1990-05-02

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, four and a half million Canadians suffer from emotional disorders that exact great personal and financial grief. It is thus fitting that May 1 to 7 is designated National Mental Health Week to ensure that mental health remains a priority of every Canadian, indigenous and new.
New Canadians face additional risk factors insofar as threat to their mental health is concerned. Negative public attitudes, separation from family and community, inability to speak the language fluently, and difficulty in finding suitable employment are known causes of emotional distress among the newcomers to Canada. Indeed, mental health involves every aspect of our lives.
This year's focus, mental health in the workplace, reinforces a universal belief that a sound mind is needed for efficiency in the working environment. The Canadian Medical Association is to be commended for holding week-long events to increase national awareness of mental health.
National leadership is challenged once more to control the forces that increase risk of mental ill health, to eliminate the stigma attached to it and to increase resources for treatment approaches.
I ask the Department of Health and Welfare to accept the challenge. I ask the government to make mental health one of its continuing priorities. A sound mind and a sound body make every Canadian prepared to meet the challenges of our country today and tomorrow.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, most of Quebec's regional weeklies are distributed free of charge and depend on advertising to make up their costs.
Outside major urban centres, they reach nearly three-quarters of the population. By carrying flyers, they can afford to set aside more space for local news that is not picked up by the larger media.
By creating Admail, the Canada Post Corporation is taking a slice of the market and threatening the veiy survival of the weekly press in Quebec. Furthermore, the Corporation is abusing its privileges, thus the consumer and business.
At a time when our government is tying to create a French news channel that stresses local news, it would hardly be appropriate to undermine another channel for local news that is also directed mainly to Francophones across Canada.
In concluding, I want to ask the minister to demand the dismantling of Admail.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the 1990 groundfish plan introduced a cap on the participation of fishing vessels from west of Halifax in the 4VSW fishery. This has caused considerable hardship to many fishermen, particularly those from Halifax, Lunenburg and Queens Counties.
With the beginning of the second trimester and with the Hache recommendations not yet in place, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to immediately lift the cap and allow boats from southern Nova Scotia to participate fully in their historic fishing grounds.

May 2, 1990
5. O. 31 POVERTY


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, a spokesperson for the police force last weekend stated that people on social assistance should be forced to practice birth control because their "limited genetic pool" results in welfare breeding welfare.
From one end of this country to the other, Canadians living in poverty are under attack.
From opinion leaders and authority figures we hear that it is the poor who are to blame for their poverty. We hear that crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and family violence are the fault of the poor. Now we are hearing that to be poor means that you are to be denied the comfort, the support and the love of a family.
To be poor means to be stripped of your dignity and treated differently. It means to be treated by some Orwellian notion of population control.

Yesterday in Montreal, 3,500 people demonstrated against poverty. At Point St. Charles and Saint-Henri, nearly one-third of the population lives in poverty. Unfortunately, this kind of situation is spreading across the country.

These towns are at Third World levels. We need action from this government and we need it now.


HYDRO-QUEBEC
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to an article: "GST reduces Hydro's expenses, but consumers will not benefit", that appeared today in La Presse.
According to several of accounting experts, Hydro-Quebec deliberately neglected to subtract from its projections the cost reduction that will take place next year when the federal sales tax is abolished.
In its draft development plan, Hydro-Quebec established its cost projections as though there would be no federal tax reform next year. Furthermore, Hydro-Quebec neglected to inform consumers of the amount it will save in federal tax.
Mr. Speaker, although when the new tax becomes effective, the old tax will automatically disappear, it seems like Hydro-Quebec residential customers will have to pay both the old and new tax.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, at their shareholders' meeting, Alcan management again said no to Jonquiere about installing electrostatic precipitators for the Soderberg cell rooms.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why Alcan is treating the community of Jonquiere like this. How can they close the Soderberg cell rooms, bring in bulldozers and make a nice lawn, without having any plans for a replacement project for Jonquiere?
Building new factories in Laterriere, Alma and possibly Shawinigan is all very well, but what are you doing for Jonquiere?
Mr. Speaker, let me direct a few words to these authorities. I am sorry but it is your responsibility to provide a replacement factory or some substantial project for the Jonquiere area.
You are supposed to make the decisions, but it makes no sense to invest all around Jonquiere, and ignore Jonquiere itself! As a result, property values in this town will go down substantially and many jobs will be lost.
Through me, the people of Jonquiere ask you to revise your investment plan to include Jonquiere.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to reflect for a moment on the words of the member from Lisgar-Marquette who, during a supply debate on his own motion in 1984, called upon the government of the day to resist the downward adjustment of initial payments for western grain.
May 2, 1990

The member, now Minister of Grains and Oilseeds, was incensed in 1984, stating: "I see no reason why the government should not have shown a little bit of faith in Canadian agriculture. It could have said we are going to guarantee that prices are the same as they were last year".
What was that decline in initial payments that so incensed the member? Let me quote again his own words: "We see grain prices reduced substantially-on a percentage basis 5 per cent or 6 per cent. That is significant".
Yet yesterday the same member announced initial payments for grain dropping 18 per cent for spring wheat, 16 per cent for Durum wheat and 26 per cent for malting barley. These are decreases of about $25 per tonne from last year, decreases of $35 per tonne from 1984, decreases that spell disaster for Canadian grain farmers.
This government's policies are destroying Canadian agriculture. This government is kissing off the Canadian family farm.



Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the government announced yesterday that the initial price for wheat this year would drop by $30 per tonne to $135. This is one of the lowest prices for wheat in history in real dollar terms, almost approaching the values of the 1930s.
On Monday of this week the Minister of Agriculture increased the Farm Credit Corporation lending rate to almost 15 per cent interest per annum. How does the Canadian government expect Canadian farmers to survive when American farmers will be receiving almost 50 per cent more for their wheat this year and be guaranteed that price at the time of planting?
This Tory government guarantees our farmers nothing, only more debt and higher interest rates. Surely it is almost criminal to be increasing the Farm Credit Corporation interest rate to 15 per cent while cutting the price of wheat by almost 20 per cent.
I call on the government to roll back these high interest rates on Farm Credit Corporation mortgages.
Oral Questions CORPORATE TAXATION


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the nominees for the corporate welfare bum of the week did not pay any federal income taxes in 1988.
The first nominee is Algoma Steel which had tax-free profits of $80 million.
Edper Enterprises, with profits of $52 million, is the second nominee.
The third nominee is Hemlo Gold Mines.
The envelope, please.
The winner is Hemlo Gold Mines, which really struck it rich in 1988, getting a $2.7 million tax credit on profits of $43 million. This golden performance earns Hemlo Gold Mines the title of corporate welfare bum of the week.


BILL C-21
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, training and adjustment programs were a major part of what the government promised Canadians during the last federal election. The government has proposed it through the Labour Force Development Strategy and Bill C-21. This House approved it as long ago as November 6 of last year.
Canadian workers need such help. They expect such help. They await such help.
More money for apprenticeship level training, more for co-op education and more for older workers and many others-$800 million all told is ready to go to meet the needs of workers across the country.
I urge all hon. members, particularly those across the way, to do their utmost to persuade the Senate to see the light and pass Bill C-21.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

May 2, 1990
Oral Questions
Last night, after the tragic deaths of two young Mohawk men near Snye, Quebec, the police forces of the United States and Canada finally entered the Akwe-sasne Reserve where they are now on patrol.
Does the Solicitor General have a firm commitment from the federal government of the United States, the government of the State of New York, the two provincial governments, and from his own government that the police forces will remain on patrol on the Akwesasne Reserve until law and order is restored on a truly permanent basis?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, and as all hon. members in the House know, last night there was a co-ordinated effort by all police forces involved to enter Akwesasne in order to ensure peace and order, and also to continue the investigation by the Surete du Quebec and the New York police force of the two homicides.
As I indicated yesterday, we were looking for a co-ordinated effort. A co-ordinated effort took place, and a co-ordinated effort will continue to take place.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think there is still a question in the minds of many people as to why this effort on the part of the police forces did not take place until after the tragic deaths in question. However, I want to move on to another point.
We have all seen on television the extent of military type weaponry in circulation on the reserve. Will the Solicitor General tell us what is being done to eliminate this type of weaponry from the reserve? Surely there is no place for weapons of this nature in a free, peaceful and democratic community.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to military equipment, I indicated in a statement earlier today that I have asked the military for some equipment and engineering support. That has been provided at my request.
With respect to other armament to which the hon. member may also be referring, the police forces, as I have indicated, are on the reserve as police officers and obviously will be administering the laws of Canada and the laws of the various provinces.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is no place for a machine gun, for example, in a peaceful community. Since the Akwesasne reserve is located on American as well as Canadian territory, and part of the Canadian territory is in Quebec and part in Ontario, what is the government doing in this emergency to find a long-term solution whereby all the people of Akwesasne could live in peace and dignity and really unafraid?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker as my colleague the Solicitor General has reported, the short-term objective of the joint action last evening was to secure peace and order and to restore a sense of calm to the Akwesasne community on both sides of the border and in both provinces.
As part of the search for a long-term and permanent solution to the problem, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is leading a meeting of the five jurisdictions tomorrow morning in Montreal. This is part of ongoing discussions which have occurred among those jurisdictions in some form for several months now.
This is in particular to search for a lasting and democratically achieved solution acceptable to, and with the guidance of, the Mohawk leadership within the communities.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let me first offer my condolences as local member of Parliament to the family of Wilbur Edwards, the second victim of the sorry violence in Akwesasne.
I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he can assure this House that help will continue to be given to the Mohawk families who have now sought refuge in Cornwall, Ontario, and that this assistance will continue until they can return home in safety, without fear of further attacks?
May 2, 1990


Thomas Edward Siddon: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the government and all members of this House share the member's sense of grief and sympathy. We extend to the families of the two unfortunate victims our condolences in these tragic circumstances.
We are aware of the high level of tension and anxiety of the residents who have left their community and are temporarily housed in Cornwall at the government training institute.
Our officials have been on site continuously from the time that evacuation occurred last weekend and senior officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are providing assistance and counsel where required.
We are remaining in contact with the elected and traditional leadership of the community of Akwesasne.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister. Perhaps I could turn to the Solicitor General and ask him a question in relation to what was asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago.
Can he provide us with some information now as to whether or not his department and U.S. authorities are utilizing a co-ordinated effort, not just to parole the reserve but to remove the unauthorized, illegal heavy weaponry that is on the Akwesasne reserve such as machine guns, rifles, hand grenades and all those other unacceptable objects which are there and which are obviously killing people?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a little earlier, the effort that was made was a co-ordinated effort by all police forces to go on Akwesasne in order to ensure peace and order, and obviously the application of the respective laws.


Mr. John F. Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. We are glad to hear that the Quebec Police Force is in St. Regis, on the Akwesasne reserve, and that order has been restored on the reserve for the time being.
Mr. Speaker, my question is the following: Can the government assure the House and the residents of the
Oral Questions
reserve that the police will remain on the reserve as long as their services are required by the authorities of the reserve?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is the same question in French as the one that was asked in English a few minutes ago. As I said a few minutes ago, and as I said yesterday, we were seeking joint action by all the police forces concerned, and it is as a result of joint action that the police forces went to the Akwesasne reserve to restore law and order. Of course, this concerted effort will continue.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, there have been persistent reports over some period of time which suggest an involvement of U.S. organized crime with the gambling facilities and casinos operated by the Warrior Society on the reserve.
Can the minister tell the House whether the RCMP has confirmed or is in a position to confirm those reports and that it is that involvement which is the long-term cause of the violence that is happening on the reserve?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, considering that the operation of the activities to which my hon. colleague is referring are occurring in United States territory, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He referred to a meeting which is to take place tomorrow involving the various government authorities. The long-term solution here, as he indicated, would ultimately go to the local leadership of the reserve.
Will the national native leadership and the elected native leadership from the reserve be invited to participate at the beginning of this process of seeking a long-term solution and, in particular, will they be invited to the meeting tomorrow?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Victoria and other members of the House that the wishes of the elected and traditional leadership have been taken into account and respected throughout the piece now for many weeks prior to the unfortunate events of the last couple of days.

May 2, 1990
Oral Questions
Their input will continue to be sought on a regular and daily basis.
My officials are in continuing contact with the presidents of the two tribal councils. I cannot commit that they will be at a meeting of government officials tomorrow morning, but after the officials of the five jurisdictions, that is, the two provinces, the State of New York, the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as our department, have met, there will certainly be immediate and ongoing discussions with the leadership of the Mohawk Akwesasne Tribal Council and the St. Regis Tribal Council.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: I have a question for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. This government has slashed agricultural support programs with a vengeance. The Canadian family farm is under siege. In the past year or so this government has announced drastic cuts in crop insurance, grain and flour, grain and crop advance payments, dairy exports and the Canadian Dairy Commission, just to name a few, for a total in cuts of about $400 million.
Yesterday we got the shocking news of a dramatic drop in the initial wheat prices. Farmers are stunned. How does the minister responsible for grains expect farmers to stay on the land if this persists? How much more does he think farmers can take?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that while it is not good news, and we readily admit that and I know that myself as a farmer, the initial payments we announced yesterday for barley are actually increased over a year ago. They are down from what they are presently because we adjusted them during the year.
I would point out to him that these are initial payments set three months before the beginning of the selling of the crop which we have not even seeded, let alone harvested. Bearing that in mind, we are making sure that we are setting initial payments at a level when we can fully anticipate a final payment.
Having said that, the hon.member should also know that the projections in farm income fully took into account these kinds of numbers. We had circulated to farmers right across the country our anticipation of these kind of prices back in the early part of March.
So, if the hon. member is surprised today, he should not be because this is information that has been readily available to the farm community for almost two months.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister has been listening to what farmers are saying today. They are expressing deep, deep shock.
I want to remind members of this House what this minister said before he was in government, way back in April 1984. This is what he told the House:
I see no reason why the government should not have shown a little bit of faith in Canadian agriculture. It could have said we are going to guarantee that prices are the same as they were last year- We see grain prices reduced substantially-on a percentage basis 5 per cent or 6 per cent.
That is what the minister said six years ago. Why did the minister announce these initial payments yesterday that amount to a drop of 18 per cent? Does this indicate that the minister no longer has faith in Canadian agriculture?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, above all I think farmers expect this government to be honest and straightforward with them and this is exactly what we have done in letting them know what we anticipate final realized prices to be.
If he wants to quote from farmers let me quote from a farmer from the province he and I both come from, from Oak River, Manitoba, who says: "I do not think anyone should get too excited-" and he is referring to the prices I announced yesterday. "I don't ever remember the initial price as staying at the same level as the current price," said Tom Smart of Oak River.
So if he wants to talk about farmers, they understand what is going on. They understand the kind of support that this government has provided. We have stood by the Canadian Wheat Board and kept them selling in a deficit position as compared to the party he supports which took us right out of the world market in the LIP in the early
May 2, 1990

1970s and saw our exports drop by over 50 per cent from one year to the next. We have not done that.
We stood by our farmers in the past in the international market where we have kept them selling. We have stood by them in international discussions as far as GATT is concerned and we are going to make some progress. We have stood by farmers in the past, we are doing it today, and we are going to do it in the future.
He *	*


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, Mr. David Dodge, the senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance said: "Nobody believes that the goods and services tax will add only 1.25 per cent to inflation". The Assistant Deputy Minister also said: "The GST is going to contribute to a much tougher labour relations climate".
Why is the minister persisting with a tax that even his own officials admit will lead to a tougher labour relations climate?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend should read the whole of the quote rather than just the part she is referring to. The point Mr. Dodge was making to a Canadian Press organization and the people in attendance was that he thought it would be helpful if they would encourage a greater understanding of the 1.25 per cent cost of living increase.
Mr. Dodge went on to point out that there were people on one side who were feeling that the price increase would be greater than 1.25 per cent. He also made the point that there were people in the business community who felt they would not be able to hold their prices, and that was going to contribute to the more difficult labour negotiation environment this year. I think that is a balanced approach he is taking which he hopes will be presented through the media to the general public as well.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying we should not worry about the GST's impact on inflation? I think the experts disagree. Mau-
Oral Questions
reen Farrow, chief economist with Coopers & Lybrand said yesterday: "I don't trust the business sector not to mark up or round up prices. That has been the temptation in every other jurisdiction that has gone to a value-added tax".
So I ask the minister why he will not admit today that benefits will not necessarily be passed on to consumers. Why will he not admit that it will increase the cost of living for all Canadians and dramatically fuel inflation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the statements by the hon. member are just the things that Mr. Dodge was referring to when he was talking about the misinformation that is conveyed by people who should be taking a more responsible point of view, such as the hon. member.
I have never said we should not worry about this. I said we should be concerned about the inflationary impact and that is why it is important for people to understand that it is very important for businesses to pass on those savings. Just yesterday Richard Sharpe, the chairman of Sears Canada, made the statement that he was pledging on behalf of his organization-one of the largest retailing organizations in the country-to pass on to consumers any tax savings related to the GST. We heard that same thing from other large organizations like General Motors, Ford, and Dupont. I think if other members of the business community get behind the same sentiment and tell their customers that they are going to pass on these savings, then there will be no grounds for the statement that has just been made by my hon. friend.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday, farmers received one more piece of bad news with the announcement of the Canadian Wheat Board initial prices. They are down substantially.
This announcement comes on the heels of increases to farm credit interest rates which are, for the first time, above the Bank of Canada prime rate. It comes at a time when the Economic Council of Canada has already announced that farm income will drop this year by as much as 87 per cent. It also comes at a time when the government is sitting on $500 million which it won't

May 2, 1990
Oral Questions
release despite the fact that many farmers are being denied loans for seeding.
Given this situation, what incentive is there for farmers to even plant a crop this year?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the initial payments that we announced yesterday for barley actually increased from over a year ago. It went from $85 to $90 a tonne which is about a 6 per cent increase. Unfortunately, hard red spring prices went down about 12 per cent, not 18 per cent.
Let me say this very slowly. We have got to be honest with farmers and we don't want to alarm them any more than they are. All of the prices-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: I don't hear a farmer over there yelling, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: All of the income projections that were put out last November were based on the prices that I announced yesterday. We sent out price information to every farmer in the country indicating that these were the kind of prices that could be expected. Having said that, we are having ongoing discussions with the provinces that are concerned about income. We had a meeting with our Minister of Agriculture and two ministers from the provincial government and myself on Sunday. There are ongoing discussions with the province of Saskatchewan and Alberta and Quebec and Ontario. Those discussions are under way with regard to how they best use the $500 million that the hon. member refers to.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, what rural Canada needs is not rhetoric but stability. My supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture.
While the minister is playing ping-pong with Grant Devine, farmers are not able to get seed money to put their crop in the ground. All the while the minister is sitting on his $500 million. Why doesn't the minister get off his seat, get up in the House and make a commitment to the Canadian farmers that he is going to help them put in their crop this year.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what this government did. It did it back on March 30. The $500 million is there, as my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, indicated. We had a meeting with Manitoba on Sunday. I talked to the Minister of Agriculture as late as this morning.
The discussions are going on with Ontario. There have been discussions with Alberta. All we are trying to do is to co-operate with the provinces and try to design a program that would be effective and that would serve the needs of the farmers to help them get their crops in. We are there and we are asking the provinces to get on board.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, Ontario introduced guidelines to address the immediate need for action on the dreaded zebra mussel which is infecting the Great Lakes.
Ontario is asking all fishermen to transport live fish in well water or treated water. Fishing equipment is to be sterilized with chlorine or be sun dried. Boaters are to remove mussels from the hulls of their boats before transporting the boats to inland lakes to try and contain the infestation.
Will the minister follow the lead shown by Ontario and do four things; first, allocate funds today for research and control? Second, instruct all users of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway to respect the Ontario guidelines. Third, join with Ontario to strengthen these guidelines and, fourth, to advise our American friends of what we are doing with respect to zebra mussels and ask them to join us in this crusade.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, while we appreciate what Ontario is doing, we have not waited for the province to act. The Department of the Environment has devoted money to research projects related to this very important phenomenon for which we have great concern. We know that the zebra mussels were introduced to our waters by foreign ships dumping water ballast after entering our ports. My
May 2, 1990

colleague, the Minister of Transport has issued guidelines to control this water dumping.
There are no less than 26 research projects ongoing on this matter. Steps are being taken to inform the public of the means that can be taken to limit the movement and proliferation of zebra mussels from one lake to another. We agree that Ontario is doing a good job on this problem and we are working very closely with the province.
We would like to commend the fact that Hydro Ontario is devoting $10 million a year in research funding for this project.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: A supplementary to the same minister. The voluntary guidelines introduced by the federal government only address ships in the St. Lawrence Seaway by asking them to change their ballast water on the high seas rather than in the seaway.
As of today all of Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair and half of Lake Ontario are totally infested with the zebra mussel. There were reports over the weekend that Lake Huron and Lake Superior now have the first indications of the terrible zebra mussel being there. Will the minister do something constructive today to stop the infestation in the Great Lakes, particularly Lakes Huron and Superior where the zebra mussel do not yet have a foothold?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, apart from what I have just said, my department is currently completing consultations for new legislation to control wild animal and plant transportation into Canada. This will be the way to stop the introduction of zebra mussels into Canada.
The main thing we must do is identify ways in which to fight proliferation in our waters. The research projects under way are directly related to that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Oral Questions
The Canadian Armed Forces have always served Canadians well on the premise that we tell them clearly what we want them to do and then give them the right tools to do the job.
The CF-18 aircraft has an air speed envelope that may be too high for some of our air sovereignty functions, especially drug interdiction operations. Will the minister tell us how the government can fulfil its aircraft drug interdiction role using the CF-18 without endangering the safety of our pilots, and whether it will need to secure other aircraft for this purpose?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, following an agreement with NORAD last year, we are now using our assets to assist with the interdiction of aircraft, if necessary, under NORAD agreements. We also require that slow-flying and unidentified aircraft identify themselves. If they do not, we are able to use our own capability to track them until they land.
When the CF-18s are on their regular missions, they can be involved in this kind of exercise and can be used, as can our other resources such as the Aurora aircraft, or other facilities. In this way we are entering into the fight on drugs and, as has been shown already, we have been successful in several ventures.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, what I am really asking is whether we have the equipment to do the job. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence announced the implementation of a directed landings policy which will require all aircraft flying into Canadian air space without a filed flight plan to force land at a port of entry.
Will the minister confirm to the House that this new policy has been made necessary by the inability of the government to carry out effective and comprehensive air sovereignty surveillance, including drug interdiction?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, no, certainly I would not agree with that.
The policy of requiring unidentified aircraft to land is part of trying to ensure that aircraft smuggling drugs cannot get into Canadian airspace. It is one of the

May 2, 1990
Oral Questions
mechanisms by which we can have greater assurance of that.
In addition, the aircraft resources of our department and others, are involved in tracking, in trying to identify aircraft and ensuring that unidentified aircraft do not enter Canadian air space.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment.
As the minister knows, the Saskatchewan government has announced it will resume construction on the Rafferty-Alameda dam. Even before the review panel has had a chance to meet, the government is proceeding with the project. The Government of Saskatchewan is thumbing its nose at the federal government and at the laws of the land.
Does the minister not agree that not only is this decision a violation of his agreement with Saskatchewan but also a violation of the spirit of the federal court order of last December?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have been informed of certain activities that the Government of Saskatchewan would like to do, relating to the Rafferty-Alameda dam project.
We are in the process of checking out what those activities are. If we find out that they are not justified by safety reasons and not identified as such by the Independent Design Board which has been set up for that purpose by the terms in the agreement, we will step in and take the proper decision. We will not accept that the spirit of the agreement be violated.
I am sending a letter today to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment of Saskatchewan. I intend to speak with him on the phone today also. I would like to know what kind of work is being done. It might be that there is no problem. Maybe they are justified by safety reasons. If not, we will have to go back to the agreement and make sure it is respected.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a farce.
It is estimated that around 80 per cent of the construction will be completed by the end of the summer. Already we have reports from Saskatchewan today that some panel members are considering resigning, because it is a farce.
Why will the minister not act? Why will he not stand up in his place and state that he is revoking the licence until there is a proper environmental review and he can say to the Province of Saskatchewan: "Yes, you can proceed." or, "No, you cannot proceed." First, let's revoke the licence and have a proper environmental review.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we know that we have to verify the kind of work that is being contemplated now.
That being said, we should believe that this issue has been dealt with very well by the Saskatchewan authorities. They are being very responsible. They have accepted an agreement without any precedent in the world. We have agreed to stop the work on this dam.
There is a full-blown assessment going on, and we will soon know when the work can be resumed. In the meantime, I intend to talk with my fellow minister to make sure that the agreement will be respected.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Like many other Canadians, the people in the riding of Jonquiere wonder whether companies will really pass on to consumers the difference between the present tax, which is 13.5 per cent, and the new, lower 7 per cent goods and services tax.
How does the minister intend to ensure that companies will actually pass on the benefits of this tax reduction to consumers? Will there be a special mechanism or a review board to ensure that companies reduce their prices?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, of course, as the hon. member pointed out, the government will take all necessary steps to ensure that businesses that benefit directly from a 13.5 per cent reduction in inputs will pass on to consumers the
May 2, 1990

difference between 13.5 per cent and 7 per cent. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, mentioned earlier that a number of large corporations have already done so: GM, Ford and, more recently, Sears. We intend to set up a mechanism, and I intend to make an announcement within the next few weeks, that will provide for price monitoring. The information will be collected, and we will ensure that the difference between 13.5 per cent and 7 per cent is actually passed on to the consumer. It is our responsibility as a government, and we will do everything in our power to ensure this is done.


CANADA POST
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.
Canada Post recently established Admail, a private flyer distribution service that undercuts collective agreements and competes directly with Quebec's regional weeklies in this area.
Could the minister promise the House today that he will put an end to this unfair competition by Canada Post which is a threat to the survival of the weekly press in Quebec and French Canada?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has been involved in the business of distributing advertising material for over 100 years, this is not a new activity. It is a highly competitive activity. There are several organizations involved in distributing advertising mail, including newspapers, door-to-door.
I am told that in Quebec, Canada Post represents about 19 per cent of the market, so 81 per cent of the market is handled by private distributors. Were Canada Post to quit the business, it would not necessarily end competition.
I do not feel it would be advisable to ask Canada Post to quit, since this House has asked them to go out and
Oral Questions
operate in a businesslike fashion in the business of distributing hard copy, if you will, and this is part of it.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it concerns the activities of Petro-Canada in Myanmar.
As the minister knows, Petro-Canada International, the development arm of Petro-Canada, has withdrawn from this country because of human rights violations but Petro-Canada itself continues to operate a $22 million oil drilling contract. Given the contradiction between having one agency withdraw because of human rights violations and the other agency, the parent company, continue, will the minister undertake to tell the House whether or not he will instruct Petro-Canada itself to withdraw from this project?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. As he knows, the present agreement was signed between Petro-Canada International and now Myanmar, in 1988, prior to the present military government coming into power. Only recently did the contract reach the implementation stage.
I have been informed that for the present, Petro-Canada International has decided to suspend the program. The government supports that decision. In fact, I want to tell the hon. member and the House that we have urged the company to review its activities there, in light of the deteriorating human rights and political situation that is now evident.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister and I appreciate his response on this issue.
Given that this Crown corporation is involved in several parts of the world, can the minister assure us that he will undertake a review of several programs to make sure that these human rights violations, and the countries where we are concerned about this, are related to our External Affairs policy, to make sure that we do not get involved with countries where we are concerned about human rights?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer fully for the hon. member. He is well aware that Petro-Canada International gets its funding through External Affairs. It

May 2, 1990
Oral Questions
receives about $50 million presently. As a contractor, Petro-Canada then does the work in particular countries. I think we all recognize this is part of External Affairs policy and is our contribution as Canadians to the development of some of these energy sources.
In terms of the specific question that the member asked, will this be reconciled with human rights violations in possibly other countries, I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware of the implications of that question. He and I will continue to look at the role Canada plays. I think we have to balance what was done, for example, in Myanmar, and the ability of Canada to contribute internationally to further development as well.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when the government has withdrawn national unity from the CBC's mandate, the polls show that national unity has become a top priority for Canadians.
My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Considering that broadcasting is a powerful force that contributes to the understanding, tolerance and generosity of Canadians from coast to coast in these unstable times, will the minister take this opportunity to put national unity back into the mandate of the CBC?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not find it surprising that in a country, people should be in favour of national unity. We have a problem when the opposite is true. I think everyone in this House should be delighted when the polls say that a majority of Canadians favour national unity in this country.
Second, the question is whether the Union nation-ale-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: That was 20 years ago!


Marcel Masse: My political roots are showing, Madam.
We must determine whether national unity is something to be inflicted or to be experienced. We believe that the Union nationale-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Masse: -that national unity should not be the result of force-fed propaganda but of a positive will.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, national unity is something that is built.

It is not a propaganda tool to find a vehicle across this land that will let Canadians know one another from coast to coast. If that is propaganda, I feel sorry for the minister's vision.
I feel very passionately about Canada. There seems to be a difference in viewpoints in this House as to how it should be expressed. Last week the Prime Minister was passionate when he said to the Council for Canadian Unity, and I quote: "Everything we have accomplished as a country can be traced to our sense of national purpose, to our national unity".
If the Prime Minister speaks for the Government of Canada, will the Minister of Communications today undertake to reinstate the national unity mandate to Radio-Canada, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that-

-the member is building her attack for next week when the bill will be before the House.
First, I have to tell the hon. member something. We ask the CBC to reflect what is Canada. What was done in 1968 was to put the question of national unity. What type of country have you left to us in 1982? Something without Quebec. So, we prefer our approach to your approach.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: That's right, because you have been unconscionable.
May 2, 1990


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, Mr. Dodge said that the unions do not believe companies will reduce their prices after the sales tax is abolished. According to today's La Presse, Hydro-Quebec ignored these tax reductions when it applied for rate increases for next year. Isn't that an indication that the unions are right?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I also read that article and found it very interesting. I can't go into any detail about the facts mentioned in the article or the accuracy of its information. As I said in my answer to a previous question, I can give Canadians and especially Quebecers the assurance that this particular point is a matter of concern for the government. Our objective, and this is very important, is to ensure that when there are benefits to be passed on with respect to the goods and services tax, when the hidden tax of 13.5 per cent is replaced by a 7 per cent tax, that companies, in fact, that everyone passes the benefits on to the consumer. We and the companies have that responsibility. I can assure the hon. member that we will be most vigilant, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this happens.
I mentioned earlier that some big businesses such as Sears, GM and Ford have already stated that they are going to pass the benefits on to consumers.
What we want are commitments from other companies and businesses that they will pass the benefits on to consumers.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that here he has an example of not a promise, but a reality that Hydro Quebec, and the same is true for Ontario Hydro, have not taken into account in their requests for increases in the rates for next year the fact that there will be reductions in the sales tax.
Routine Proceedings
Let me ask this government not for empty promises, but what precisely will it do in the face of these problems that actually exist?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we must be accurate. I do not think that Ontario Hydro has set its rates for next year.
On the other hand, I want to emphasize that Hydro Quebec is under provincial jurisdiction. I do not think the hon. member is asking us to intervene on provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation^
Mr. Speaker, I already said that we would look into the facts that were brought to our attention this morning. It is quite obvious that we will urge all Canadians at all levels so that all consumers can benefit from the reduction from 13.5 to 7 per cent.
However, my colleague should raise specific questions, as I just said, and he did not in the case of Ontario. We will wait and see whether the Government of Ontario will at least mention these matters and we are not going to anticipate what will be said in the coming weeks.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages the annual report of a project which I know you had a lot of intimate dealings with, namely, the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Government of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1988, to September 30, 1989.
Mr. Speaker, I know you will be pleased to note that the objectives of the treaty are being fully met by the board's reports.

May 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND REGIONAL AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-AUTHORIZATION FOR STANDING COMMITTEE TO TRAVEL
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
Thai further to the order made on April 11, 1990, the Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and Regional and
Northern Development be authorized to travel to Edmonton during
its western investigations.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of Canadians who are opposing the goods and services tax. The petitioners feel that this is an unjust and unfair tax which discriminates against those Canadians who live outside the central corridor of Ontario and Quebec and are asking the government and the Parliament of Canada to do whatever they can to curtail this tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another topic, the petitioners point out the government's intention to dismantle passenger rail service in Canada. The petitioners, primarily from western Canada, go to some length pointing out all the reasons why Canada should have a comprehensive VIA Rail service across the country, particularly because of its environmentally friendly nature. They ask that the government not only stop the dismantling of VIA Rail but in fact invest in a
rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient passenger rail system.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a different topic, the petitioners are pointing out to the House of Commons that the number of children living in poverty is actually increasing in Canada. They feel, and I certainly support them, that this is something that we ought not to tolerate for a moment. They have asked the government to rethink its position of voting against a comprehensive bill of rights for children and are asking the Parliament of Canada to reintroduce it at some time in the future.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another topic it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia who are distraught with the fact that the government has seen fit to tax magazines, books and newspapers at a time when we are concerned about the increasing levels of illiteracy. I think that this is the only country in the world that will be actually taxing reading. Therefore, the petitioners are asking the government to please come to its senses and back off again from the GST legislation.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first petition calls upon Parliament to prevail upon the Secretary of State to restore the funding for the native communications program and for the northern native broadcast access program which were cut in the recent budget of the Secretary of State.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, also certified under Standing Order 36, calls on the government to reject the current proposals for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition certified correct as to form and content from
May 2, 1990

over 700 residents of the constituency of Etobicoke North.
The residents express their deep concern at the proposed expansion of Pearson International Airport, bearing in mind the deleterious effects on the quality of life in the constituency of Etobicoke North and other surrounding areas of the airport from previous expansion. They also express their concern about the impact that the proposed extension and addition of runways at Pearson International Airport will have on the environment, on their health and on their ability to pursue an active life in the area surrounding the airport. To that end, the petitioners offer some proposals to the government about how such unwanted and unwarranted impact of airport expansion may be avoided.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It contains the signatures of many Canadians from the great riding of Hamilton West.
In part, it states that the Liberals, on behalf of Canadians, strongly oppose this new goods and services tax which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on a different matter, I also have a duty to present to this House another petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions. In part, it states that the Government of Canada has introduced charges that will reduce homekeeping services to veterans and substantially increase the cost of long-term care, and whereas the veterans have already given service to this country and should not be targeted by these measures, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject those budget measures that deprive veterans of proper services and increase their financial hardship.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition with regard to violence signed by 1,736 people mostly from Beauhar-nois, St-Etienne, Maple Grove and Melocheville in my riding. What is interesting to see in this petition sponsored by Christiane and Gerald Gatien is how they succeeded in identifying incentives to violence such as violent movies shown on television, a problem aggravated by videos, electronic games where players try to kill animated characters such as animals and people, deadly gun licences as demonstrated recently at the Ecole polytechnique in Montreal, and freedom of the press. If, on the same day, we hear a great speech on Canadian unity and we see someone trampling on the Quebec flag, we can be sure that tonight most media reports will focus on the latter.
So all this publicity, this incitement to violence attracted the attention of my fellow citizens, and I am honoured to table this petition on their behalf.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents in my riding and in ridings abutting the Pearson International Airport. They are concerned with the viability of their neighbourhoods.
Acknowledging the fact that the airport is here to stay and that planes are a popular mode of transport, there has to be some concern and sensitivity given to trying to enforce restrictions for late night and early morning travel over these communities, that there be a fair alternating between runways so that one community is not over-burdened by one particular popular travel course where planes land and take off and, finally, that there is some concern with respect to building an additional north-south runway.
It is hoped that the very energetic, the very popular and knowledgeable new Minister of Transport, is certainly going to be more progressive than some of his predecessors. I have every confidence that this minister will listen to the concerns, not only of the travelling public but of the public who live near these airports.

May 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to table a petition under Standing Order 36, which has been duly certified, on behalf of a number of residents of Ontario who are concerned about the government's continuing policy of low-level flights in Nitassinan and continuing policy of trying to bring a NATO base into Labrador.
They urge this House to join the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador, and other aboriginal peoples in opposing the use of their lands for NATO and NORAD attack training; to demand that the government end all NATO and NORAD low-level flight training anywhere in Canada; and to oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada. By that they have in mind particularly the proposed tactical fighter and weaponstraining centre for Goose Bay.
In summary, they ask that this House direct Canada's NATO/NORAD funding in a different direction to enable Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and to promote sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 2,921 Canadians, almost all of whom are resident in Edmonton, which calls upon the House to reject the proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax that this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab and, lastly, cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Ross Harvey: While I have the doubtless riveted attention of the House, I would also like to present a petition from several residents of Edmonton and, oddly, of Agassiz, Abbotsford, Alder-grove and other lower mainland communities in B.C. I do not understand the conjunction, but it is here, Mr. Speaker.
All of these fine Canadians call on the Parliament of Canada to maintain VIA Rail Canada and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service. Wise counsel. It is to be hoped the government pays attention in both instances.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the Chair is so impressed with the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Edmonton East that I think, with his permission, I shall send to him all the petitions that come to me to be presented to the House.


Ross Harvey: I would consider it a singular honour, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions to the House that were gathered in Halifax, Nova Scotia, signed by some 1,500 residents of Halifax, Dartmouth and Sackville, Nova Scotia, all of whom are protesting the closure of the corporate postal outlet at the Halifax shopping centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners state that the closure means a major disruption and inconvenience to large numbers of senior citizens, families and other individuals in the neighbourhood of the shopping centre who depend on the products and services of Canada Post and that the closure inconveniences others, who may from time to time use the largest shopping centre in Nova Scotia.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that Canada Post reverses the short-sighted plans that have closed the corporate postal outlet, and call on Canada Post to keep a full-service Canada Post corporate outlet operating in the Halifax shopping centre.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is with respect to the goods and services tax and it is signed by 100 residents of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, only 100 of many thousands of people in the city of Moose Jaw who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
The petitioners call upon this government to address the unfair tax system that is currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden. They

are upset that the government is now going to be taxing haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
They call upon this government to reject the goods and services tax. They call on the government to reform the taxation system so that there is a more effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on tax measures to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform will not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I also have a petition from a number of farmers from Saskatchewan who are very concerned about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon this government to reinstate oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to provide the wheat board with the necessary mandate it needs to provide good service to producers in western Canada.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four certified petitions with 1,428 signatures from people in my riding and Metropolitan Toronto and region.
People throughout Canada do not want a proliferation of powerful weapons capable of firing bullets in rapid succession for extended periods of time. They do want a system established which ensures that people who do own guns are competent, careful and respectful of the rights of others.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present this petition on behalf of the people of Prince Edward Island.
Whereas the undersigned reject the decision of Canada Employment and Immigration to close and relocate the unemployment insurance office in Trail, British Columbia, it is perceived that similar action would take place across the country. This action in Prince Edward Island would result in the closure of all UI offices except in Charlottetown.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reverse this decision to close the Trail, B.C. office, and to direct that no similar closures take place now or in the future anywhere within the province of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from several hundred constituents in the riding of Prince Edward- Hastings who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to remove the word "health" from Bill C-43 so that the bill reads as follows: "Anyone who induces an abortion is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment". The exception is when a medical practitioner believes that the life of the mother is threatened.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of an urgent nature to rural Canada and particularly to people in the prairie provinces.
Earlier today I sent you a letter and stated that I would be rising under this Standing Order to request a debate on a matter of urgent and pressing concern.

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
A series of recent events, culminating in an announcement late yesterday of a drop in the initial payment of wheat and barley prices that are guaranteed by the government of Canada through the Canadian Wheat Board, have brought this matter to a head.
Recently, the government announced increases to Farm Credit Corporation loan rates, bringing them to levels above the Bank of Canada prime, which is unprecedented in the history of the Farm Credit Corporation.
The billion dollar aid program which the government said was required to help offset the effects of the international grain war is still pending.
The Economic Council of Canada recently predicted that farm income across the Prairies will drop significantly, by as much as 87 per cent in some regions.
As well, the Farm Debt Review Board recently reported that more than one-third of western farmers are in a severe financial crisis. A high percentage of these will be unable to obtain the necessary funds to plant their crops without government assistance. The fact is that seeding has now actually begun in some regions.
I submit that a debate is necessary to bring to the government's attention the need for its intervention and support. I request that this House adjourn to debate the crisis facing Canadian farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for giving me notice. I hope other members will take notice of my comments that the hon. member has put his case succinctly and without delving into argument and debate. That is appreciated by the Chair.
I have given this very careful consideration. It is a matter of very great concern, I am sure, all across the country, but especially to our farming communities. While it is a serious problem, I do not think it is appropriate at this time to adjourn the business of the day to go ahead with an emergency debate. That does not mean that the situation might not warrant a debate at some point, but not for today.
I also point out to hon. members and to the public that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and
others have been very diligent in their representations on behalf of their constituents in this Chamber on this matter. I am sure that they will continue to be as diligent as they have been.
As I say, not today, but we will watch events.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, as reported with amendments by a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: There are five motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto.

The first motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East, although causing the Chair some procedural difficulty because it seeks to add a definition to a bill which contained none when the bill received second reading in this House, will be given the benefit of the doubt, will be allowed, and I can say to the hon. member that it will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all out of order and as a consequence will not be received.

Motion No. 2 by the hon. member for Vancouver East is out of order because it introduces a new concept into the bill by making it mandatory for the minister to "activate" departmental multicultural policies. This is contrary to our practice as will be found in Beauchesne's 5th edition, citation 773, subsection (1).
May 2, 1990



Motion No. 3 also in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East attempts to introduce official languages into the bill, a proposition which was not contemplated when the bill was read a second time. This has caused the Chair serious concern. After careful review, the Chair must rule Motion No. 3 out of order and in support of this position I would refer all hon. members to Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773.

Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville raises procedural difficulties because it introduces into the legislation a Commissioner of Multiculturalism. The subject matter of this motion was generally considered in committee and it will not be selected for this reason as well as the fact that it goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading.
Citation 773, subsection (1) of Beauchesne's 5th Edition stipulates that "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived."

In addition Motion No. 4 appears to infringe the Royal Recommendation which accompanied this bill on its introduction, contrary to Citation 540 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
For these reasons, it is with regret that I must inform the House that Motion No. 4 will not be put to the House for debate.

Motion No. 5 is also attempting to introduce a new concept into this bill by having the Canadian Human Rights Commission "monitor the implementation of multiculturalism" among other things. This is completely foreign to the bill as it was given second reading and approval in principle. In support of my view that this is not acceptable, I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's 5th edition, citation 773.

I would like to thank all hon. members for their co-operation as always.
Government Orders
I will now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that we have heard the ruling by Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the first motion to be debated is in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today as a result of constituency work.
There have been some discussions among the parties, Mr. Speaker, and I think you would find unanimous consent to allow me to put the motion so that debate can commence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-18 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at
page 1 the following new clause:
"2. In this Act
"multiculturalism" means that fundamental characteristic of Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to participate in the report stage of Bill C-18, and in particular to have an opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver East who has worked so hard during the process of this bill on behalf of the ethnocultural communities of the country.
The hon. member regrets that she is unable to be here but it is as a result of constituency business. In my discussions on this bill I have not felt very good having to deal with this piece of legislation today.
As the hon. minister will know, when Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, was first introduced, by and large it was seen as a housekeeping bill. It appeared that the government had made a commitment to multiculturalism in the country and had encouraged the enhancement of citizenship organizations. This bill was seen as very much an appropriate step for the government to be taking.

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
That was what we found at second reading. If you were to look back at Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you would see that the speeches actually reflect that. There was a great deal of enthusiasm in the House-not quite unanimous, but virtually unanimous-in terms of what appeared to be the general thrust that the government was taking with regard to Bill C-18, in response, I might add, to some good, positive lobbying by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
After second reading the bill went to committee. At that time a whole set of concerns which were raised were simply not met. I hesitate to do so but perhaps it would be appropriate to refer to a letter that a number of members received not many weeks ago from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
The author of the letter points out that the council is very concerned with this piece of legislation. To use his words, "to accept a half-baked bill and department would be to ignore the trust of our membership in advocating for meaningful policy". The letter was signed by Mr. Lewis Chan, the President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. This is an individual representing an organization, which in turn represents the ethnocultural fabric of the country, which is calling the legislation and the department half-baked.
I think it might be worthwhile to take a moment or two to explain why people are beginning to refer to the department in such a negative way before it is even created. This does not bode well for the future.
I can use my own constituency as an example. We have an immigrant services organization whose job it is to provide all sorts of supportive infrastructure for new Canadians. It bases its operations largely on volunteer work. This is a group of many Canadian citizens who are prepared to spend their talents, energy, time and, in some cases, their own money to assist new Canadians. They have had a paltry budget to operate a centre which provides a central focus for these people to come to participate in various programs. Yet their funding has been reduced at a time when we are seeing the numbers of people coming to Canada increase.
Money set aside for language training has also been reduced. This group is rather exasperated because people are trying to serve, if you like, the minister and the federal government in providing a welcome to new
Canadians, yet they are unable to do so at what you would have to call any reasonable level.
Just the other day I received a note from representatives of the Sikh community in Kamloops who were complaining about the fact that for a number of years they have been educating their young people in their own language. The funding has now been cut. The traditional programs that they were able to produce are no longer there. There was a great deal of anguish felt in that community because they are unable to provide this very important service, as they saw it, which would allow their community to maintain its cultural vibrancy in the community.
I think we all appreciate, particularly during these times, how important language is. If the language of a group dies, its ability to carry on in any meaningful cultural way is essentially eliminated, something which we have seen, much to our disappointment, with a number of native languages in our country. Hopefully, we are seeing a bit of a comeback in that regard.
It seems to me that if the government was really supportive of the concept of multiculturalism, then that is one of the areas of funding it would be expanding. Alas, such is not the case.
We have seen a 15 per cent cut to advocacy groups. I thought the point of this whole initiative was to encourage the multicultural diversity in the country. At a time like this one does not cut funding to the advocacy groups that represent these particular communities.
We have also seen that cuts were made to citizenship instruction and language training which was a cost-sharing agreement with the provinces to fund part-time ESL/FSL and citizenship training for immigrants.
I do not have to say that in this year's budget the funding for heritage languages was cut by over $4 million. Essentially, this eliminated the subsidy for heritage language classes across the board.
I could go on at some length. I have all kinds of notes that various organizations have provided with respect to where the government has reduced, cut, curtailed and eliminated support for the various aspects of Canada's ethnocultural community.
That is why we are rather perplexed that we are proceeding with this particular piece of legislation at this time and in this way. That is why my hon. colleague from
May 2, 1990

Vancouver East moved a motion that would very clearly define what multiculturalism means in this legislation.
She suggests it means "that fundamental characteristic of Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion."
Therein lies the challenge that we ought to have in terms of supporting the notion and concept of multiculturalism. But when we look at the record we see that that is not occurring. As a result of having supported this legislation at the second reading stage and after having seen how callously the government ignored the set of recommendations that came forward during the committee stage, naturally, we are having a great deal of reluctance now to continue that support. As a matter of fact, unless I hear some very encouraging remarks and total policy changes from the minister later on in this discussion, I am afraid that we will not be able to support this bill when it comes to the third reading stage.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on this most important initiative.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on this important amendment. I salute the member for Vancouver East who tried for a long time to get a definition of multiculturalism into this bill. I think she has come up with one that is very good. It is one which we support.
Although we support this amendment, as the hon. member for Kamloops said, we do have some concerns with the activity of late in regard to this department, and I will come to them.
First, I would like to read the hon. member's definition of multiculturalism. In light of the constitutional debate that is going on today I think it is very important that when we talk about multiculturalism our definitions be very specific.
In her amendment the hon. member proposes that:
"mulliculturalism" means that fundamental characteristic of
Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all
Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and
religion.
Government Orders
It is so important that we have that definition because in the past the ministry of multiculturalism has been perceived as a service of government that was there for people from all cultures who required service, with the exception of English or French.
Initially, I supported this bill. Yet, as I said when I first spoke on it, it was with qualifications because I had some nervousness about it. I was nervous that the department might become a department which provides token activity.
What I am concerned about is that as this bill has been put through the various phases we have been seeing activity that has not been working in favour of its support. As I mentioned in my first speech, and I repeat it today, we are at a period of time when the Minister of Finance is always talking about national productivity and global competitiveness. I support that. But it seems to me that one of the distinct trading advantages that we have in this country is our multicultural reality.
I have had personal experiences myself in that regard. If we were in Japan dealing with Toyota, it was great to have someone along who could speak and understand the language. Last January, in Moscow, it was great to have someone there who could speak and understand Russian. When we can understand each other, that accelerates business opportunity. It promotes exchange between Canada and other countries around the world.
The thing that gave me great hope about this full department was that I could see that it would not be used just for cultural events, but that it would be used as an instrument to promote global economic activity, heritage languages and studies, as well as the institute, et cetera. Then, in the last few months, we have seen massive cutbacks.
What concerns me about the cutbacks to the proposed department of multiculturalism is the fact that when the Minister for International Trade wanted $14 million to promote languages in the Pacific Rim he got it. Once again, I go back to my old nervousness which tells me that this department of multiculturalism is being treated in a way that is tokenism.
In other words, when the minister responsible for multiculturalism went to the cabinet table and said: "Here are my requirements," it seems that he really did not fare well. Obviously, every department had to be cut, but when a new department is just trying to get on its

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
feet that is not a good signal to send to the rest of the country.
On top of that, when the Minister for International Trade can get $14 million for one section of the world, for Pacific Rim languages, I find that confusing.
I,	too, have my doubts about the commitment to a full department. As I said before, if multiculturalism means being Canadian, then why does the department not get the full resources to look after protocol for the country? Why does the department not get to look after special events such as Canada Day, et cetera? When I see the department being stripped like this I think of it as a shell company and I get nervous.
This is a very sensitive issue. It concerns each and every one of us, especially the people in my own riding. My riding has constituents from all over the world. We must be responsible on this bill. But I, too, put up the flags of caution because the action-not the words-of the government over the last four months and its commitment to this bill have been lacking.
I want to go back once again to the amendment of the member for Vancouver East who wants to define the word "multiculturalism". I must repeat that I like the definition that sets out diversity and equality. I say that because right now we are going through a period in our country when people are having doubts about whether there is equality at certain times and in certain regions. As we know, this promotes racial tension and everything else.
I think anything that can be put into a bill like this that reminds people not only of our diversity and our equality is good. After all, we have been saying for many years in this House that no culture is less than or greater than another.
I salute the hon. member for her definition. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having the opportunity to speak on this bill.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to consider the motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and addressed by the hon. members for Kamloops and Broadview-Greenwood.
The motion is to add to Clause 2 of Bill C-18 a definition of multiculturalism. I do not wish to take a great deal of the time of the House to review this motion at report stage, but I feel that it is very important that we not just vote on this motion but that we actually consider it here.
I understand the concerns of those who would wish to see Bill C-18, which is an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, as in some way a repeat of the Multiculturalism Act which Parliament debated and passed in the spring and summer of 1988.
I want to make it very clear that Bill C-18 is an administrative piece of legislation designed only to formalize the establishment of the department of multiculturalism and citizenship. It is not a policy bill. It is not a regulatory bill. It is merely a simple and straightforward administrative bill.
I have reviewed carefully the work of the legislative committee which examined Bill C-18 and was astonished by the degree to which witnesses appearing before the committee, and some committee members, attempted to reopen substantive policy questions.
The motion before the House today by the hon. member for Vancouver East and introduced by the member for Kamloops falls into that category. It is a motion which is designed in essence to reopen the debate on multiculturalism. We are establishing a department of multiculturalism and citizenship, not debating policy issues.
Simply put, there is no need for a definition of multiculturalism in Bill C-18.
I would urge the hon. members for Vancouver East, Kamloops and Broadview-Greenwood to examine other departmental acts to see if they contain the sort of elaborate definition which this motion is proposing.
I also urge the hon. members for Vancouver East, Kamloops and Broadview-Greenwood to review carefully the preamble to Section 3 of the Multiculturalism Act. It contains clear, concise statements as to the nature of multiculturalism. I would remind hon. members that it was adopted unanimously by this House.
On an equally substantive basis, I am concerned that the hon. members for Vancouver East deemed it necessary to define multiculturalism, but did not at the same time deem it necessary to define citizenship. I would like
May 2, 1990

to repeat that. The hon. member deems it necessary to have in this bill, Bill C-18, a definition of multicultural-ism but does not deem it necessary to define Canadian citizenship.
For these reasons I would urge hon. members to reject this motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver East and introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I would urge hon. members today to rapidly conclude our deliberations on Bill C-18 and proceed to third reading.
I would also urge members of the other place to do likewise, because, as I said, this is strictly an administrative procedure to allow the government to formalize the formation of the department of multiculturalism and citizenship.
I speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want to see the formalization of the department of multiculturalism and citizenship. I hope that this afternoon we will conclude our deliberations and move this bill forward in the spirit of co-operation and pride in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity you provided for me to make my observations.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of Motion No. 1.1 find the rationale just offered to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State somewhat convoluted.
I think it is very clear that any piece of legislation that is tabled in the House of Commons becomes a policy exercise. I do not think you can divorce yourself from what should be policy and what should not be policy. There should not be legislation that would have members simply talking on its technicalities without there being definitions and clarity.
The fact that a new department is being created lends itself to a greater rationale for defining the department, its spirit, values and goals that it will embody. Clearly, we have a Canadian Multiculturalism Act which has gone to some lengths to define "multiculturalism" in terms of a fundamental characteristic. Therefore it should not be a problem for the government to extend that logic, one would think, to the creation of a new department. For the sake of consistency and clarification the term "multi-
Govemment Orders
culturalism", which has been abstract from time to time, should be defined. I do not see why this should be a the problem for the government.
If we were to take the time to better define the term "multiculturalism", then the parliamentary secretary would find that it would define what it means to be a citizen of this country. I think the key words in the definition proposed in the amendment are: "a fundamental characteristic of Canada".
I think it is very significant that we are debating this motion this afternoon while at the same time we are debating the Meech Lake constitutional amendments, together with the Frank McKenna proposals which are currently before a committee of the House of Commons. It was the Liberal party in the last Parliament that suggested in this House a key amendment to that Meech Lake document that should be adopted by this House and this government should be the recognition of those Canadians who are neither English nor French in the Constitution. They, too, should be able to see themselves in that constitutional document. They, too, should be able to hold it up and say: "My aspirations and my dreams as a Canadian are right there on page 1 of my Constitution".
Something that I think is missing from the Meech Lake document-and one hopes that we can redress that situation together-concerns the definition of Canada and Canadians in the opening paragraph. So far there is a very inaccurate and incomplete definition by virtue of the fact that it only talks about two of what I believe to be four fundamental characteristics of this country and its citizenship, namely, the French fact, the English fact, the aboriginal fact and the fact that there are eight or nine million Canadians who are not of English, French or aboriginal extraction.
When the opening lines of Meech Lake suggest that the fundamental characteristics are only composed of two of those four facts, namely, the English and the French, then there is an incomplete definition. Therefore, it is the aspiration of millions of Canadians whenever the opportunity arises, whether it is in the Meech Lake document or in a document to establish a department of multiculturalism, to have their trials, contributions and fierce loyalties to this soil called Canada reflected in the major document that this House is to

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
promote and defend five days of the week, 52 weeks of the year.
Therefore, we must ask why the government objects to putting into this legislation confirmation of the facts that you, Mr. Speaker, and I know are alive on the streets of Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver-on Main Street, Canada.
If it is already in the Multiculturalism Act, and if the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, which was before the parliamentary committee looking at the McKenna proposals last Saturday, and which reflected the aspirations of millions of Canadians who want to see that aspect of Canadian society recognized as a fundamental characteristic, then what is the fear of the government to recognize that as a fundamental characteristic in an act that establishes a new department of multiculturalism? It would be solidifying, confirming and celebrating what they recognize as being enshrined in the Multiculturalism Act which was passed in the last Parliament. What has changed?
I appeal to the good sense and the good judgment of my colleagues on the other side.
One hopes that this new department will be a transition point, a transition point from a junior ministry or an appendix of the Secretary of State where it has been for a number of years under successive and different governments and administrations, to one department, a department of culture.
I recognize that in politics and with reality being what it is that you cannot make one giant leap all of a sudden overnight. Therefore, if this motion provides a transition between that junior ministry to a ministry of multiculturalism and eventually to a ministry of culture, then that will harness the support of most of my colleagues in this House of Commons, irrespective of the political allegiances that they may have. A powerful ministry of culture, something which we advocated in the last Parliament, as you no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, leaves behind the feeling of tokenism, the feeling that somehow there is a department of culture and communications on the one hand and a department of multiculturalism on the other.
What is our official culture? Our official culture is multiculturalism. We are proud to have two official languages, English and French. Our official culture is defined and expressed by multiculturalism.
Therefore one would hope that eventually we will arrive at the stage where our structural expressions to departments will in fact reflect the reality that we find on Main Street, Canada.
My final and concluding remarks would be-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend across the way keeps referring to the act to establish a department of multiculturalism. He should make it very clear that it is an act to establish a department of multiculturalism and citizenship. I think that should be made very clear in his remarks.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the last remarks would be-and my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood should be commended as one of our two co-critics on the issue of multiculturalism and citizenship-that there seems to be two agendas; one agenda before a national election on multiculturalism and another following an election.
If we cast our minds back to the days prior to the last election, we had a flurry of activity and announcements, be they for the Japanese-Canadian redress, increased grants, increased advertisements to third language media, an introduction of a multiculturalism act, or an introduction of the heritage languages institute. These were introduced within days and weeks of the election. After a general election you have the stripping of dollars and cents that gives expression and life to the principles adopted before the election. This builds cynicism and abstraction in terms of what this government believes when it speaks about multiculturalism. That is why we are after clarity, precision and commitment in terms of defining multiculturalism, not just when we speak in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver at various picnics and gatherings of Canadians, but that we make them equally high priorities in the corridors of power in this city and namely on the floor of the House of Commons. We think it is a small price to pay to send out a strong symbol that this country and Canadians, who are neither English nor French, are not renters in this country, but that they, too,
May 2, 1990

are owners and are prepared to give to build a bigger and better Canada for ourselves and for generations to come.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to join in the debate on Bill C-18 and the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East in whose name the member for Kamloops moved the amendment today.
As my colleague mentioned, when Bill C-18 was introduced there was a general agreement by all parties in this House to help matters along. I believe it is fair to say that there was a sense of hope, optimism and co-operation to bring into force this new department of multiculturalism and citizenship. I think we all thought on all sides of the House that this was a good move and I believe everyone was prepared to give co-operation.
It was at the committee stage that the spirit of co-operation broke down. Hon. members attempted to introduce motions that would have strengthened the bill, added to it, and would certainly not have detracted from it, but these were met with resistance. We see that type of resistance today. The spokesperson from the Liberal Party has said that we do not understand why the government is so opposed to a definition of multiculturalism in this bill.
This definition helps to define and clarify the bill. It adds to it. It was introduced in the spirit of co-operation and to help make better legislation. Yet, for some obscure reason the government says "No, we will not consider this".
I listened to the parliamentary secretary give his reasoning. I am afraid I do not follow his reasoning. He mentioned there was a definition of multiculturalism but not a definition of citizenship. Is the parliamentary secretary playing games with us? He knows there will be a citizenship act introduced and in that act there will be a definition of citizenship. Why is he suggesting to the House today that because there is not a definition of citizenship in this amendment we should turn down the amendment that defines multiculturalism? I am afraid that the spirit of co-operation and helping to get good legislation is suddenly breaking down with the attitude of the government.
Government Orders
When the budget came down, we began to dream. I said: "Well, Bill C-18 might just be window dressing and lip service." We saw the cut-backs to essential programs. We saw cut-backs to programs that would help in terms of heritage language, that would help new immigrants to learn the English language and adjust to the Canadian culture.
Since that time, I met with various ethnic groups in my community of Regina-Qu'Appelle, particularly with the German community. They have registered to me their own and protest to the cut-backs to the grants that that community will get to allow young men and women, kids in my constituency, to received education and to receive language training in their former language, German. That is not true just for the German community, but it is true for many other communities as well.
I think the cut-backs to language training for new immigrants is terrible. We all recognize that the Canadian society is undergoing some tremendous strains and stresses. We see the beginning of racism in many quarters. All members of this House recognize that we need new immigrants in this country; otherwise our population will continue to decline. We need new immigrants.
It is important that, when new immigrants come, they are able to have some opportunity of learning the language so that they can integrate themselves into the economic life of this community, and not be thrown on the welfare, recipient-type line which will only breed further racism and resentment. These programs are essential for the social well-being of our country. Yet, the government cuts them and cuts them and cuts them.
One of the tenets of Canadian society is that we are a multicultural society. It is a goal. It is an ideal that this country has built on as opposed to the American ideal of the melting pot. We believe that when people come from different cultures, they have something unique to contribute to add to our mosaic. Indeed, they have. I think of the many contributions that the immigrant community has made to the economic, cultural and social well-being of Canada. We are what we are today is because of these many contributions.
Canada is unique, and I am proud of it. I am one of the members, but not the only member in this House, who was not born in this country. I was born in Indonesia.

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
There are members in this House who were born in Africa, in Asia and in Europe. This Parliament, and this country, one of the very few countries in the world is where we have this opportunity, privilege and this honour. It is a privilege and an honour for me, a person who was not born in this country, to be elected to represent my fellow citizens and fellow Canadians in this, the Parliament of Canada.
This is our strength as a country. This is the strength of our society. Yet, what we find in this government is a downsizing, a downgrading and the dismantling of things that have built Canada and made it strong. We see the dismantling of VIA Rail, we see the dismantling and the destruction of our cultural institutions like the CBC and the Canada Council. We see the destruction and the dismantling of Canada by the cut-backs to regional economic development, as well as by cut-backs of these great Canadian institutions in what we have in front of us today, the cut-backs to this important department and program, multiculturalism.
We see that our goals as a country are being diminished, downsized and downgraded. I ask this government: What are you going to leave us? What is your vision of Canada? What in heaven's name are you doing to our Canada? You are dismantling it, you are destroying it. What in heaven's name are you going to replace it with? What is going to be left when you are finished? Are we, indeed, going to have a country? What is going to happen to the rich resources, the human resources that we have built up over the years?
Bill C-18 could have been an important piece of legislation that all members of this House wanted to participate in and help strengthen because we recognize it is so important to our country. Yet, unfortunately, the attitude of the parliamentary secretary as he represented the government's attitude today is one of non-co-operation and in this I find it sad and unfortunate. I do hope that other government members will not heed the official line of the government and that they will vote with us on these important amendments.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate this afternoon. First of all, I wish to say that I also support Motion No. 1 which defines multiculturalism. In different circumstances, perhaps I would have considered what the parliamentary secretary said earlier. However, after giving the matter some thought and if we consider the government's record in this respect, I think we must insist on having a definition of multiculturalism. When the government introduced the bill to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, I was delighted because at last there was some recognition of the facts. In Canada today, there is no majority. One could say we are all equal, in the sense that one-third of our citizens are English in background, one-third French and another third have other cultural backgrounds.
So there is not one single cultural group that could be said to have a majority. When this Department was established, I thought we were finally giving recognition to those millions of Canadians who have made a major contribution to this country. Today, however, I am not so sure. I have the impression that the government merely wants to establish this department so that it can say during the next election campaign-I speak for the Montreal area. I come from that area, and we know how the government tries to make people believe it is aware of the problems of our cultural communities and that it is doing something about them. However, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the facts, this new department will be just another "monument", just so they can say: We have established a department of multiculturalism, just as they bragged during the last election campaign that they had finally drafted legislation on multiculturalism. When we read the legislation, it contained no specifics, nothing concrete at all. Sure, the government may, if it wants to, but there was nothing specific. The government must do that, the government should do that. It was always conditional, Mr. Speaker, and I see that nothing has changed.
If we look at this issue, the parliamentary secretary says that multiculturalism is defined in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. However, when the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship) had to make cuts in his budget, why were programs to assist heritage language teaching the first items to be cut? How can we say we want to promote multiculturalism in Canada when the first thing the government does is withdraw the help that is needed to teach heritage languages? That is the very basis of multiculturalism. How can we say our children are maintaining their cultural heritage, the culture of their parents, if they cannot learn the language of that culture? That is important. It is the very
May 2, 1990

basis of any society that calls itself multicultural, as we want ours to be, Mr. Speaker.
So that is why it is important, even in an administrative act like this one which creates a department, to define it. When it is not defined, either they do nothing or they completely alter the approach to the situation. If it is defined, at least they must take it into account. And every time, the minister responsible for this department can at least look at the definition of what multicultural-ism is and ensure that this priority, his definition is respected.
I have seen the Secretary of State here in this House answer questions about the funds that he eliminated, not reduced. I understand that we are in a period of budgetary restraint, so one must make some sacrifices, cut a little here and there. But he completely-with a stroke of the pen, he said, "Not a cent. It's over. This program no longer exists." That is what I was just talking about-the funds for teaching heritage languages. He answered some questions from my colleagues and clearly said, "I did not cut because the Minister of Finance cut my budget; I cut because I decided to use that money for other priorities in my department." So what is the priority? Does the minister believe in multiculturalism or is it only rhetoric? Does the government believe in multiculturalism? If so, it should maintain the programs needed to promote multiculturalism, to ensure that Canada remains a multicultural country. I think that Motion No. 1 defines it in a bill creating the department. The preamble defines exactly what multiculturalism is. I think it is important that not only the present minister and the present government but also all ministers and governments that come after take account of it. If they do not agree with the definition, at least they will have to come before the Parliament of Canada to change it.
But if it is there and as long as it remains unchanged they will have to respect it. I am sure that had we had that kind of definition the federal government assistance to heritage language instruction would not have been completely slashed as it has been this time around.
Mr. Speaker, I know that groups have come from Montreal, and I meet some of them. A petition is being circulated in my riding and I intend to present it in the House to urge the government to reconsider its decision
Government Orders
and to provide financial assistance to heritage language instruction. That is the very foundation of our multicultural system and I want to encourage the government to make sure that Canada remains a multicultural country because otherwise, without that program. Of course the federal government participated in that program, as did the provincial government. I might add that I know what I am talking about, for in the case of the Italian community, for example, the Italian government also takes part in this program.
But now that the Canadian government has chosen to withdraw from the program, I would not be surprised to hear that the government of Quebec will do the same and, of course, there is no reason why the Italian government would not follow suit so that the program will simply disappear. Italy does not stand to lose, Canada will lose that cultural heritage which made it possible for our children to be good Canadians and to be proud of their own culture. Together we make Canada a special country, unique in the world. I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the moment Canada loses its multicultural identity it will no longer be the Canada we know, the Canada we want to promote. Consequently, I intend to support the motion and I hope the minister, who is here, will look favourably on this motion to define multiculturalism, reconsider his decision and re-allocate the funds required for heritage language instruction.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this legislation.
I think we should take a look at the proposed definition that has been suggested in the amendment where it says that multiculturalism means: "the fundamental characteristic of Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion."
I think there are two or three very key words in that. One is diversity. It means that we honour and treasure our differences. Another is equality. These differences do not make us unequal, there equality is in spite of differences. It talks about all Canadians. It does not talk

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
about immigrants, or first generation, or fifth generation, or native people. It talks about all Canadians.
The fundamental concept of multiculturalism in Canada is quite different than other countries, particularly the United States. They have emphasized the idea of the melting pot, where religious, ethnic, and cultural values are left behind for those of the new country. Canada has done the opposite. It has said: "Bring us your culture, your religious differences. We honour them. We treasure them. They enrich our community". One does not have to look far in any community in Canada to see how much this diversity enriches our own community.
In my own riding of Surrey North we are very fortunate to have a large Sikh population. Some of them are new Canadians who have been here only months or relatively few years. Others are in Canada for generations. They have enriched our community tremendously because they have maintained their cultural and religious identity.
The Sikh religion, of course, is the focal point of their lives. They are devout. There is total community involvement in their religion. One of the many tremendous aspects of their faith is the concept of equality among people. This is symbolized at their services, when everyone, regardless of their status, or social economic base, participate in meals in the temple. It is a symbol of equality.
Their religion is important to them. That is why the whole issue of wearing turbans within the RCMP was so significant to that community. I am sure they feel much better about Canada now, being accepted after a hard fight.
The Sikhs have brought us other aspects of their culture, including their music, dances, and food. All of these things we treasure. That is what enriches us. We can participate in cultural activities that are reflective of the diversity of Canada.
Sikhs have a very strong commitment to their family which is exemplary to the rest of Canadians. Their families are very close-knit, and they believe in the extended family. They help one another. They start businesses together, and often they are multigenerational. I think it has set an example for the rest of Canadian society. They are involved in their community which focuses on their temple. They are developing cultural
activities, seniors' activities, and are involved in assisting their total community.
The Sikh population has contributed immensely to the community in Surrey as a whole.
There have been many leadership people in all sorts of community activities from provision of resources to providing recreational facilities, in being instrumental in forming the unions, including the Farm Workers' Union, in developing educational services for the community not just for their own population but for the total community.
They have been social activists in dealing with issues of racism, social intolerance, poverty and housing, all the kinds of issues faced by Canadian families. This is why my community has been so enriched by the presence of the Sikh population.
They have contributed economically to this country. They are hard working people, innovative and involved in the business of creating jobs through the creation of small business. We all know it is the small business person who is the creator of jobs and because of that they have contributed to the economic vitality of this community. In Canada we owe ethnic communities like the Sikh community a great debt.
I am troubled about what is happening in Canada and the implications in what the government is doing. There is a growing sense of intolerance. We only have to look at the issue of wearing turbans in the RCMP. Members on the government side and, unfortunately, some Liberals strongly opposed the idea of a group being allowed to wear a different uniform because of their religion.
We had cuts to the heritage language program and other multicultural programs, including cuts to native cultural and language support services. This means we are saying to one very significant group in our society that we are not prepared to support the continued uniqueness and diversity that allows it to pass on its language, culture, customs and values to the next generation. Unless these are supported and passed on they will die. That is the melting pot. With their disappearance, not only do ethnic or native groups lose, all Canadian society loses.
How dull Canadians would be if their backgrounds were all similar to mine and there was no diversity. I am a person who unfortunately lost the cultural component and language skills of my father. That has not been of
May 2, 1990

benefit to me and certainly is not beneficial on a Canadian scale.
In conclusion, I think Canadians value cultural diversity. Canadians want this government to support all sorts of programs, including legislation which will ensure that this diversity continues.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to rise to speak to these amendments which would define multiculturalism in the act to mean fundamental characteristics of Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians as regards to race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion, as initially proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East and today proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops.
As indicated earlier, if we are to recognize and truly accept diversity as a Canadian value, and only then will multiculturalism assume meaning, we have to recognize immediately that there ought to be equality among the diverse cultures and people in Canada.
For the government side to argue, through the parliamentary secretary, that the amendment ought to be rejected because this bill is merely administrative, and not a policy document, is an exercise of a vacuum in logic. Why? Well, if the government were paying attention to its own bill, Bill C-18, it indicates in clause 4, under "Powers, duties and functions of the Minister" the following:
4.	The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not bylaw assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to
(a)	multiculturalism; and
(b)	citizenship.
I underscore:
- not by law assigned to any other department.
Clause 5 states the specific duties, and I quote:
5.	In exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by section 4, the Minister shall
(a) initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship;
For the government to argue that because the bill merely deals with the establishment of a department,
Government Orders
that it is merely administrative, and that it is not a policy document, technically the minister may be right. However in substance, the department will initiate, formulate and implement policies. Therefore we cannot divorce policies from the very structure itself. I call the argument and the submission by the government, through the parliamentary secretary, an exercise of a vacuum in logic.
As the member for Winnipeg North, a constituency where 50 per cent are English, the vast majority, and Francophone, a very small minority; and the other 50 per cent represents Canadians of Ukrainian, Filipino, Jewish, German, Portuguese, Polish, East Indian and many other origins, it is natural that I support this amendment to define the meaning of multiculturalism in this bill.
Why will the government surrender clarity for confusion? No Canadian can accept that. Incidentally, citizenship is well known to Canadians since January 1947, when the Citizenship Act has told who and how we become Canadians, either by birth or by choice.
At this juncture, let me remind the government that the Canadian Ethnocultural Council is a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of national ethnocultural organizations, dedicated to working together for the purpose of furthering the multicultural reality of Canada. I remind the government about this because the very essence of this organization is to ensure equality of all Canadians in one united country.
This organization represents the interests and aspirations of some nine million Canadians and the major objective is most laudable, because it is to ensure the equality of opportunity, rights and dignity among all Canadians. Why, then, do I quote and remind the government about the Canadian Ethnocultural Council? It is because this council that has been in the forefront in the establishment of this department. It is this council that recommends to this government that multiculturalism, defined as the fundamental characteristic of our country, be included in the bill.
This council is most knowledgeable and must be listened to. I support its recommendation. Incidentally, this council also has major concerns about the whole thrust of the government's policy and programs for multiculturalism.
On December 20, 1989, in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
and signed by the President of that Council, Mr. Lewis Chan, the Council indicated to the government that it can support Bill C-18 only if substantive amendments are made to it and if assurances are given in the budget that the multiculturalism program will be maintained and strengthened.
Unfortunately, the serious amendments that the hon. member for Vancouver East proposed have been ruled out of order. Therefore we could not debate the substance of the very amendments that the Council would like included in the bill. If the government is truly serious about substance, then it can do the honourable thing: withdraw the bill and start anew so that we will have a bill that is meaningful for all Canadians.
On the second point, in 1988 during the election, the Tory government promised many things to the multicultural community in an obvious attempt to win votes. When it again formed the government, it reneged on its promises. What it means is that either the government has no credibility at all, or it has no credibility in its policy on multiculturalism. I will submit it has neither.
Also, the Council has recommended-I would like the government to listen, Mr. Speaker, through you-that the creation of a ministerial advisory committee be delayed, because this advisory committee will cause the government about $500,000 a year. That money can be reallocated to fund community programs that will mean programs for the communities that the whole policy ought to serve. The Minister for Multiculturalism apparently failed to heed the submissions of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council
On February 21, 1990, a letter again addressed to the same minister and signed by the President of the Council indicates that the Council remains "alarmed" that $23 million were cut from the yearly budget of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. What this means is that there will be a decrease in the effectiveness of programming for multiculturalism. Second, the credibility of the policy of this government is thrown into question; and third, the very commitment of this government to multiculturalism seems to have no meaning at all.
The same Council is equally "dismayed" that the government's support for heritage languages schools has been eliminated. When I spoke on this bill when it was debated on first reading, I said that we must enshrine the principles that all our ethnic groups are equal, that all our cultures deserve respect and dignity and that cultural pluralism must receive official support. I indicated as well during that debate that the establishment of a department of multiculturalism and citizenship is an important step in the right direction.
The events that have since then transpired make me question now whether I can continue to give my support to this bill. When a national organization committed to multiculturalism, committed to recognition of diversity in the country and committed to equality for all Canadians makes substantive proposals that this government refuses to accept, even for the amendment on the definition of multiculturalism itself, then I must say that I would find it difficult to continue to support this bill.
I urge, during this period of need for co-operation and national unity, the top-notch issue across the country today, that we accept this amendment so that we can continue to step forward and together, call ourselves Canadians and equal.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to speak on Bill C-18, an act to establish the department of multiculturalism and citizenship.
In the beginning, I believe there was a possibility that it could be a useful act creating a useful department. When we were debating it at second reading, I pointed out at the time that there were serious weaknesses. I hoped that the government would pay some heed to members on this side of the House. I hoped even more that the government would pay some heed to the most interested public groups such as those represented in the Canada Ethnocultural Council, which took the trouble to give its views in a constructive way to the government at the end of last year. However, it seems that the government has decided not to listen to anybody. We hear that the government lead speaker opposes even the idea of putting in a definition of multiculturalism. The amendment that we are discussing would add these words:

'i



May 2, 1990

"multiculturalism" means that fundamental characteristic of
Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all
Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and
religion.
This is the amendment proposed by the member for Vancouver East.
The government has said they reject it and if all the government members follow their bidding then, of course, this amendment will be defeated. I think it is very unfortunate that this government does not want to say that it recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians with regards to race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion. I do not know what their objection is to saying that, but we were given some procedural hair-splitting arguments. I do not know what their real objection is to stating that as the definition of the purpose of this department.
There was no definition in the original bill, which I think was unfortunate. There would be no objection if the government wanted to reiterate the existing definition of citizenship which I think is well established in our legislation. But it does object, and therefore the bill has no basis in definition to which the public can refer. There may be some private meaning that the government will interpret or re-interpret from time to time, but no public meaning to the definition or basis of this department.
It means that the public will not have the opportunity to evaluate whether the department and the minister are doing their job and perhaps to criticize or make constructive suggestions if they are not doing their job. That will not be possible because it is impossible for the public to know, in law, what the job of this department and this minister is.
The idea of a multicultural department could be important. The riding of Trinity-Spadina includes a great many people born in other countries. To name a few of the groups, there are significant numbers of Chinese, Portuguese, Italians, blacks-some born in Canada and some born in other countries- Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latin Americans and so on. These groups are strongly interested in being regarded on a basis of cultural equality with other Canadians. These groups are becoming very well organized and have been for a long time. Many of them are reflected in the Canada Ethnocultural Council. There is potentially strong and democratic support in these groups and in the council, support
Government Orders
for a real program of multiculturalism. That is, if multiculturalism means equal recognition of peoples of different cultures. We do not know what the government means by it although there are some clues that are a little bit disturbing.
Events in the last few months have indicated what the government does not want this department to be concerned with. When there was an attempt to point to the need to refer to racism, that was refused. Somehow or other multiculturalism is to be treated without serious regard to race, and yet the racial disputes in Canada are far more deadly than the disputes among people of the same race but differing in language or religion.
The killings that go on are more with regard to race. The starvation and the poverty enforced on Canada's first nations are according to race, not primarily according to some vague multicultural concept. But the government does not want racism specified.
It also refused the possibility of a monitoring entity, a commissioner. If the government means that it should be judge and jury in its own case, then it still has to answer to the kind of embarrassment that it fell into in the case of the Canadian Indian woman who had to complain to the Human Rights Commission about being mistreated by the Department of the Secretary of State. It would be far better if the Department of the Secretary of State would allow a commissioner of multiculturalism to examine these things directly instead of making it a more arduous sort of appeal.
However, we do get a few clues as to what it is about. According to Section 5 this will provide services for the acquisition and proof of citizenship. That means transferring citizenship from one administrative group to another-no particular gain but there will be an extra public expense because there will be more senior officials required.
It will promote among all members of Canadian society an understanding of the values inherent in Canadian citizenship and encourage participation in the social, cultural, political and economic life of Canada. Again, this is nothing new. It has been a function of the Secretary of State for years. We do not really need another department to do it.
It will promote among all members of Canadian society a greater awareness of their multicultural heritage and a greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values. Now they are

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
getting close to the point but they do not really state the equality of these cultures and races.
Then in Section 5(2)-and perhaps we have come to the point-the minister may, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, make grants and contributions in support of programs and projects undertaken by the minister. There it is, Mr. Speaker, pork-barrelling.
With no criteria, no definition, no standard of judgment to which the public can appeal, the minister can hand out the taxpayers' money to whomever he likes among the so-called multicultural groups. If he says it is multicultural, it is multicultural. There is no definition.
That seems to be what the deal is about, Mr. Speaker, another opening for government patronage. Just to make that clear, there has been a cut of over $4 million in the programs provided for heritage language, one of the most important developments of the last decade or so in many of Canada's cities. That is to be cut back.
Last year 15 per cent was cut from the advocacy groups, including the Canada Ethnocultural Council. The government feels there is an excess of democracy there. The program for citizenship instruction and language training which co-operated with the provinces in providing English and French as second languages and citizenship training has been ended.
Instead we are going to have $1,300,000 for a Eleritage Language Institute, and $24 million for a Race Relations Foundation. What will they do? We do not know. Who will direct them and with what principles? We do not know. Who controls them? Who advises them? We do not know.
I am strongly persuaded that the Canada Ethnocultural Council has it right when the president, Lewis Chan, says in his letter:
I strongly believe that government can get the best advice from
democratically elected community groups rather than from persons
appointed by a Minister.
It seems that the minister and the government may be afraid of that much democracy. It appears that the whole exercise is not intended to enable minority groups in Canada, first nations, or recent immigrants, to exercise
democratic power, nor to assist them. Rather, it is to control them. Father knows best, and multiculturalism will be enforced on the multicultural people to the extent that the government provides money for these top-down programs.
This is all in line with the recent budget which, apart from its very shameful cuts to groups like first nations and to women's organizations, also made some extraordinary increases. It gave a 21 per cent increase to the budget of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service-$33 million. More than all this multicultural stuff, more than the women's programs, $33 million to CSIS-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for South Shore.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join the discussion, but I must say in some respects I am not pleased to be speaking in what seems to me to be an excessively lengthy debate over an amendment. Much of the discussion that I have heard does not seem to bear any relationship whatsoever to the amendment on the floor which has to do with the inclusion of a definition in the bill that is before us.
I am really disappointed that it has taken as long as it has to get this bill through the House. We are not talking about a bill that is.momentous in its implications for Canada. That was done when this government, showing the leadership that it has, brought in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act two years ago, setting forth the concept of multiculturalism in Canada, a framework for the basis of a multicultural policy that reflects Canada as it is now and as it has been historically, and a fabric and an ethic for what kind of Canada we are looking towards in the 21st century.
The notion that we should include a definition of multiculturalism in an act which is merely a technical piece of legislation establishing a department, that it can provide a firmer basis for the delivery of that program as set forth in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and that we should have nearly a year's delay in the passage of technical legislation of this sort, seems to me to not speak well for those who have caused this delay and who purport to have an interest in the manifestation of the
May 2, 1990

Canadian Multiculturalism Act as a reality within Canada.
I do not think it necessary at this time to go into detail in describing what multiculturalism is in Canada. That has been done in the bill. Indeed, I look forward to eventually getting to third reading so that I might properly speak to that issue and to the role of multiculturalism.
My point in rising at this time is to encourage all members of the House to recognize that we have a job to do here for Canadians. We have to prepare the structures of the Government of Canada to properly fulfil the terms, reference and intentions not only of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act but, indeed, the intent and implications of Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Therefore, I will not speak at great length at this time. I look forward to coming back at third reading. I would encourage all members of the House to allow this legislation to proceed in order that we may get on in serving the interests of a diverse multicultural Canadian society that will benefit all Canadians and prepare this country for the 21st century.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this very important issue of multiculturalism, and to support the amendment of my colleague for Vancouver East. The amendment does clarify the definition of what constitutes multiculturalism and citizenship.
As the government members who have spoken have indicated, their party will not be supporting this motion. However, it is curious that during the previous speaker's condemnation of this side of the House, we were accused of impeding this bill. As my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops indicated, when he led off this debate this afternoon, there was enthusiasm at the beginning of the debate for the general thrust of Bill C-18.
It seemed to be sort of a motherhood issue and it recognizes that Canada is a multicultural society. But at the committee stage there were very real concerns raised, and the enthusiasm at the second reading stage waned. At that stage we had the opportunity to consult with ethnocultural groups that work in the community and they put on the warning lights, the amber lights were definitely flashing.
Government Orders
This motion does clarify the intent of the multiculturalism program, it defines what multiculturalism is and, if I can just read once again the language of the amendments of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East:
"Multiculturalism" means the fundamental characteristic of Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians, as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion.
What we have seen over the past months really speaks of the requirement for clarification on definition of multiculturalism. What we are seeing now is an historic reality that has proceeded over time. I can remember, as a student of Canadian history, that racism always seems to go up when the economy goes down.
There are many academic studies that have confirmed that dynamic. It is called "nativism", and it is a sort of turning in on ourselves and blaming the most newly arrived for all problems has proceeded through time in Canadian history. I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of racist comments that met the Irish immigrants in the last century or, at the turn of the century, the Ukrainian immigrants who came to Canada and now, most recently, the Sikh and Hindu immigrants who have come to enrich our country. We need a definition of what constitutes multiculturalism and the recognition also of the importance of the words equality and diversity and of why we are what we are in this country.
I have had the opportunity of consulting those people who deal with the multicultural groups in my community, both the director of intercultural association in Victoria and also the immigrant and refugee centre. I think that what we have to look for in Bill C-18 is beyond the rhetoric. It is a nice bunch of words but we can see that the budget gives the real picture of this government's commitment to multiculturalism, and the budget has been cut. It has been confirmed by those people who are working in my community that those budget cuts will affect the work that they are able to do. Therefore, there is an increase in racism. If you marginalize these people, if you isolate them in their homes, if you reduce funds for language training, then these people do not have a voice. They have no ability to get out into the community, to be effective, to get the kinds of jobs, the kind of economic clout that they are striving for, and which this government gives lip service to supporting. It takes more than lip service, it takes dollars, it takes support. The

Government Orders
very devoted individuals in my community are having a great deal of difficulty.
Last year the immigrant and refugee centre in Victoria serviced 350 to 400 families and individuals and tried to incorporate them into the greater Victoria community. These are people who are frightened because they do not understand the language, they do not even understand how to go grocery shopping. Yet these are the people who are affected by these budget cuts. At the same time, it gives the encouragement for those elements in our society to say: "Oh, they are just as bunch of lazy dogs, they do not want to participate in our community". Well, we have to support them if they are going to participate. We have to give them that initial support so they can be full participants in our society.
The racism evidenced by the racist knick-knacks that have been for sale in our country is a result of the budget cuts. This government's lack of commitment to funding for multiculturalism encourages that. We in this House of Commons have to say that we are not standing for that, that we are committed to multiculturalism in Canada, that we applaud the diversity, that that is what has made Canada great. We do not want to go back to the kind of racist history that we have had in our country. We want to go forward.
All members of Parliament have the great privilege of attending citizenship ceremonies. That is one of my pleasures as a member of Parliament. I try to attend as many as I can. As a fourth generation Canadian I took my citizenship for granted until, as an adult, I had the opportunity to travel elsewhere in the world. It was only when I came back to Canada, having been in Africa and Central America, that I realized what a wonderful country we have, what a gift it was to have been born here. Reverence for citizenship is often stronger in the multicultural communities than it is in native bom people. I count myself as a native born Canadian. I do not refer to native bom in the sense of our Indian people.
That is the kind of program that we have to support. This amendment that my colleague for Vancouver East has put forth really speaks to the need for definition. I wonder why the government is frightened of this definition. Why it is not willing to support what seems to be a very supportable motion which clarifies what multiculturalism is? Is it because there is a lack of commitment to multiculturalism?


Jack Wendele Shields: No.


Lynn Hunter: Is it because the rhetoric is not matched by the real commitment?


Jack Wendele Shields: No.


Lynn Hunter: The government member says no. Well then I challenge the government member and his colleagues to support this motion to give real commitment to Bill C-18. The member says that we have a job to do. Yes, we have a job to do and it is more than speaking a lot of empty words with no action. We need to have action behind our words, otherwise the lack of confidence in the political process that we are witness to now in our country will only increase.
I urge the government members to support this amendment. This is an important amendment. It gives a little more teeth to Bill C-18, and I support it.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to comment on this bill because the multicultural identity of many people in this country is one of the most important aspects of the make-up of Canada and something that we all too often do not adequately focus on in our debates and thinking about this country.
I rise specifically to support the amendment by the member for Vancouver East which says that multiculturalism means that fundamental characteristic of Canadian society which recognizes the diversity and equality of all Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion.
Members opposite say that we are dealing here only with a housekeeping kind of bill, that it is an administrative bill which does not require these kind of definitions, that these things have all been dealt with elsewhere and so on.
To me that is a somewhat spurious argument. We are trying to give some substance to a large number of election promises, to commitments that have been made, to an evolution of policy that has been developed over the years. A lot of people had very high expectations
May 2, 1990

about what would happen when this particular department was established.
It is impossible to separate the kind of definition we are trying to put in place here from the administrative and technical details. Surely, a new department needs a positive statement of its values, its vision, its role and, in fact, of where it tries to take Canadian society. When using a word like "multiculturalism", which may means different things to different people, it is very important to define it.
Second, it is very important in the context of the national debate about what this country really means to us. It is no secret to anybody that we are embroiled with trying to give serious thought to the ongoing nature of our country, to what kind of a country Canada is going to be, to what we want Canada to become, how all Canadians can feel comfortable in this country. We have a committee travelling from coast to coast hearing opinions on what kind of a country we want to have.
Some of the points that were mentioned earlier bear repeating. Surely it is a flawed vision of this country to speak only about French and English Canadians as being the fundamental peoples of this country. Surely the aboriginal peoples of this country deserve recognition constitutionally and in all other ways with regard to our national character. I would hasten to add that the aboriginal peoples feel that they deserve a unique role and a unique voice in Canadian society and are not properly lumped in with the multicultural framework that some people would include them in. I have to say that I agree with that particular point of view. I think they are another distinct group of Canadians that is often neglected.
The whole multicultural aspect of our country bears recognition because it is fundamentally alienating to people who have come from places other than the British Isles or French speaking countries to be talked about in terms of English and French. A lot of the resistance to the constitutional discussions that we undertake in this country comes, in fact, from Canadians whose origins are neither English nor French. It is important to include definitions like this one in the legislation, perhaps in a symbolic way, to give those Canadians the recognition that their very significant role in Canadian society that has not been forgotten and will not be neglected.
Government Orders
I have found that as the whole debate over multiculturalism has evolved over the years we have made progress. I guess that is why I am in some ways disappointed that we seem to be so tentative about the step that we are taking now.
I have spoken to many immigrant people. My own mother emigrated from the Soviet Union at the age of 10. The original immigrants of many communities in Saskatchewan are still there to communicate with. Saskatchewan is the one province where people who are of neither French nor English ancestry are a majority.
There was a real problem in years past in that we did adopt too much of a melting pot kind of philosophy. The cultures, languages and customs that people brought with them from places like Poland, Ukraine, Germany and Scandinavia tended to be scoffed at and scorned, very much in the same way that more recent immigrants experience racism and so on. In those days, however, it seemed to be an official policy of governments to assimilate people and to wipe out the differences of people as rapidly as possible. I think our society lost a lot during that process.
In my own community of Prince Albert the ethnic and immigrant communities have made our life a lot richer. There are 32 groups that belong to the Prince Albert Multicultural Council. They add a tremendous amount to our community. They put on a show called Tapistrama which 6,000 people attended last year. They teach functional English to immigrants to help people deal with the anxieties they experience in trying to come to terms with life in a new country. They lead racial discrimination workshops, work with the citizenship court and sponsor celebrations like Flag Day, Canada Day, Citizenship Week and so on.
It always strikes me as quite remarkable that these more recent Canadians are the ones who remind those of us who have been Canadians much longer about what it means to be a Canadian. They often seem to show a lot more enthusiasm for Canadian life and the meaning of Canadian identity than do some of us.
A lot of the enthusiasm for Bill C-18 has dissipated. We are looking for progress but where is the progress? Last year there was a 15 per cent cut to the advocacy groups for different multicultural organizations. This has meant a serious loss in capacity for those organizations to plan and to support their volunteers with things like phone banks, transportation and carrying on many of the

May 2, 1990
Government Orders
volunteer activities on which a lot of these organizations are based.
Our organization in Prince Albert was cut from $32,000 to $26,000, a very significant cut. The citizens' instruction and language training program was cut completely. It taught English as a second language on a part-time basis which made it accessible to mothers, people in the labour force and so on. It was a very valuable program. This year $4.1 million was cut from the heritage languages program. Although we now have a heritage languages institute being proposed and a race relations foundation, we see a consolidation of what might be termed bureaucratic institutions, empires if you will, centralized institutions in any event, and a significant cut in activities that give meaning to multicultural-ism at the local level. In Ottawa, and perhaps in Edmonton and one or two other locations, we see an increase in activity but in thousands of other communities we see a cut.
When the opposition made constructive proposals in committee, those proposals were ignored. The people who came to the committee, the Ethnocultural Council and so on, to try to give more meaning to this whole exercise were ignored.
This leads me to ask some fundamental questions about where the election promises and the rhetoric are going. Is this government in fact serious about multicul-turalism or not?
I believe that this represents a definite lack of vision when it comes to four basic points. One is the demographic challenge that we face in this country. We need more immigrants, as we have been told by many experts, to maintain our economic well-being, our standard of living and so on. Our population is aging and we need more people. We need to participate in the global village. We need to counter racism. We need to give meaning to the constitutional make-up of the country.
Instead, we get a very shrivelled and inadequate version of what people originally expected from this particular bill. Therefore, I urge the government to take seriously this amendment to give some definition to this, to give some meaning to multiculturalism in this country, and basically to put its money where its mouth is.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On division?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 3, 1990