does the Minister of National Defence now agree with the view that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed or is there some discrepancy which exists between himself and the minister? If there is no discrepancy, is he prepared to say today that the government is now considering cancelling testing of the cruise missile and refusing even to be asked to test any new delivery system for nuclear weapons?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to my colleague if he feels I was picking on him. I was just drawing to his attention the inaccuracies of a statement that he made.
Anyone who is concerned about the foreign policy of this government should read in its entirety the speech of the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would suggest that the hon. member read it in its entirety.

Oral Questions
As I explained to the hon. member when he asked the question last Thursday, NATO is adjusting its military strategy. That was part of the meetings of the nuclear planning group which took place in Kananaskis, Alberta.
It was also part of the meetings of the defence planning committee which took place in Brussels.
I can quote to the hon. member from the communique issued by NATO, although I am sure he has a copy of it. It states that NATO is determined to make the most of the opportunities created by these developments and is adapting to the new conditions in Europe.
As always, NATO and the Government of Canada are prepared to change and adjust our strategies.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that when the Ministers of Defence came out of Kananaskis they said that it did make sense to continue to use these weapons. The minister said on Saturday that it does not make any sense.
I would like to know what the government policy is. Does it, or does it not make sense to retain these kinds of nuclear weapons? If it does not, and if the Secretary of State speaks for the government, then when is Canada going to announce a new policy with respect to cruise testing and, for that matter, with respect to forward defence, which is something else the Secretary of State for External Affairs says does not make sense any more?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the only inconsistency is that the hon. member has not read the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You have not read it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Let me assist him in that. In the next paragraph, right after the one from which the hon. member has read, it states: "This is not to deny the continued requirement for prudent military stability at this time of historic change. Twelve months do not invalidate the lessons of history. The possibility of instability is there and the Soviet military capabilities remain substantial. Therefore a strong military mandate for NATO continues to be valid and a North American commitment to Europe represented by the presence of Canadian and American troops there is crucial as we
strive for strategic stability at significantly lower levels of military force".
If the hon. member would read the whole speech, he would understand exactly what this government is about. This government believes there is opportunity for change. This government will take part in it.
I can only say that if the NDP happen to be government some day-God forbid-they would not even be sitting at the negotiating table.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


FORESTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forestry.
On December 19, and more recently in May, the minister received a letter from the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources in which she urged the government to negotiate seriously the renewal of the forestry agreement which expired over a year ago. The Ontario minister is troubled by the federal government's inaction.
Why does the minister keep blaming the province of Ontario for his own failure to renew the agreement?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right. I do have a letter from the Minister of Natural Resources for Ontario in which she suggests that we begin serious negotiations toward a new forest resource development agreement.
I very much welcome this letter and the opportunity it will provide us to start negotiations with the province toward a future agreement.
However, I would also like to point out to my hon. friend that another of the minister's colleagues writes as well pointing out that there are difficulties in mobilizing the resources that would be necessary to meet the expectations about which my hon. friend asks.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
The softwood lumber industry is hurting very badly because of the 15 per cent export surtax on exports to the United States. Pulp and paper profits have fallen from $400 million in the first trimester of last year to $93
May 29, 1990

million this year. Both industries are now choking under the federal government's high interest rate policy.
When will the minister impress upon his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that the government's policy is devastating to the forestry industry?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I assume that my hon. friend knows that the tax that is being collected is returned immediately to the province from whence it came. One must assume that that province would return the windfall revenues that accrue back to where it belongs, perhaps in the form of planting trees or other silviculture activities which are urgent and permissible under the agreement.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
When the President of the United States was asked by Canada to veto legislation regarding Canadian lobsters, he turned thumbs down to our request.
The decision taken by the free trade panel has once again ruled against Atlantic Canadian lobster fishermen. Decisions of this nature will only serve to enhance regional disparity in this country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister take members of the House into his confidence and explain what Canada will be proposing during the 90-day negotiation period with our counterparts in the United States? What will the Government of Canada be suggesting to its U.S. counterparts in order for them to change their decision and rule in favour of Atlantic Canadian lobster fishermen?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that this 90-day period is a period for the industry, the unions, and the government to talk about a new configuration.
During this 90-day period I hope that the hon. member will talk with the industry and help the industry. We are going to do that. The panel decision is simply a context for more fruitful discussions during the next 90 days.
Oral Questions


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled. Atlantic Canadian lobster fishermen are appalled at the lack of leadership and concern being exhibited by the Government of Canada with regard to lobster fishermen in this country.
In view of the fact that $30 million will be drained from the pockets of Atlantic Canadian lobster fishermen, does the minister not think it only fair, equitable and good public policy to put in place forthwith a compensation package as it has done for other sectors of the Canadian economy?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the $30 million figure is certainly an oversized figure.
The hon. member knows that we have under way a number of promotional opportunities for larger sized lobsters in the United States. That will be a major marketing initiative of the government.
There are also a number of promotions that the industry, together with the government, will be undertaking around the world for lobsters. It will not involve $30 million. It will be considerably less than that.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is about the case of Mahmood Hassan Ran-deree who wants to stay in Canada where his parents and sister are citizens.
I would like to know why the government is so determined to have a South African activist of the African National Council leave this country. Why does the government want him to leave Canada for a country where he will be in danger?
Will the rejection of his refugee claim and the departure notice remain in effect? Or, will the minister consider issuing him a permit on humanitarian grounds?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the decision to give Mr. Randeree a departure notice-not a deportation notice-was made by an

May 29, 1990
Oral Questions
adjudicator after the adjudicator and members of the refugee determination board found that he did not have a credible claim. I know the hon. member believes in the case by case review as we do. The case has also been reviewed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The departure order simply means that he can go to a country of his choice between now and June 10. It is not a deportation notice. The means by which he chooses to leave and the country to which he goes is up to him.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the minister avoids the fact that Mr. Randeree's natural choice is Canada where his parents and sister are citizens.
If the minister feels that Mr. Randeree could return or be sent back to Germany, east or west-it is hard to tell which is which these days-will the minister table documents from the government of Chancellor Kohl assuring us that Mr. Randeree will be allowed some kind of permanent residence in that country and, if not, that he would not at some later date be sent to South Africa?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that Mr. Randeree has a wife and child in Germany. We have been assured by the German authorities that there would be no impediment to his going there.
Because his father is a citizen of Canada and if he departs voluntarily, he will have the option of having his father sponsor him as an assisted relative. While there are not any guarantees under this program, it is certainly a legitimate way for him to come back to Canada, if this is his country of choice.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Very important environmental programs were put into effect by the minister's predecessor and this government. I refer to the Environmental Partners Fund and the Mobile PCB Destruction Program. This program has been most useful in helping the citizens of northern
Ontario address the problem of PCB storage and what to do with PCBs to make their future safe in their community.
Indeed many Canadians have used these programs and want these initiatives because they meet the concerns head on right in the communities.
Will the minister give an assurance to Canadians that existing programs, rich as they are and as helpful as they are to Canadians, will be available to Canadians?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member for London-Middlesex regarding the very important role he has played in bringing together from June 11 to June 14, here in Ottawa, some of the world's most noted scientists and parliamentarians from 30 countries for a conference on the environment. I am looking forward to participating in this event.
I would like to assure the hon. member that the federal government has already set aside, as he knows, a $50 million Environmental Partners Fund over five years to help local groups take action in protecting, preserving, and enhancing the environment. We will continue along that same road. That fund is certainly in place, and we will continue living by it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday the minister said that recommendations of a leaked Transport Canada report, which called for among other things a reduction in flight inspections and weather forecasting and cancellation of air traffic control training, would not affect safety.
Since the same report states that "budgetary cuts would have a substantial impact on air navigational systems", how can the minister say, as he did yesterday, that these cuts will not be made at the expense of safety?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will understand that from time to time literally dozens of reports are made within any ministry,
May 29, 1990

and especially the Ministiy of Transport. Those reports have to be actioned.
I asked this morning if such a report had reached the desk of my deputy minister for consideration. I was advised that the answer was no.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that this document has been available since March of this year? The minister does not know what is going on in his own department. I have a supplementary question.
This leaked report, which I produced in this House yesterday, also cautions against any cuts in air traffic control training as "there are already too few controllers".
Will the minister now stand in his place and totally reject the recommendations in this report which has been available to him since last April or March?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no way I am going either to accept or reject the information in a report that I have not seen.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
We learned today that the government is considering hiring hundreds of tax cops to review as many as 10,000 returns of individual Canadian taxpayers.
In 1984 the Conservative task force on Revenue Canada recommended that fishing expeditions be stopped "in situations where the minister had no specific reasons to believe that certain individuals had not complied with the Income Tax Act".
If fishing expeditions were wrong in 1984, why are they not wrong today? Or, is the minister saying he is as incapable of stopping overfishing as his colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to welcome the hon. member
Oral Questions
back to the House of Commons. I think the last time I saw him was-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's comment of course raises two questions: who was here and who was not. The hon. minister.


Otto John Jelinek: I think it was in the streets of Leningrad.
In any event, it is obvious that the hon. member does know that this is an old story, that the department is always looking at improving the effectiveness of collecting taxes.
The hon. member knows that it was the Auditor General who asked us to review these options on a yearly basis. In any event, this is for discussion purposes only at this point in time. We are not in the process of hiring any army of tax collectors or tax police for this, the GST, or anything else.
At all times we are looking at the possibilities of more effectively and efficiently collecting taxes on behalf of the majority of honest taxpayers in Canada.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the bill of rights for Canadian taxpayers which was adopted by this Conservative government includes a presumption of honesty. We are told that a taxpayer must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
How can the Minister justify such a program which goes against his so-called bill of rights for the Canadian taxpayers?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I wish that had been the case in the 16 or 20 years of Liberal administration, which it was not.
In order to answer the hon. member's question, surely the Liberal party is not suggesting or recommending that the Government of Canada remove all auditors and all audit movements in Canada, whether it involves personal or corporate income taxes. If that is the position of members of the Liberal party, I would very much appreciate for them to come forward with that view.

May 29, 1990
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan - Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
British Columbia orchardists are facing serious financial difficulties as they prepare for their 1990 crop season. As the minister knows, they have not received the cost of production for over a decade now and bankers are becoming quite twitchy because of the growers' financial uncertainty.
B.C. fruit growers have pleaded for financial help, but the Minister of Agriculture has not yet made any firm commitments.
Can the minister assure British Columbia fruit growers that financial help is forthcoming so that they can obtain operating credit? Can he also advise as to the specific dollar value of that financial aid? Last, can he confirm as to precisely when that aid package will become available?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, this industry is the subject of a provincial commission of inquiry. In our discussions with the provincial government it was felt that it would be appropriate to await the recommendations which will be brought down by that very intensive inquiry.
We have indicated to the provincial government that we would be prepared to work with it in providing the kind of support programs-


Some hon. members:: Time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's colleagues do not want to listen to the answer-


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I am listening.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate that the hon. member is listening. Perhaps he can control his neighbours.
I can assure the hon. member that in our discussions with my provincial counterpart we indicated when the report comes down we will be prepared to sit down with him and look at an appropriate program of support,
adjustment and restructuring as may be deemed necessary. I think it is important to await these findings.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that because the growers are right in the middle of thinning and preparing for the 1990 season now, financial assistance is required at this point. A bank draft cannot simply be signed on a lick and a promise.
I would like to ask the minister whether he would assure B.C. growers that if the special assistance is provided, it would at least cover the cost of production for the 1990 season so that the creditors can be assured that they will have some financial security to proceed with their operations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, I am sure, that the federal government has provided a great amount of support and assistance to the industry over the years.
We are prepared to continue this, but it is important to do it in an effective and balanced way so that it does provide stability for the industry in the future.
The hon. member is aware that a portion of the $500 million set aside for assisting the bottom line of the agriculture industry is available. We are engaged in bilateral discussions with the provincial government. We believe that the recommendation of the report of the commission of inquiry is imminent. We hoped that we can use that as a guide in terms of how we might design a program and for what period of time.
We do have some funding available for that purpose. As soon as we can arrive at an arrangement with the provincial government, hopefully it will provide a basis through which that industry can be supported.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that I must hear a question of personal privilege from the hon. Minister of National Revenue. I do not anticipate it will be long. We will then move to the vote according to the order.
May 29, 1990


PRIVILEGE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I will be very brief on a personal question of privilege which stems from yesterday's question of privilege by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
If I may, in order to shed some light on the issue reads to read a communication into the record. It goes as follows:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I have recently become aware that officials of my department issued a letter to a number of townships and municipalities in Northern and Eastern Ontario, the contents of which, were inappropriate given that the letter failed to reflect the status of bill C-62 respecting the proposed goods and services tax.
On my instruction, my officials are in the process of forwarding a modified letter to each of the recipients of the original letter, along with an apology from the director of the regional office involved. Copies of both letters are attached for your reference.
I regret the unfortunate wording of the original letter and assure you that in no way was it intended to mislead the public.
It is signed by myself, as Minister of National Revenue.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I may say I am delighted that the minister has taken these appropriate steps.


Mr. Speaker:: I think, under the circumstances, there would be no need for comment from the Chair except to say that the Chair and all hon. members no doubt appreciate the minister's speed in coming back to the House.
The Chair also appreciates the comments of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who raised the matter.
Government Orders




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 24, 1990, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Campbell (Vancouv-er-Centre) that Bill C-43, an Act respecting abortion, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 3 p.m., pursuant to an order adopted on Thursday, May 10, 1990, the House will now proceed to the taking of the divisions on third reading motions of Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion.

This will be followed by the taking of the deferred division at report stage of Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.

The question, therefore, is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill concurred in, read the third time and passed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, you have certainly noticed that I did not vote. I was paired-
++NAYS
[.Editor's note: Some shouting in the Gallery]
Members
Leave her alone!
Althouse
Angus
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Benjamin
Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Brant)
Blondin
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Bellemare
Berger
Black
Blaikie
Bosley
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Right Hon. Prime Minister who is currently busy with His Excellency President Gorbachev.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
May 29, 1990


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, you must have noticed that I also abstained. It was out of courtesy for the Minister of State for Finance who has been urgently called to Paris. But if I had not been paired, I would have voted against this bill, because I am pro-choice.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention that after the first suspension during the taking of the vote, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-La-belle entered the House and then proceeded to vote when it came to his turn.
I would ask that the records be examined to see whether the member's vote should have been counted.


Mr. Speaker:: The member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan has raised a point of order. The member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle wishes to address the Chair?


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Speaker, indeed I did arrive late. There was a hold-up during the vote; I did everything I could to be here. I hired a helicopter. If I were to register my vote, it would be with the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made it very clear that he did arrive late. I have to accept the point of order of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. The vote will be changed accordingly.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 28, consideration of Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the first question is on Motion No. 4, standing in the name of Ms. Langan.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of Mr. Langan.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suspect you would find unanimous consent to apply the last vote to this particular motion as well.


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my vote to those of the Government side.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered. The House has heard the syggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops. It is agreed. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 8 lost.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Shall I dispense with the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation\


Mr. Danis:: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would ask the House for unanimous consent to return to presentation of committee reports. If leave is granted, I will table a report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to table his report?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
++NAYS
Members



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Althouse
Angus
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Benjamin
Blaikie
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Copps
de Jong
Dionne
Ferguson
Fisher
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hopkins
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Maheu
Marchi
McCurdy
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Robinson
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Bellemare
Berger
Brewin
Caccia
Catterall
Comuzzi
Crawford
Dingwall
Duhamel
Finestone
Fontana
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kristiansen
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Mac William
Manley
Marleau
McLaughlin
Mills
Murphy
Nunziata
Ouellet
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau

Marcel Danis: thank my colleagues in the House.
Madame Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act. Also, Madam Speaker, if I again have unanimous consent, I would move concurrence in it.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Marcel Danis: move that the third report of the Special Committee on
May 29, 1990

the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act, presented in the Elouse earlier today, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Weiner that Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had the floor.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to continue debate on the introduction of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. As members of the House know, this is a piece of legislation for which we in the opposition have been waiting several months. It was first promised two years ago and has finally worked its way to the House.
While I join with the members of the House who support this bill, because I think it is a very important step forward, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House how much work has to be done in the area of race relations. I speak particularly from a perspective in the west.
As one generation after another have come to the west they have had to deal with incredible problems of racial discrimination. It began with the problems of the Chinese before the turn of the century when they came to work on Canadian railroads and had to deal with very severe immigration laws which worked against the reunification of their families. The fact that they have managed to survive and to flourish into a strong Canadian community is more a testimony to their own strength than to any Canadian legislation.
A second sad chapter, particularly in western Canada, but one which in fact led to the establishment of this Race Relations Foundation, was the treatment of Cana-
Govemment Orders
dian Japanese on the west coast. It has taken close to 50 years since World War II to rectify one of the blackest moments in our history.
Third, the fact that our native peoples continue to be subject to racial discrimination throughout western Canada, and perhaps throughout the whole country, haunts all politicians and legislators in this country. I note that Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are all carrying out judicial enquiries to rectify some of the conditions that exist within our legal system.
We hope that as this Race Relations Foundation evolves it will have an eye for what takes place in the different regions in addition to dealing with questions on a national scale.
One of the reasons I took a particular interest in the foundation when it was first suggested is that I thought this was an opportunity for the Government of Canada to show its commitment to regional development. In Winnipeg in the last five years we have lost a disproportionate number of jobs in the federal civil service. Some statistics show that one in five job losses in the federal government has been in the Manitoba region. The loss of 1,000 jobs in Manitoba could be partly compensated by placing an institute such as this one in a community which has shown more concern about race relations than any other in the country. While I appreciate that at first glance the problems appear to be more pressing in cities such as Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere where there are greater populations, Winnipeg has always been an immigrant city and therefore questions of race relations have been paramount in the minds of its decision makers.
The city of Winnipeg was one of the very first cities in the country to set up a race relations committee which meets on a monthly basis and brings together leadership from the different communities. Not only do we have traditional groups from eastern Europe and central Europe, we also have representatives from the newest of Canadians-the Caribbean community, the African community and the different Asian communities. The Canadian aboriginal communities also have representatives at these meetings to discuss issues.
We just finished a series of hearings in the city of Winnipeg on race relations and the police force. Again we see that at the community level it is really important that federal politicians lend support to working out

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
problems among people who have to deal with it daily on the street.
Winnipeg would be an ideal place for the centre of such a foundation because Winnipegers have spent many years trying to work out relationships among these different groups so everyone feels comfortable, not only in this city, but across the country.
Before we give too much credit to the federal government for moving to establish the race relations foundation, we should put it in the context of what else this government is or is not doing. Time after time in the last 15 months the House has been reminded of the inability of this government to move quickly and without any hesitation on issues of race relations and human interaction. For example, on the issue of turbans, how many months did this government wait before it made a decision dealing with the right of Sikh Canadians to wear their turbans? By the time the decision was made members of this House had to deal with petitions from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are concerned about the wearing of turbans.
Within the aboriginal community we have had ongoing difficulties in the judicial system. It is quite apparent at this point from responses to questions in the House that the government has no strategy for dealing with some of the fundamental changes that must take place in our judicial system to respond to the concerns of aboriginal peoples.
Instead, the last budget cut back on the ability of native people across this country to communicate. The reduction of the communications budget under the Secretary of State, which in the past assisted so many native organizations to communicate among themselves and with other Canadians, shows that when it really comes down to it this government is not committed to assisting native people. It may set up a race relations foundation which gives the public the impression that it is in favour and support of race relations and the public education thereof, but in reality in the activities that really count in these communities it is withdrawing services.
A second example that I would like to use, one that I think is very important and often overlooked in this House, is English as a second language. This government
has constantly undermined the ability of new Canadians to learn English as a second language. It did it by first of all withdrawing materials available to organizations which teach English as a second language to Canadians when they first arrive in this country. Second, through other programs and through transfer payments, it has made it more and more difficult for the provinces to provide training in English as a second language.
This has to be discussed in the House as part of this package for dealing with race relations because it is very difficult for new Canadians, particularly those from Asian countries, to learn the language skills necessary to obtain the proper training to get themselves into a better paying job. It is not just a cliche, it is a reality of the workforce that when you first come to cities throughout this country you enter the labour market at the lowest wage going-somewhere around $4.50 to $5 depending on which province you are in. You can only get out of those jobs if you obtain skills, if you have access to better job markets, if you have access to language, if you understand how our system works. How can you do that if you do not have access to training?
We can talk in all our studies and everything we do about the willingness of the federal government to assist new Canadians, but when we apply the test of action rather than words we find that the immigrant communities in Canada are being underserviced. The basics that we thought were necessary a generation ago are being removed and they have been made more vulnerable.
That, of course, leads to tension in the street. One of the other members raised the question of the relationship between economic problems among new Canadians in their immigrant communities and the fact that there are rising rates of racism. One of the difficulties that young Canadians from families of new Canadians have is that without the language skills, the understanding of the job market, the need for training and the access to training, they cannot get themselves into the job market when they are 16, 17, 18 or 19, or into the community colleges or universities. They have watched their parents suffer year after year in jobs paying less than $5 a hour.
Street life is rough. It is rough in Winnipeg and it is rough in Toronto. We occasionally catch a glimpse of headlines which indicate just how rough it is.
May 29, 1990

If the government is not looking for ways to support the needs of people, it does not matter if we set up a foundation for public education. People are looking for reinforcement in their community, that we are there for them. At this time I just do not see how this particular foundation, unless strengthened immensely, is going to contribute to that need.
Recently the director of the race relations group within the city of Winnipeg requested that the city of Winnipeg now provide additional funds. The city of Winnipeg is still considering this request. I raise that with you as another example of the underfunding and the need, not for a central foundation, but, in each individual community so that people have the opportunity to talk with each other about the problems they are facing in the area of racism.
The establishment of a race relations foundation can become a hallmark of the commitment of Canadians to a better justice system that accommodates all Canadians. The public education components and the money available can be used wisely to ensure that we all understand each other's perspectives. I hope that in the choice of the board of directors the government is able to bring to bear all these perspectives which are so necessary to broaden our horizons.
This is also an opportunity for us to encourage academics and research organizations to think of race relations not as a peripheral problem, a minor problem to be dealt with by a few sociologists and a few political scientists, but as one of the mainstream problems of our society requiring a tremendous amount of energy to research and rethink how we should approach these problems. From that hopefully will come suggestions to this House in future years that will enable us to respond more positively and perhaps with more sensitivity to the needs of these new Canadians.
From the annual reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, from the reports coming out of the Donald Marshall Commission and from other inquiries across the country we hear how frustrated people are in trying to get this House to respond. Through the different committees of the House of Commons we all know that a race relations foundation could go a long way to marking a new beginning.
Government Orders
Thus, in the context of the government not doing very much in the past and making many mistakes in the last two years, I wish the new foundation the independence and the wisdom to contribute to this debate and to help us as legislators see better ways of serving new Canadians.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, it is pleasant to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-63, a bill to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation which, it should be noted, is a result of the Japanese redress settlement in 1988, one of the significant events in race relations in this country.
As you recall, Madam Speaker, as a result of the settlement signed with the Japanese Canadian community, that community received an acknowledgement of the injustice perpetrated upon Japanese Canadians by virtue of their incarceration, loss of property and loss of rights; compensation for those victims; a rectification of government records; a commemorative farm for the Japanese Canadian community and the creation of a race relations institute.
Of the $24 million provided for the initial endowment fund for the institute, $12 million is provided on behalf of and in recognition of the struggle of the Japanese Canadian community and its horrendous experience as a result of World War II.
I must confess that it is with a lack of enthusiasm that I approach this legislation for the creation of this institute because I am one of those who, over the last half century, have been involved in a struggle to eliminate discrimination in this country. Quite frankly, I thought we understood racism. We certainly understood, and I think we still understand, how we can eliminate in a nation the effects of racism. The latter is far more important than anything else because what people feel and think about other peoples, other races, can be changed if we change the way in which they treat members of minority races.
It is not too long ago that I stood in this House and noted the significant progress that had been made in this country over that 50 years. I said at one time that I could hardly have believed that I would stand in this House, an elected member of Parliament, given the experiences that I had as an Afro-Canadian boy growing up in southwestern Ontario. That we are now again faced with a variety of manifestations of racism in this country

ill-thought remarks and responses of politicians and those in leadership who should know better.
Racism is best attacked, not by study, but by action. Increasingly, there is disillusionment with the way in which questions of race and racial discrimination are being dealt with by this very government. There have been any number of examples.
The federal government has failed to implement adequately an employment equity program that results in an over-all performance with respect to the employment of minorities by the federal government. That program does not even compare well with private corporations that the government is supposed to be regulating, and does regulate with respect to employment equity through legislation.
Whereas, 6.4 per cent of the workforce available to federally regulated corporations and 5.7 per cent of the employees of those corporations are members of minority groups, the federal government has only 2 per cent in its employ of visible minority groups.
I would like to cite two examples of quite outrageously bad performances. One is in External Affairs and the other, in Correctional Services. I want to cite the latter, in particular, because last Friday I visited Kingston Penitentiary, Joyceville, and the Women's Prison in Kingston. There we heard testimony revealing an outrageous, tragic situation with respect to the treatment of black prisoners and native prisoners.
I asked whether any natives or blacks were in positions of significance in the prisons. Were there a significant number of native or black guards in those prisons? We are talking about a situation in which a far higher percentage of natives and a far higher percentage of those of African descent find themselves in prisons under circumstances revealed in the Marshall inquiry and other studies. Racial discrimination itself has lead to their disproportionate representation in those places. It is well documented that the legal system of the country is biased against native people and minority groups and the poor. Yet, Correctional Services of Canada has one of the worst records with respect to the employment of minorities.
With respect to the Secretary of State Department doing its job, one of the most important things in attacking racism-not in trying to understand it, but in attacking it-is to empower those minority groups that
Government Orders
seek to bring about appropriate change in that regard. Yet, instead of engaging in legitimate consultation with affected minority groups in the country, we find that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship and Secretary of State is contriving to create his own network of chosen Progressive Conservative minority members, rather than the legitimately chosen leaders of the variety of affected communities.
I am told that the commitment to a real attack on racism in the Secretary of State Department is revealed by an insistence that they be very careful even to talk about racial diversity in documents released from that department. I find this incomprehensible. Increasingly, there is an impression that there is a certain lack, if not of commitment, then of a structured, coherent, and consistent approach that can be respected with regard to the treatment of the issues-not the roots of racism, but the effects of racism.
The legislation would also provide the Race Relations Foundation with the means to consult with industry, government, and various other institutions and organizations with respect to how to eliminate racism. Yet, we have departments that are supposed to be addressing that issue. We have a Human Rights Commission which is a scandal in its ineffectiveness. We have the machinery in place, but now we are going to back up and start all over again to see if we can understand racism better.
I suppose the evidence is there that the government and other elements in our society, including the provincial governments, have utterly failed to understand racism adequately. Otherwise, after 50 years, we would have seen a deterioration in the attack on racism and its practice, racial discrimination. Instead, we find ourselves still almost at square one.
If we are back at square one, then we should do it and do it right. I hope it will be done right. I am not standing to oppose this legislation, because in principle it is fine. It just seems to me that it is a significant disappointment that we should have to stop and study, when by now we should have made so much more progress. Circumstances change and maybe this new foundation will permit the government to understand how it, itself, has contributed to the evolving situation in this country. There is an interconnectedness between racism and the

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
whole sense and philosophy of what is a just and equal society, not just for minorities, but for everyone.
I hope when this bill goes to committee there will be wide consultation to reveal that within and among those who are victims of racism there is a clear understanding. If one has to have an institute to reach out to them so they will communicate their experiences and increase our ability to respond, fine.
Let me say one more thing before I close, because I know you are very anxious to hear the next speaker, Madam Speaker.
I hope that the board of directors of this institute will not be chosen on a political basis, as a vehicle for patronage. I hope instead that we will follow the lead of previous bills in respect of which there was agreement on all sides of the House about the legitimate nature of the institute or the centre that was to be established. Instead of patronage appointments of directors, it should involve an all-party agreement on the selection of those directors in such a way as to reflect the unanimity that ought to exist, and generally does exist in the House, about the tragedy and injustice of racism and the need to address it appropriately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, I would like to mention to the hon. member that my signals about time are simply to let him know how much time he has left so that he can complete his very interesting speech without me standing and abruptly stopping him. Of course, I will be listening to the next speaker with the same interest, but I did not mean him to cut his intervention short.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I must inform the House of the questions to be dealt with this evening at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for South West Nova-Fisheries; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Health; the hon. member for Mackenzie-Agriculture.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak to Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. I support this bill, which is to contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society.
On March 21, some two months ago, I urged the government to muster the political will to grant adequate funding for programs to combat racism and to promote racial harmony in Canada on the occasion of the celebration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racism.
Why did I urge the government at that time, Madam Speaker? It would give me the opportunity at that juncture to indicate to you that this government has failed fully to promote tolerance and to curb racism in the country.
Let me cite a few examples. The treatment of refugees by this government has created apprehension and mistrust of refugees among the Canadian population, thereby generating negative reactions on the part of the population at large to new immigrants and visible minorities in particular.
The failure on the part of the government to properly address pay equity in the workplace for visible minorities is another example. A March 1990 study by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council reported that only 2.9 per cent of public servants are visible minorities, whereas 6.4 per cent of the general labour force is made up of them.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 1989 annual report stated that hiring and promotion practices reinforced the present concentration of visible minorities in poor paying jobs. This practice ought not to continue.
We have also witnessed the recent occurrences of racial discrimination within the Canadian justice system, particularly as it affects our aboriginal people.
Also, we have seen cuts of about $9.7 million to native programs, cutting their native communications program, native broadcast access program and native friendship centres.
May 29, 1990

The Heritage Languages Program is one of the recent calamities of this government. I submit that heritage language is a crucial factor in the maintenance of multiculturalism in Canada. Without such education, the rich multicultural fabric of our country is bound to fade into insignificance within a few generations.
What is more disturbing is that the notice to discontinue support for this program arrived at a school in my constituency on March 16, 1990, advising that support to the school would stop on April 1, a couple of weeks thereafter, making it very difficult for the school to search for alternative sources of funding.
The Liberal party has the excellent tradition of having started multiculturalism and continues to support it in heart and mind. In contrast, this government, instead of reacting to the turban issue with dispatch, waited almost two years and thereby negative reactions were generated across the country, instead of solving the issue promptly.
No wonder that in February of this year an Angus Reid poll indicated that the majority of Canadians believed intolerance is increasing. This state of affairs goes against the very fabric of our multicultural society.
I support this Canadian Race Relations Foundation based on the preamble that we will support and reaffirm our support for the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; that we will henceforth reaffirm our belief and support in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act would assume greater and greater meaning.
I applaud the minister. I applaud the government for initiating this bill. But I would also like to challenge the government that to give teeth to this bill it must provide the funding necessary for the very problem that this foundation hopes to address.
Regardless of one's race, ethnic or cultural background, to participate fully and equally in all aspects of Canadian society economically, socially, culturally and politically is a natural aspiration of every Canadian.
Canada is one of the luckiest nations in the world. If we recall and imagine the African populations struggling to survive, of the Latin American and Asian countries threatened by civil wars, we in Canada as a nation are really lucky. But we must not forget that there continues to be concern. Recently we have seen the racist themes,
Government Orders
the desecration of Jewish tombstones. All these are symbols or manifestations that show that we still have a lot of work to do.
Racism, as a sociologist defines it, "is the manifestation of one group's effort in a society to free itself from a feeling of inadequacy by casting another in an inferior light".
How does this happen? By prejudice, by having a set of negative attitudes in which another group is held unwanted, despite the absence of legitimate bases. Of course, racism by way of discrimination can also happen in a very overt way. It can also happen through institutions. When we examine some of our textbooks, for example, and they depict that non-whites are primitive, cruel and savage, we know that the result will be racism and discrimination.
Why do we need to develop racial harmony in Canada? UNESCO in 1967 stated: "It divides nations within themselves, aggravates international conflict and threatens world peace. Racism stultifies the development of those who suffer from it and perverts those who apply it".
We have to continue to remember that multiculturalism is not about allowing separation, but to be sensitive to the needs of others. It is not about the recent arrivals or even of those descendants of generations past. It is not about the shedding of symbols of our heritage, but freedom to exercise our heritage and still be able to participate fully in Canadian society. It is not about inferiority, but to affirm our commitment to excellence and merit. It is not about merely a condominium of cultures but a consensus and sentiment of national purpose.
Indeed, the focus and the challenge by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation truly would be in the hearts and on the minds of Canadians. Mayor George Ferguson, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in a keynote address at "The Challenge of Municipal Race Relations" conference in November, 1989 stated:
Social harmony cannot be created by posters, proclamations or literary contests or even by co-operation between business and government, or direct government action. The real challenge is in the hearts and minds of each of us as individuals.
In conclusion, I would like to remind my colleagues that the forces of discrimination and racism are by nature centrifugal in direction and, therefore, pull Canadians away from each other. But the forces of a national

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
purpose are a cultural magnet that pull Canadians together.
As the author wrote in the book entitled Canada in the '90s, we need an elan vital, a mission, a statement, a national purpose. Why do we need it even more today? Because we see that there is a continental pull to the United States, as a consequence, I believe, of the free trade agreement that will pull our provinces apart. And, of course, there is the present constitutional impasse that threatens the unity of our country.
Third, and perhaps more important, are the demographic shifts in our country with the arrival of new immigrants. It is estimated that beyond the year 2000 we will see more and more immigrants from Asian countries which will thereby change the demographic composition of Canada as we know it today.
The challenge is to the minds and hearts to have that mission, that so-called elan vital, the psychological force that should drive citizens, countries and institutions together. When we have achieved that, then the meaning of the establishment of a Canadian Race Relations Foundation will truly be appreciated. We will truly support the concept of multiculturalism, the essence of which, I submit, is equality and dignity for all Canadians.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to discuss Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
The foundation which will be established as a registered charity will facilitate the development, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise, and contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canada.
The preamble to this bill outlines the international and domestic obligations of the Canadian government to the protection of minorities and prevention of discrimination. Such obligations include one to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which commits nations to the adoption of all measures designed to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 states that eveiy citizen is equal and thus, the establishment of such a foundation will help bring the social and legal reality closer together.
The Multiculturalism Act attempts to bring about the participation of all Canadians in our society. In concluding the Japanese Canadian redress agreement, the government agreed to establish a race relations foundation.
The above obligations are attempts by the federal government, in particular past Liberal governments, to make a commitment to equality in Canada.
First, I would like to point out how unfortunate it is that in this day and age we even need a foundation to promote racial harmony and tolerance in our country. The fact that every day we see more and more evidence of racism is deplorable.
When I was reading the information for this debate, I could not help but think about how sad it is that we even need to take up time discussing racism in Canada. I could not help but ask myself, why can't people treat each other regardless of colour, religion, or language with the same respect every human being deserves. Unfortunately there are people in this world and in this great country of ours who are intolerant to minorities and who harbour racist discriminatory sentiments.
We see evidence of this almost daily now. Just last week I was one of many people who attended a rally in my riding of Nepean condemning vandals who attacked the Ottawa Jewish Community Cemetery, knocking over headstones and spray-painting swastikas and Nazi slogans on graves. I pointed out that Canadians everywhere joined together to voice our disgust about the barbaric action by a few individuals filled with hate.
Unfortunately, because of individuals like these who advocate intolerance, we are forced to stand in this House today to debate the establishment of a foundation to promote racial harmony and tolerance. The creation of institutions such as this one is important to the fight against racism. However, the creation of institutions is no substitute for concrete policy action and in this respect the present government has failed miserably.
May 29, 1990

The government's action concerning refugees and immigrants has created apprehension and deep mistrust of refugees among the broader population.
The government's lengthy delay with regard to a decision on the Sikh turban issue contributed to the rise of racial discord, particularly in western Canada.
This government has failed to adequately address the issue of pay equity and discrimination in the workplace for visible minorities. A Canadian Ethnocultural Council study demonstrated that only 2.9 per cent of the public servants were visible minorities. This figure hardly approximates the labour force participation rate of 6.4 per cent.
Numerous reports and the government's own statistics show that visible minorities have a one in four chance to be hired in the Public Service of Canada compared to an applicant whose skin is white.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission stated in its 1989 annual report that "systemic biases will no doubt be brought to light by serious employment equity analysis". The federal government must do more to prevent discrimination in testing and selection for federal public service employment.
Recent revelations about racial discrimination within the Canadian justice system have shocked many Canadians. The Manitoba Justice Inquiry, the Donald Marshall Inquiry, and various judicial inquiries have pointed to the existence of institutional racism.
The Department of the Secretary of State claims in a report to the United Nations on the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination that "measures have been adopted to protect and advance the special position of the aboriginal peoples in Canadian society".
In reality the department has cut funding totalling $9.7 million to native programs. Furthermore, 99 per cent of the total loss in departmental funding comes at the expense of native peoples.
Cuts to the Native Communications Program, the Native Broadcast Access Program, and the Native Friendship Centres have closed off avenues that would have led to the greater participation of aboriginal peoples in the Canadian mosaic.
The government, through the Secretary of State, has also decimated through recent budget cuts the Heritage Language Schools program. This program was designed
Government Orders
to promote racial harmony and national unity by providing an opportunity for the preservation and understanding of ethnic languages and cultures.
Madam Speaker, at a time when racial intolerance is on the rise in Canada this government should be taking steps to promote and protect minorities.
Yes, institutions such as the one we are debating today are needed, but government action should reflect the will of those institutions.
The government cannot create an institution that promotes racial equality and then turn around and continue to discriminate in its hiring practices, and continue to slash programs set up to promote understanding.
If we want to eliminate racism and intolerance, we must begin to take down barriers to minorities. The government has a responsibility to be a leader in this respect and it has yet to take on that role.
I support the creation of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation because any and all steps to end racism must be taken. The hatred of racism must be extinguished. We can do this only through educating Canadians. Racism is not hereditary or innate. No man or woman has ever been born a hater of Jews, Sikhs, blacks, Chinese, or of any religion or race. It is not natural to hate, and every measure must be taken to show all Canadians that racism will not be tolerated in this great land. If the establishment of the Canadian race relations foundation can help to do this, then let us get on with establishing the foundation and putting an end to racism in Canada.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker. I congratulate the previous speaker on a very well expressed, deeply emotional speech.
I have received several letters from multicultural groups in Saskatoon concerning cuts in funding to the Heritage Language Program. I wonder if the member could elaborate on that.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to that. I briefly alluded to the heritage language schools in my comments.
As a matter of interest, some of my colleagues and I met with the leaders of the heritage language schools in the national capital region. We met with about 30 local people who were involved in the various schools-and we have quite a number of them, probably 15 in this

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
area-for at least two hours in the West Block one evening.
There is great concern among the heritage language schools. They do not know how they will continue to operate. They are very dependent upon the few dollars the federal government gives them.
As I mentioned in my comments, the whole basis of these schools is to allow them to enjoy and expand upon their culture and to allow their children to be knowledgeable about their different backgrounds.
At the same time it allows you and I, who are not of their particular culture, to be informed as to what their culture can bring to our community. We are very fortunate to have so many different cultures in our community from which we can draw and to participate in their programs and cultural activities.
Every single one of the leaders from the heritage language schools in the national capital region said that it would be very difficult for them to continue to operate, that it could be the fine edge that pushes them over the brink and that they would not be able to continue.
We are only talking about a very basic amount of money, considering the major funds spent by the Government of Canada. Reinstating these funds would mean the difference between folding and not folding for these heritage language schools. I urge the government to reinstate these funds.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question dealing with this law as compared with the government's lack of hiring visible minorities. Perhaps the hon. member could give us her thoughts on that. It seems to be an obvious contradiction. When we want to show that we are a multicultural country and have a desire to employ, and show that we have employed people from different cultures, we seem to be far off the mark. Once again I hear my Conservative colleagues speaking with a sense of irony or sarcasm, but the question has to be put. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me how this bill compares to the actions of the government.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It is very much a contradiction to stand here and talk about establishing a Canadian race
relations foundation and then to look at the lack of initiative by the present government in bringing visible minorities up to the level of hiring or the level of visibility in the Public Service in particular. When we look at their six point, or whatever per cent it was of our population, we see that only 2 plus per cent are hired within the Public Service. I realize that there are many initiatives that can be taken to raise this average and I encourage the government to do so. Otherwise there is very definitely a blatant contradiction to what they are saying we must do and then on the other side of what they are actually doing.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill to establish a Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
Being an immigrant to this country and having lived in the United States during the heady days of the sixties where there was a great deal of work in this regard, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak. I worked in the field of race relations and was involved in working with groups trying to get blacks registered in the political process in the south. At the time they were called freedom riders. I have first-hand knowledge of how the question of race relations can be a volatile one, one which is very difficult for government to handle.
I may surprise members on the government side-I am looking directly at a couple of ministers right now who are in conversation-but I hope I am not surprising you too much by saying that this is legislation which does make some progress. It is progressive to a certain extent, although I have heard my Liberal colleague tell me how far short the government does fall as far as promoting race relations in Canada. This particular foundation is a good start.
If you look at what is a cause of racism, I am sure the two ministers would agree that one of the major causes is lack of knowledge and the lack of information as to the other side; that being the race that you have a tendency to perhaps joke about, the race that you are looking at in a sense of being somewhat inferior to whom you happen to be or a race which may seem to be responsible for your economic hard times. All of this comes about through a lack of information. I believe that this legislation would to a certain extent meet this problem of a lack of information.
May 29, 1990

I come from Montreal-as I say, I have emigrated from the United States-which is a city with many cultures. Before that I lived in Saint Hyacinthe, actually a small town called St. Barnabe Sud. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you are aware of it. I am proud of what I found in that small town in Quebec. I found a tolerance for people from other cultures. There is a tolerance for English speaking people and even for Americans, particularly for this American while he was learning his French.
By learning French and living with the people in that town of St. Barnabe Sud, Quebec, I learned less to fear making a mistake. I learned less to fear the French fact. Much more, I learned to respect the differences in other people. Surprisingly enough, I learned that as much as the English language versus the French language separates us, there is much more that unites us. To me it was an amazing discovery.
To this day I find that when I am speaking with my English speaking counterparts in Quebec, many times they do not have a full appreciation of what the Quebec government or Quebec itself is about or they do not understand what we are dealing with either in Meech Lake or in any other subject touching almost to the quick English speaking Quebecers. I find invariably that there is a lack of contact, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of living the French fact, really.
This exists between French and English in Canada. We see it not just in Quebec but in Newfoundland, in Manitoba, and in other provinces in dealing with Meech Lake. We have a failure to communicate, to borrow a phrase from the film Cool Hand Luke.
If this can happen just because of something that is recognized as French and English, imagine to what degree this occurs when a person happens to be black, wears a turban, or comes from Asia. It is far easier to hate people who you do not know than it is those who you know or those about whom you know.
I am not suggesting that we live in communes with everybody so that we can have one happy family. I do not think that is possible, but I do believe when we are talking about Canadian Race Relations Foundation that by facilitating the information and contact among groups we take a large step toward better comprehension among
Government Orders
groups, a less volatile situation, and in the end we create understanding.
This is not a panacea to the problems we have today. Certainly it is not a panacea for some of the most outrageous images we see on TV that create tremendous amounts of friction among our different cultures. I was shocked and tried to understand when I saw the image of the Quebec flag trampled and walked upon in I believe Brockville, Ontario. The people of Brockville said-I believe them-that that was not their sentiment.
I am sure the minister on the other side would agree with me. I am sure he would also agree with me that by that time the damage had been done. I do not think the foundation can prevent that kind of damage, because we are always going to have hotheads and people who are going to be attempting to make a statement visibly with the media. Being a part of the media, many times we are part of the problem because we have a tendency to cover that which is exciting and explosive. By doing so we tend to create the situation. I believe that with the foundation we have an opportunity to give people a fair chance to learn about each other. By learning and understanding I believe we can reduce the number of such incidents.
I realize that the minister of state responsible for this legislation will have the right to appoint people who he thinks best represent the multicultural society in Canada. I wish him good luck because it will not be easy.
I ask the minister to be extremely careful and do something that we have not seen for a long time from the other side. I ask the minister not to appoint people for patronage purposes. He should not give this foundation a false start by appointing people who are more beholden to the Conservative parly than they are to then-own constituents. That would run counter to the foundation's objective and would destroy what confidence people could ever have in in it. That is the crux of the problem.
We ask the government to do something that is done rarely. We ask it to proceed with appointing directors to this foundation who will consider of primary importance the competency of the representatives they appoints rather than their political stripe. I hope and trust that the minister will do so. If he does not, people will quickly find that this is a $12 million boondoggle and only

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
window dressing for the Conservative party. Canadians will see, once again, that there is no strong government initiative or even concern about racism in Canada.
It will reinforce this view, particularly as a result of what we have seen with the government dragging its feet on the question of turbans in the RCMP. The government has dragged it out, did not make a decision, and let tempers become inflamed. We have seen it in other areas as well.
If we are to get this foundation off to a good start, the only way to do so is to make sure the people appointed by the minister are bona fide representatives of their constituents and not people who have been receiving political pay-offs from the Conservative party.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, on the matter of discrimination, the member has said that he is not a Canadian by birth. Has he felt, as someone who is not part a visible minority, any kind of discrimination?


Philip Edmonston: Listen, Madam Speaker, perhaps I am- It is not obvious that I belong to a minority in Quebec, but the moment I open my mouth people know that I am not a true-blue Quebecer like the hon. member for Chicoutimi may claim to be. I was not born in Quebec, I belong to the minority and, as a member of a Quebec minority I know I have some rights and I feel just fine. I can tell you that as a Canadian citizen and resident for 23 years I have never felt the least discrimination as an anglophone, and I am extremely proud of that, Madam Speaker, because I chose Quebec.
This was not an accident of birth. When I left the United States I travelled throughout Canada to see where I would want to live in this country, and I chose Quebec. I chose Saint-Barnabe-Sud, but it could have been Jonquiere, Chicoutimi, Alma-I just love blueberries-but I picked Saint-Barnabe-Sud. The night I was elected in Chambly I wanted to stress the fact that Quebecers are very tolerant. We tolerate many things. But there are a few things that we do not tolerate, Madam Speaker. What struck me on the night of February 12 was the tolerance, the understanding and especially the warm welcome I was given by the residents of Chambly in spite of all the problems I experienced during the election campaign. I was deeply moved, and this is why I do not think that, basically, Canadians are
xenophobic. I do not think so. When I converse with my American friends I get the impression we are less xenophobic than Americans. It does not mean there are no cases of discrimination and racism. I could tell you about it. There are exceptions, in Montreal Haitian taxi drivers have often heard people say they want a taxi, but not one driven by a Haitian. That is unacceptable. It is inconceivable that anyone would make such a request these days, considering the progress made to give everybody equal access to government services. We sought to give equal access to everybody, we sought to put an end to discrimination. But in our hearts we still harbour the odd prejudice. It happens.
But to get back to the question of my colleague, I find that -and all I know is Quebec-back home there is very little English-French discrimination, Madam Speaker. I am very proud to be able to attest to that here in the House, and to do so in both official languages.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, as I have travelled throughout Canada over the last couple of years I have noticed something rather upsetting to me. Perhaps it is because as a member of Parliament I am now getting out more and speaking to more people; I hope that is the reason. I have noted that there is less and less tolerance toward people of other races, colours, religions, and a lessening in the desire to understand the other cultures.
I applaud the idea and the thrust of this particular bill on the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, but I wonder about the record of this government in cutting funding for some of the past programs and projects and for various functions that had been set up as important and necessary. It has recognized in this particular foundation something that needs to be done. The research, the study, and the recommendations that hopefully will arise out of this committee will perhaps assure the tolerance and understanding that I alluded to earlier.
I am wondering if the way that this committee has been set up will really work, or is there a recipe for failure that this government can call upon if it is not very careful? In other words, is what we have here recognition of a problem with respect to which there will not be or may not be proper follow through and proper funding made by the government to this foundation? Is it
May 29, 1990

window-dressing or is it something really concrete in the mind of the member?


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very appropriate question. It makes me go back to my days as a consumer advocate when we were coming to Ottawa on hands and knees asking for money in order to keep the consumer advocacy organizations going.
At that time a Liberal government was in power. We found that there were tricks that governments could use. On one hand they would talk about how much they were promoting a particular principle, they would create an agency and give money to it. Then the tricks would start because the government really did not intend to promote that particular principle or that particular idea in its entirety. It was just window-dressing.
What it would do initially, and I hope I am not giving the government any ideas-it has been done to us already by Liberals and I hope that the Conservatives would not attempt to do this with the race relations foundation-is put in place people to run the program who would be incompetent. They would be hired through patronage. They were taking their orders from the government, not from the people. Thus they were marching to a different drummer.
The first thing we found out in the consumer movement was that we at the grass roots who were manning the barricades, so to speak, were actually depending upon a government to follow through on what we were doing. The government, through the different agencies it had set up, had no intention of doing that.
We need good strong and independent people if this thing is going to work.
Next, there is the question of funding. Some $12 million is going to be spent on this foundation. As soon as we get into harder times the government is going to find that it does not have a sufficient amount. Where is the money going to come from? What will stop the government from saying: "We do not have enough money for this foundation. It was a good idea but it is
Government Orders
gone"? We need a long-term commitment, one which is realistic, and then we can have a foundation.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand here today and speak in favour of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation for a number of reasons.
One of the main reasons has to do with the fact that we are not dealing directly with English-French. When I asked the member for Chambly whether or not he had experienced any discrimination, I was more or less referring to his being discriminated against on the basis that he was an American, not any kind of discrimination he may have experienced in the province of Quebec.
On that very issue I would like to add to what the member said in case there is any kind of misconception with respect to my question. It gives me the greatest pleasure in the world to stand here and say that since I first was in the province of Quebec in 1978, and I have been back there several times since, not once have I felt any twinge of discrimination. I have never been received with anything but kindness and accommodation. I do wish that more Canadians from elsewhere in the country who have never been there could visit la belle province. I am sorry I do not speak French, and I certainly feel a lack since I do not.
As far as the race relations foundation is concerned, I would like to try to broach the subject of why on earth there would be any kind of discrimination, person against person, race against race, at all. Although not all countries are homogeneous linguistic units and nations, it seems to be a universal truism that every religion has what we in the English-speaking world refer to as the golden rule.
To repeat myself, I think it is a universal truth that every one of those groups has the equivalent of the golden rule. The golden rule states: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If it is something that we all think and have as part of our culture, then why in the name of whatever deity one may choose do we find ourselves in this situation either in Canada or anywhere else in the world where there are such antagonisms and animosities?
It seems to me that we are simply going to have to expand our whole human consciousness on the subject.

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
It goes far beyond Canada, but let us at least start here, that, unfortunately, the golden rule as it applies to each of those units is viewed by each of those units as only applying to themselves.
Without getting into any specifics we can make the comparison to Swift. We have the example of the big Indians and the little Indians. It is okay for the big Indians to apply the Golden Rule to the little Indians but, by God, it is open season on the big Indians.
We have to expand what is commonly known as the Golden Rule to all of us and in all cases. That certainly applies in Canada where we perceive these differences rather than have them because at the basis of it all we are all human beings. That is precisely what the issue ought to be, not the colour of our skin, not the language we speak or what part of the country we live in or anything else.
I cannot help but go back to something I referred to when we were talking about the creation of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. That is the very emotional experience I always feel when I go to Citizenship Court as a member of Parliament. I consider it to be one of the major privileges of being a member of Parliament, and I am sure I will as long as I am a member of Parliament. There are several reasons for that, not the least of which is I can remember, as I am sure other members can, when there was a time when it was not possible to call oneself Canadian. That is slightly irrelevant, but I will get to the relevant parts of it a little later on. There was no such thing as Canadian citizenship.
From my point of view, remembering that and viewing Canadian citizenship now for all that it includes, it gives me a feeling of empathy and unity with everyone else who is in the country, those who came over before, because we related as nationalistic groups prior to that, and certainly those who have come since that time because they are Canadian citizens.
I have a rather personal stake in this whole idea of multiculturalism since my wife is not a Canadian. She is a naturalized Canadian of German birth.
I must say that I have benefited enormously by my association with my wife, someone from another nation, someone who spoke a different language and very, very little English when I met her. I have to admit that her
cultural background has given an enormous amount of richness to what I now consider to be part of my whole cultural background, of my being a Canadian, whatever that means in total. It also includes part of my wife's German culture.
That brings me down to something more specific. I do not know if all Citizenship Courts are the same, but the clerk of the Citizenship Court to which I go emphasizes at every proceeding the number of different countries represented by those who are becoming Canadian citizens. It is very gratifying at times when we may have as many as 50 or 60 people taking up Canadian citizenship for the clerk to point out that those people represent as many as 20 or 21 different countries. It gives me a tremendous feeling of joy when I think of all these different people coming into this countiy who have chosen this country of which I am by birth a member.
There is an enormous amount of goodwill on the part of those people when they become Canadian citizens. If I feel joy at them becoming Canadian citizens, it is obvious. I am sure those who attend Citizenship Court would agree that it is an extremely gratifying experience, not to mention the joy experienced by the people who become citizens.
I am reminded as well by Judge MacPhail of the Citizenship Court as she makes her presentation that Canada does not have any linguistic unity, cultural unity or any geographic unity. In fact it may be that it is not possible to identify a unity which can be described as Canada. In light of what we are talking about, I think that may be precisely the case. That may be precisely what makes Canada the wonderful mosaic, the wonderful rainbow of a country that it is.
If I find that quotation, and if I ever get a chance to speak in the House on this subject again, and I may possibly do so, I am going to make sure that I get the quote verbatim because it is an extremely moving quotation.
As I say, there is the joy expressed by these different groups coming into Canada. They express a lot of that joy by a desire to maintain their heritage language. Canada has done up to now an admirable job of aiding those people to be able to maintain their heritage languages.
I am not sure that this was not implemented out of partially selfish reasons. It is an advantage for our countiy in many, many ways, not the least of which are
May 29, 1990

economic, for these groups to be able to maintain their linguistic ability.
It is advantageous that people from Poland, for example, maintain the Polish language. In future years, as trade with the rest of the world develops, we will have people who are able to speak the language as a natural part of their personal expression.
The same could be said of any other group. At the present time, the most obvious example would be the maintenance of Pacific Rim languages as our relations with the Pacific Rim become much broader. I do not mean necessarily to point out those groups for economic reasons. I think it is absolutely essential that, as part of their humanity and their living in Canada, they ought to be able to maintain their languages.
The Saskatchewan Multicultural Council has written to me expressing a great deal of dismay at the cutting of funds to the heritage languages program which is so valuable. Unfortunately, that these cuts were announced during National Volunteer Week makes it particularly sad for two reasons. The first is that the cuts were made. The second is that these programs survived primarily on the basis of volunteers. Even though the government does put some money into them, it certainly does not go all the way toward being able to pay the costs of them.
I also have a letter from the Ukrainian Canadian Committee in Saskatoon.
One letter points out that, when the cuts were made to multiculturalism, they were only to the tune of 5 per cent. The letter states that in view of the deficit and so on it was essential to make these cuts and that everybody has to pay their fair share. That 5 per cent cut to multiculturalism was one thing, but the heritage language program was cut by 100 per cent. This means that in all probability it will not survive.
I even received a letter from as far away as Edmonton from the Edmonton Centre of Chinese Heritage and Second Language.
I also received a letter from the president of the Saskatoon Cambodian Society.
I refer to these letters just to give you, Madam Speaker, some idea of the variety of people who have expressed concern about this matter and the variety of people who have taken up Canadian citizenship.
Government Orders
I have two letters here from the Jewish community in Saskatoon who express as well their concern about the withdrawal of funds from the heritage language program. In the context of racism, the Jewish Centre in Saskatoon, of which the synagogue is a part, was desecrated recently. This demonstrates the depth of the problems that we are experiencing in Canada and the kinds of things which have to be worked on and alleviated.
I have referred to the cutting of funding to the heritage language program. In spite of listening to the minister making his statement on the introduction of the legislation, I can not help but feel that he believed everything he said. He made as impassioned an expression of humanity as any other speaker in the House has. My problem is that, when it comes to being a matter of translation into action, the government has not lived up to its promise, and I refer specifically to the heritage language program cuts. The government has not lived up to the promise and the commitment which I think the minister did feel when he was making his statement. I only wish that that were not the case, that the government would live up to the sincere expression that the minister made at the time.
The problem is that wherever we look within the government service the matter of employment equity has not been fully addressed. The member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair said he went into the prisons within his constituency and found a disproportionate number of our Canadian native people in those prisons in relation to the rest of the population. In addition to that, there was an absence of native people charged with the custody of those prisoners. That not only sends a very negative message to those people, but also indicates that there is a tremendous problem insofar as equity within the community vis-a-vis the native people.
One of the greatest travesties of Canadian society which illustrates again the government's lack of concern-I hesitate to use that phrase, but I do not know how else to express it-is the delay of the decision to allow members of the Sikh community to wear their turbans when they are in the RCMR That was a horrific example of how justice delayed is justice denied. More damage was done by the government's indecision on that

May 29, 1990
Government Orders
issue than by anything that has happened in Canadian society for a long while.
I suggest that had we had a decision quickly we would not have had those pins and those calendars. Even having said what I said, and believing the minister and his expressions when he introduced the legislation, I certainly do support the idea of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. I just hope it lives up to its promise.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the contributions to this debate made by members opposite, particularly in the last hour. I find that there is general support for this initiative and the government is very pleased to receive that general support.
I did, however, want to set the record straight on two issues, and they emerged in the exchange between the hon. member for Chambly and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum in the previous question and comment period.
First, a question was raised as to the government's financial commitment to this particular project. I would draw to the attention of both hon. members that what we are talking about here and what the bill establishes is a foundation. The money goes into a trust fund which generates interest and the interest fuels and supplies the foundation.
The other question that was raised was with respect to the quality of the appointees to the board of the foundation. A number of members have raised that question today. The suggestion was made in the exchange I alluded to that the government might, for some reason, choose appointees who were incompetent and who would mismanage the affairs of the foundation and then it would wither on the financial vine and perish. I am not sure that that was the exact wording but that suggestion was made. I want to reiterate to hon. members the commitment made by the minister, when he first announced the project and the bill, that the foundation will be managed by a board of directors. It would be in the interest of no government to be neglectful in that regard, both as to the quality of the appointees and the diligence of those appointees once they were in office.
I would also underline that the minister said that when he recommends board appointments to the Governor in
Council he will consult widely, taking into account Canada's multicultural character, to ensure that the board has the necessary skills and expertise. Knowing the minister as I do, I think we can expect him to recruit appointees of the highest calibre. Some of them might not even have any identifiable political stripe. It is possible when he consults widely that he may even carry his consultations into the environs of Saskatoon and Chambly.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I would just like to add to what my hon. colleague opposite said. As I understand it we are looking at $24 million. I do not want to give the wrong impression. But I also do not want the Canadian public to have the wrong impression from what my hon. colleague from the Conservative side said when he said that the government has a tendency to get the best people.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will have to interrupt the hon. member. He should be asking questions in reference to the speech of the hon. member from Saskatoon and not the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, it was just a burst of over-exuberance, I am afraid.
Let me return then to my hon. colleague from the NDP. It was a pleasure to listen to my hon. colleague in terms of the passion with which he spoke as well as the way he put his argument. It was a pleasure to hear something that was not theoretical but which was quite practical.
I would like to ask my colleague a question. When he was talking about how people have a tendency to make quick judgements on the way other people are dressed, such as the turban issue and others, is he satisfied with the way the government, apart from this bill, has treated that issue and others much like it?


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the answer to that would have to be no. I am not satisfied. I guess to be a bit repetitive, with respect to the matter of the turbans, I and a good many other people are thoroughly convinced that had the decision been made post-haste we would not have had the tremendous backlash which I think we are experiencing now. We would not have had the calendars. We would not have had the issue of whether or not it is racist, whether or not
May 29, 1990

it is a breach of the law to be making such things and to be wearing those things.
I have no idea why the government delayed so long. I am thoroughly convinced that had that not occurred we may not have to be speaking in these terms. We may not even have to be talking about a race relations foundation. It is a very unfortunate situation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

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

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise and congratulate you on your appointment. I know it is late but I do wish you well.
On November 28, 1989,1 rose in the House and asked the Prime Minister what action he planned to take regarding amendments to the Magnusson Act which had recently been enacted by the U.S. Congress. This law restricts the importation of certain sizes of lobsters, a size that is larger than a lot of lobsters caught for export in Canada.
The Prime Minister told me that he would be dealing with the issue on an impending trip to Washington to see President Bush. In answer to my supplementary question, the Minister for International Trade assured me that the President would be asked to veto the legislation. As it turned out, the president did not veto it, disrupting another sector of the already beleaguered Atlantic fishery.
Adjournment Debate
As a result of these regulations, Canadian lobster exporters were left without their prime retail market, worth some $30 million annually. In turn, prices plummeted. In southern Nova Scotia, they fell to $2.50 a pound from $4.50, from the same time the year before. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, it was worse, they fell to $1.75 per pound. Many lobster fishermen will not be able to survive such prices.
Apart from the obvious hardship these regulations impose on lobster fishermen, the government's handling of this issue has further educated Canadians on the application of the free trade agreement, the lesson being that Canadians will have to learn to accommodate U.S. trade law and that we cannot expect this government to stand up to the Americans and protect our legitimate economic interests.
Further, the free trade agreement does not provide the security of access that the government promised Canadians during the last federal election campaign. When the president declined to veto the new size, the government immediately sought a reference to a binational dispute settlement panel, under Chapter 18 of the free trade agreement.
Given the immediate economic effect of the offending size regulations, an accelerated schedule of deliberations was agreed to. In sum, the government's argument to the panel was the Americans had not enacted the size restrictions for conservation purposes, but rather as a way to restrict Canadian imports and thus protect their own industry. This is an interesting turn of the tables, when you remember the arguments presented to a similar Chapter 18 panel last year on the subject of Canadian rules regarding the processing of west coast salmon and herring.
As we found out last Friday, the final decision of the panel was in favour of the United States. Its management regime was endorsed, and the result was the same as last year: Canada lost. But the reasons were reversed. This time the American conservation regime was upheld and the economic result was also the same. The Canadian industry and workers have been harmed and left with an uncertain future.
How can we explain this decision? How do we explain the apparent inconsistency with the logic of the earlier ruling? True, our government and the United States can now enter a 90-day period wherein the two governments can negotiate a settlement. It is only fitting that this government would take solace with the prospect of more

May 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate
negotiations, since all around us we see the results of its belief that everything is negotiable.
I could not enumerate the areas where the government seems to try to negotiate its way through to policy. But, we have the free trade agreement which the Prime Minister insisted on negotiating from a position of weakness and with the predictable result. The Americans will be dealing from an almost unbeatable position of strength during the next 90 days. Why should they make any concessions when they know that at the end of 90 days their law will be upheld anyway?
Once again the government will have to bargain away more Canadian interests to achieve a negotiated compromise. We saw an example of this on the east coast with the scarce fish resources traded to France just to get that country to come to the negotiating table on the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary.
Taking all this in combination with the Canadian defeat before the earlier panel decision, this latest setback should make it very clear to Canadians what the future holds under the free trade agreement.
In order to maintain the access they have to the American market, Canadians should prepare themselves to accommodate whatever new American trade regulations come into effect, regardless of how trade distorting they may be.
They can do this in the confident knowledge that they are backed up by a government willing to play "Let's Make a Deal" on any issue. In this case, the lobster fishermen on the east coast are the losers. As usual, the Americans are the winners. The free trade agreement that was negotiated by this government incorporates another area where they have not governed on behalf of Canada. Instead, they tried to negotiate away an area that is a natural resource.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, this government believes that the free trade agreement, in providing an opportunity for both the U.S. and Canada to bring issues to the dispute settlement process, provides for a rational and amicable settlement of disputes more quickly and effectively than previously. We all know that.
The system was established to ensure full consideration of the bilateral implications of trade action by either country. On December 21, 1989 when the U.S. President signed what has come to be called Mitchell amendment into law, our Prime Minister wrote immediately to the President indicating Canada's intention to challenge the U.S. measure under the free trade agreement. A majority of those on the panel agreed with the United States' position that the Mitchell amendment was an internal measure rather than an import restriction.
The Minister for International Trade and the United States representative, Mr. Hills, have agreed to consider the report over 90 days. During that time, our two countries will seek to reach a mutually advantageous resolution of the issues concerning trade and lobster. The discussions will be based on continuing consultations with interested parties, including the United States, the provinces and the two lobster industries that have been supportive of our negotiations.
This government has recently been requested by fishermen and provincial governments to provide short and long-term solutions to high inventories of processed products. External Affairs and International Trade Canada has set up a lobster promotion campaign in more than 30 of our missions abroad.
As the fisheries minister recently pointed out, the marketing campaign is working because the $20 million inventory of frozen lobster present in January of 1990 has been currently cut to $4.5 million. Of course, this government is concerned with the implications of the decision, but is seeking, with our lobster industry, a mutually beneficial conclusion to this issue. There is nothing preventing us, should there be any outstanding lobster issues remaining after conclusion of negotiations within the 90-day period, from seeking the formation of another panel to deal with those issues.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, in the last general election the New Democratic Party warned Canadians about the future agenda of the government.
We said that the free trade deal made between the Prime Minister and the United States posed a great threat to Canadian sovereignty and to our distinct political culture. In Canada, we have always cared for and protected the less well off members of society,
May 29, 1990

whether disadvantaged because of poverty, race or region. We have a long way to go, but our orientation has been clearly towards equality.
On the other hand, the United States has quite a different political culture, emphasizing the individual, largely to the exclusion of society, and rejecting such programs as universal health care as being an unwarranted intrusion into the marketplace. The fact that 37 million people in the United States have no health insurance appears to be immaterial in that society. The sanctity of the market and the freedom of position to make as much money as possible appears to be the highest good. In the last election we stated that the provisions in the free trade agreement calling for harmonization of policy between Canada and the United States, the future random negotiations that will determine the definition of a subsidy, and the provisions allowing for open American competition for health services all pose a threat to the universal social programs that Canadians cherish.
Conservatives reaction to this argument was really quite vicious and, in the final weeks of the campaign, millions of dollars were spent telling Canadians that Ed Broadbent was a liar for claiming that social programs were at risk. But they never did refute our arguments or facts.
This tactic succeeded in many parts of the country but it did not succeed in Saskatchewan where my party won most of the seats, largely because of the opposition to free trade.
The same broad-based coalition opposed to free trade recently defeated the provincial government of Grant Devine in its attempt to privatize provincial utilities. The people of my home province are very sensitive to attempts to dismantle the social services system which has sustained them through bad times and to which they have contributed in good times.
A short time ago I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare what the future plans of his government were in regard to medicare. I asked if there were plans to privatize medicare and if the minister was opposed to privatization.
True to form, rather than pledge himself to protect medicare, the minister repeated the same charges his
Adjournment Debate
party made during the last general election. He accused me and the New Democratic Party of waging a fear campaign by "trying to scare the sick and the elderly and the poor by telling them they were going to lose their benefits". He said it was false then, and it is false now.
It took a lot of moxie for the Tories to say this during the last election, but it is beyond belief that the minister would repeat these same charges today. Will the sick lose their benefits? The government is in the process of cutting billions of dollars from medicare and hospital insurance with Bill C-69. In my own province of Saskatchewan from 1984-85 to 1994-95, more than a billion dollars will be cut, and in Canada over that same period almost $29 billion will be cut.
Will the elderly lose their benefits? The federal government has just passed a claw back of old age pensions and announced its intentions to increase charges to veterans homes.
Will the poor lose their benefits? The government has just cut its contribution under the Canada Assistance Plan by $150 million and broken a contract with three provinces in the process.
With the recent track record, with massive cuts to social programs immediately after making a solemn promise never to touch them, it is little wonder that many Canadians are not reassured by generalities from the government about medicare.
Contrary to what the minister said, it is clear that there is an agenda to privatize medicare and hospital insurance. The only question is the speed with which it can be accomplished. We can see that by looking at the recent record.
With Bill C-69, the federal government has drastically cut transfers for medicare and hospital insurance. Every province will be affected but particularly the smaller and poorer provinces that spend a higher proportion of their budgets on health care.
These provinces also depend on the federal government for a higher percentage of their health care expenditures. Therefore, a cut in transfers to all the provinces has a regressive effect as it punishes the less well off more than the rest.
When questioned in the House of Commons about these cuts, the Minister of Finance indicated that in his opinion, health was a purely provincial responsibility and the transfers to the provinces were simply sources of

May 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate
general revenue to the provinces, bearing no relation to the programs they were designed to fund.
Of course this ignores the provisions of the Canada Health Act which sets out several criteria that are necessary before federal money will be transferred to the provinces for medicare and hospital insurance.
The most important provisions for the purposes of today's debate are those outlawing extra billing, user fees, and private administration of health care. The Minister of Finance ignored these provisions because he is signalling to the provinces that this government has no intention of enforcing them.
If we look at the eventual effect of the successive cuts to health transfers made by this government, we see a scary end result. The most important effect is that the cash component of the transfer is shrinking rapidly, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of transfers made to the provinces.
The rest of the federal share of health money of course comes in the form of tax room. What the federal government does is agree to allow the provinces to collect certain taxes, mainly personal and corporate income taxes that the federal government could collect. Rather than collect the money and then give it to the province, the federal government has removed itself from the equation and allows the provinces to collect the money themselves.
The problem with this is that the provisions of the Canada Health Act enforcing the ban on extra billing, user fees, and private administration of health insurance only apply to the cash portion of federal transfers.
If the federal government continues on its present path, the time will soon come when the cash portion of the transfer will disappear. The federal government will have no stick left with which to enforce the act.
It is estimated by the Quebec government that the cash portion for that province will end within the decade and will end for other provinces soon after. Therefore, there will be no way to prevent the provinces from bringing back extra billing or user fees.
This gradual whittling away of medicare must stop. We have seen it in terms of social programs, with unemployment insurance, pensions and family allowance clawbacks, cuts to medicare, social assistance plan payments and post-secondary education. I challenge the government to either commit itself to medicare and provide the funding and legislative framework necessary to prevent the privatization of this essential service or to proclaim its allegiance to free enterprise medicine and let the people of Canada make their choice between competing visions.
In conclusion, Canadians are watching with horror at what is happening to their health care system. They see the impact of government policies, both federal and provincial. Canadians want the government to commit itself to using its powers to ensure that privatization of our health system is ended. Canadians have yet to hear this government make such a commitment and that is why they are worried. If the government is opposed to privatization in the health care system, it would be an easy and straightforward thing to tell Canadians. Silence speaks a thousand words.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing gives me an opportunity, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to stress again in front of this House and the Canadian people that the government is opposed, both in principle and in practice, to the imposition of direct charges, especially extra billing and user fees.
The Canada Health Act contains the principles on which our health insurance system is based: public funding, comprehensiveness and universality. Extra billing and user fees are contrary to the principle of accessibility. The federal Health Act contains provisions to discourage such practices and studies have shown that direct charges on patients discourage the least advantaged segments of the population from obtaining the health care to which they are entitled. Imposing direct charges on patients for necessary medical services would lead us to a two-tiered health care system, which is absolutely contrary to the intentions of our government, the Progressive Conservative government.

May 29, 1990
Canada undoubtedly has an outstanding health care system. Our public health insurance system is based on the principle of universality and accessibility of care for all Canadians.
In Canada, access to health care does not depend on one's ability to pay. In the United States, however, more than 30 million people do not have health insurance.
In conclusion, as Canadians, we are proud of our health insurance system. Three years ago, in April 1987, direct charges to patients were finally eliminated. The commitment to respect the principle of universal access to care is as strong today as when it was implemented.
I hope my answer is satisfactory to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, on April 11 I rose to find the details on the farm aid program that the minister had promised would be known before Easter. I did so on April 11 because that was the last day the House sat before the Easter recess. I was curious, as are farmers right across the country, as to what sort of aid package it will be to offset the disastrous fall in net farm income that is being felt on the farms across Canada, particularly on the grain farms and those producing fur in the country.
The Minister of Agriculture at the time indicated that he had initiated discussions with the provinces and that he was attempting to raise $1 billion by combining $500 million of federal aid with a hoped-for equivalent amount of money from the provinces. The expectation in the farm community and among the bankers of that farm community was that in the west, at least, this would translate into a package that would amount to somewhere between $8 and $10 per cultivated acre.
That was almost seven weeks ago, one day short of seven weeks, and farmers of this country are further enlightened very little as to what that aid package will entail.
We have been told there are tentative agreements reached with some of the provinces. We have the details of the agreement reached with Alberta as to how the
Adjournment Debate
sharing will occur in order to get $89 million of federal funds. The province of Alberta will add an additional $11 million of new money and will be credited with contributions from approximately $78 million of existing programs to assist the income needs of Alberta farmers in the past few months.
The total there amounts to approximately $190 million of which about $100 million will be new money into the pockets of Alberta farmers. So far we do not know how that money will be distributed even after seven weeks of going past the deadline the minister promised.
I remind the House and the country that that disaster or shortfall has been well known for sometime. It was before Christmas at the agriculture outlook conference that we first became aware that the crop year of 1990-91 would be one in which farm incomes would be below those of previous years, that we would drop from approximately $5 billion of net income to a net income now revised upward to something in the order of $2.95 billion; in other words a shortfall of about $2 billion. In response to that shortfall of $2 billion, the federal government offered about a quarter of the damage that has been done.
In his response to me on April 11 the Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister indicated that Canada could not match the treasuries of some of the other countries. At one point in his answer he indicated that Canada was doing much better than the Export Enhancement Program in the United States, leading one to believe that the Export Enhancement Program in the United States is the only farm subsidy program offered to that country's farmers when in fact the minister should know-and most farmers and members of the opposition realize it-that subsidy programs in the United States are far more endemic and far more expensive than that. They amount to billions of dollars, not just a few hundred millions. A portion of that money is available in the farmers' pockets to assist with seeding. They have what amounts to an interest-free storage program and an interest-free advance program where they can lock their crop into storage at harvest and get the loan rate: no interest. If the price goes up they have the option of taking the grain out of storage and realizing the difference between the locked-in price and the current market price. The total farm program in the

May 29, 1990
Adjournment Debate
United States means billions of dollars and a much more viable farm operation than we maintain in this country.
The minister seems to be somewhat concerned, though he did not express it in the House but outside the House, about the OECD figures which show that Canada is close to being equivalent to the Americans and Europeans when it comes to subsidizing wheat production.
He looked at an OECD study that included a special grains pay-out of $1 billion and a write-off for that one year of three-quarters of a billion dollars on the deficit of the western grain stabilization fund. Farmers did not get any money out of that three-quarters of a billion dollar write-off, yet the accounting system used shows that we received $1.75 billion extra funds that year, over and above existing programs, through those two ad hoc measures.
The minister knows full well-and if he does not his officials will know-that that will not be repeated last year or this year and that a mere $500 million as opposed to $1.75 billion will still leave us much short of the subsidy levels that the Americans and Europeans are using.
I am concerned that after all these weeks farmers still do not know the details of the farm program. I am also concerned that trappers and fur fanners have no idea as to what is involved in the defer component of the program to which he also alluded.
The three minutes available to the parliamentary secretary would be a good opportunity to enlighten the farmers and trappers in this country as to just where the government stands with regard to this half billion dollar so-called aid package that has been offered to them.
What will be the amounts received? When will they get it? How much longer do they have to wait for details? How much longer after the details are known will they have to wait before the cheques are in their pockets?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, all members of the House have anxiously awaited the agreement by the provinces on the $500 million short-term farm assistance package.
As we know, on May 18, federal and provincial ministers of agriculture met to discuss this package among other things. It is also my pleasure to inform the House that at that meeting agreement in principle was reached on several issues. We have decided how the funds will be divided among provinces and the nature of cost sharing arrangements. Details are being worked on a bilateral basis between the federal government and each province. These negotiations are coming to positive conclusions.
The agreement on farm aid reached between the province of Alberta and the federal government was announced yesterday in Edmonton, and farm aid for Ontario was announced earlier today in Toronto.
Other bilateral negotiations are continuing. I am advised that we are close to reaching agreement with several other provinces. The government is very encouraged by the progress that has been made. Meetings will take place with each province so that individual federal-provincial agreements can be drafted.
The provinces have agreed to administer assistance to producers. This will allow them to direct funds to producers most in need. These mechanisms will be written into the federal-provincial agreements. Once the provinces have designed their programs, they will be able to determine their cash flow needs. When these are finalized federal funds will flow to the provinces. We are confident that all parties will now work fast to determine these last details.
In addition, the government is increasing the flexibility of the farm debt review fund which currently has $180 million available. It will be made more adaptable to current circumstances so that arrangements which farmers have worked out with the Farm Credit Corporation through the farm debt review process can be extended.
Farmers will also be able to build up funds for a down payment on a farm through an equity building fund. These measures will give breathing space to farmers whose arrangements with the FCC are expiring but who are not yet ready to buy back their land. This initiative gives farmers access to between $10 million and $15 million as well.
May 29, 1990

Adjournment Debate
As can be seen, the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, is endeavouring to get as much money as possible into farmers' pockets as rapidly as possible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion that the House
do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 30,1990