1990-05-09

['Mr. Speaker, this morning the National Research Council announced the development, by one of its leading research scientists, Dr. Patrick Wong, of a technique that augurs well for the early detection of cancer. I stand today to congratulate him and his staff. The newly developed technique will allow the detection of cancer with greater speed, simplicity, objectivity, non-invasiveness, and accessibility.\nThis scientific breakthrough has been made possible by the creativity of a Canadian scientist and his staff and through the resources made available to them. A scientific breakthrough of this magnitude is only possible after painstaking laboratory work under the umbrella of a secure and adequately-funded research environment.\nIt is fitting this afternoon to be continually aware of this and for Canada to continue to contribute to the advancement of medical science that will help ensure the well-being, not only of Canadians, but of all citizens of the world.\nTherefore, I urge the government to increase its support for funding of basic research and to assure our scientists and science teachers that their endeavours are valued as being truly noble. Our excitement today about a Canadian scientific breakthrough assumes greater meaning and value when we as parliamentarians commit ourselves to increasing our budgetary support for science and technology.']
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this week is marked as National Forest Week and the opportunity is provided to us to consider how our lives are affected by Canada's forest resource.
More than 800,000 Canadians work directly and indirectly in the forest sector. I would like to pay tribute to those people who are the driving force behind Canada's forest industry, for it is their skill, dedication and professionalism that keeps forestry on the top of Canada's economy. National Forest Week should be a celebration of their commitment.
In particular, I would like to draw attention to the forest industry on the South Shore of Nova Scotia, to the Christmas tree growers, the woodlot owners, the sawmill operators and workers, the people of the Canexl plant in East River, of the Bowater Mersey plant in Brooklyn, Queens County, the forestry capital of Canada.
I congratulate all and thank them for their contribution to our life, our economy and our country. National Forest Week is for them.



Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, when it is lost, say goodbye.
Ironically, Canada Post's annual report boasted that the corporation focused on reliability, accessibility and affordability.
On November 1, 1989, a registered letter containing a $250,000 trust company draft was received in Ottawa by
Canada Post. By November 3, Canada Post had lost the draft. Repeated questions by the sender, addressee and lawyers have gone unanswered.
Where is Canada Post's pride and joy in operational performance? Where is the highly touted "Track and Trace System" when you need it?
When Canadians use registered mail, do they realize there is no delivery guarantee and that Canada Post assumes no liability for loss?
Canada Post admitted receiving the letter, admitted losing it, but claims no responsibility. It cost these individuals $250,000 and, apart from an initial apology, the corporation did nothing to help these people. Its mismanagement and ambiguous regulations covered the system.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Yukon government is leading the way once again. It has become the first government in the country to adopt the major recommendations of the 1987 Round Table on the Environment and the Economy which called for the creation of government action plans for each province and territory.
On May 7, the Yukon government released the Yukon Conservation Strategy, a comprehensive management plan to guide the use of the territories environment into the 21st century. This plan is the result of extensive public consultation with industry, environmental groups, native organizations and the public in workshops and public meetings over a period of 18 months.
The Yukon government, a New Democrat government, is to be congratulated on this progressive step. It gives us hope for the next century to see a government taking this responsibility. Let us hope that all governments, including Ottawa, follow their example.


S. O. 31 BILL C-21 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1990
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill C-21 changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act have been well debated in this House. The elected representatives have made a decision, a decision that recognizes that we have a dual responsibility to the people of Canada, first to assist the unemployed and, second, to make effective use of our financial resources.
If we are to be able to continue to help those with a legitimate need in this country, we must first get our fiscal house in order. We need to examine every government program with a fine-tooth comb. The financing changes under Bill C-21 will contribute $1.9 billion to deficit reduction in 1990-91.
We cannot accept demands from the other place that will add to the burden on the Canadian taxpayer. The Canadian people will not accept it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mary Ritchie of Porters Lake, Nova Scotia, who yesterday succeeded in desegregating the assembly line of Volvo Canada in Halifax.
After 16 years of Volvo's refusal to hire her, Mrs. Ritchie took her complaint to Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. Yesterday, the commission awarded her $43,000, the largest award in the commission's history. They also ordered Volvo to hire her as soon as she completes her training course, and further ordered Volvo Canada to instigate an affirmative action program for women immediately.
Mary Ritchie has won a great victory for women. The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission has shown its mettle in the ongoing battle against discrimination.
*	* Sic


DEMOCRACY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada we are proud of our political institutions which reflect a long and rich tradition of democracy. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has now been a shameful departure from this tradition. Liberal senators, who are not elected and
did not receive a mandate from the people, are holding up the democratic process, for strictly partisan purposes.
Mr. Speaker, when democracy no longer works in Canada, this strikes at the core of one of our most sacred values. I am concerned, and with me my colleagues and my constituents.
I therefore invite this hon. House to express, loud and clear, its faith in the democratic system and publicly condemn those who so blatantly ignore the tenents of democracy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Section 95 of the British North America Act of 1867, simply states: "In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province", and, further "That the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any provinces".
You do not have to be a Bay Street lawyer to deduce that both federal and provincial governments are responsible for farmers.
Wake up western farmers!
In the past four years, the federal government has provided 80.4 cents of every dollar spent by governments on agriculture. In Manitoba, it has provided 88.78 cents of every dollar spent.
What a shameful bunch of provincial pikers who claim to support agriculture in the provinces.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State responsible for Seniors, are playing games with the senior citizens of this country by failing to tell them what is going on with the New Horizons program. Calls to both ministers' offices yesterday, trying to confirm the rumours that the New Horizons program has been eliminated or is facing
May 9, 1990

substantial budget cuts, did not produce any information which would alleviate some of the concerns.
The New Horizons program has been around since 1972. The program has served to make the lives of our seniors more enjoyable and, more importantly, they have been allowed to continue their contribution to society.
Why has the government not been up front with the senior citizens of this country? Why is it continuing to attack the seniors? First, the threat to de-index Old Age Security, then the clawback of pensions, and now the cuts or elimination of the New Horizons program. Where is the fairness and the compassion this government claims to have?
I call upon the government to lay its cards on the table now and tell the seniors the truth. Will the New Horizons program be cut substantially, or is it being eliminated completely?


ABOLITION OF TOLL ON CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, people say politicians don't keep their promises, but this certainly does not apply to the riding of La Prairie. After waiting for nearly six years, residents of Brossard, Can-diac, La Prairie and Saint-Lambert finally breathed a sigh of relief when my campaign promise to get rid of the toll on the Champlain Bridge was fulfilled last Friday.
Without my perseverance, Mr. Speaker, day after day since 1984, we would still be throwing tokens or quarters in the toll boxes on the bridge.
I want to thank my regional minister, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Hon. Benoit Bouchard and the other ministers with whom I discussed this matter. Many thanks on behalf of my 91,198 constituents.
At last, Mr. Speaker, my fellow citizens have stopped paying toll, and I must say the removal of this obligation is a major victory for equal access for all residents in my riding, whom I thank for their trust and support.


Mr. Speaker:: And we thank you, sir.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian steel industry is suffering. Everyone appreciates this except for the Canadian government and one of its appointed bodies, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
This Canadian body ruled against protecting major Canadian steel producers, Algoma, Defasco, Stelco and Ipsco and removed anti-dumping tariffs against 11 countries.
Market conditions have worsened. These countries have excess capacity and will be looking for markets for their steel plate. Domestic demand and prices are down and Canadian steel remains ever more vulnerable.
I quote directly from the CUT ruling of May 1, 1990:
- more attractive prices in the exporting countries made renewed dumping unlikely-
In contrast, imports from the United States had significantly increased their share.
This ruling, along with the consequences of the free trade agreement, government policy on high interest rates, and the resultant high dollar are decimating the Canadian steel industry. I ask the Ministers for International Trade and Finance to finally assume their responsibilities to Canadian steel producers and intervene in this decision and a pending ruling by the CITT.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the deadline for the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, we must remember that we are all in this together and a solution to this impasse will benefit all of us as Canadians.
I would like to read a short passage from a letter that I received this week from Fred Antrobus, an 88-year old pioneer in Regina. He stated: "I am sure the Meech Lake program will survive. We need unity in spite of

May 9, 1990
Oral Questions
diversity-we need cooperation. Premiers are part of a team, not individualists, so there should be flexibility".
I hope the critics will heed the wisdom that only avails itself to those having lived sufficient years to become truly wise. On his behalf, and on behalf of all those in Regina-Wascana, I sincerely hope that we can find a way to be part of the solution to the present impasse and to ensure that this country remains united from sea to sea to sea.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the National Research Council announced the development, by one of its leading research scientists, Dr. Patrick Wong, of a technique that augurs well for the early detection of cancer. I stand today to congratulate him and his staff. The newly developed technique will allow the detection of cancer with greater speed, simplicity, objectivity, non-invasiveness, and accessibility.
This scientific breakthrough has been made possible by the creativity of a Canadian scientist and his staff and through the resources made available to them. A scientific breakthrough of this magnitude is only possible after painstaking laboratory work under the umbrella of a secure and adequately-funded research environment.
It is fitting this afternoon to be continually aware of this and for Canada to continue to contribute to the advancement of medical science that will help ensure the well-being, not only of Canadians, but of all citizens of the world.
Therefore, I urge the government to increase its support for funding of basic research and to assure our scientists and science teachers that their endeavours are valued as being truly noble. Our excitement today about a Canadian scientific breakthrough assumes greater meaning and value when we as parliamentarians commit ourselves to increasing our budgetary support for science and technology.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. At a time when western farmers are facing a serious drop in their incomes, when American farmers who compete in the same markets are expecting increases, and when the American and European farmers are receiving massive subsidies from their governments, the western premiers, in a joint communique earlier this week, called on the federal government to "send a clear message that Canadian producers will not be bullied by unfair subsidies-either now, or in the future".
When will the Deputy Prime Minister respond to the western Premiers and bring forward a comprehensive and complete program to help western farmers survive and to defend themselves against these unfair subsidies? When is this government going to act?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in that same press communique, the western Premiers said that the federal government was spending too much money and that was the cause of high interest rates, the escalating dollar, and the loss of the competitiveness in the Canadian economy. I am not sure which one of those passages from the press release the hon. Leader of the Opposition would want us to adhere to.
We have said before, and I will say it again, that the federal government has $500 million on the table to help overcome the income deficiency in agriculture. That is not as much as we have provided in the past. The hon. member knows that we have provided support to the agricultural industry in an unprecedented fashion over the past number of years. However, given the fiscal restraints that we are under, we have provided $500 million plus $180 million for arrangements through the Farm Credit Corporation that could be provided, and an additional enhancement to the soil and water conservation program. The total package is more like $700 million. That is all we can afford at this particular time.
May 9, 1990

We have asked the provinces to sit down with us and design the kind of programs that would meet the multi-faceted problem that we are facing. It is a problem of drought, it is a problem of flood, it is a problem of high input costs, and it is a problem of low depressed prices.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition and I ask the Premiers of the provinces to stop copping-out, to come forward and to help us put together an attractive agricultural income deficiency plan which will meet all agriculture needs from coast to coast.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what his government was going to do to defend western farmers against the unfair subsidies of foreign governments. All we got was a meaningless tirade from him. He should know that only the federal government can act in international markets. Why is he calling on the premiers to do something they have no jurisdiction to do?
Furthermore, the Deputy Prime Minister certainly does not show much respect for the unanimous views of the western premiers, three of whom are still supporters of his own party.
The western premiers were also unanimous on the GST, about which they said:
"The economic environment will be further worsened by the
introduction of the proposed goods and services tax-Ottawa can
still avoid the harmful effects of this intrusive tax".
Why is the government blindly persisting with this intrusive tax? Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not realize that the GST is the last thing that the western economy needs? It does not need it any more than it needs another year of drought.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the comment that the hon. Leader of the Opposition made with respect to the provinces' position on the GST as it affects agriculture again demonstrates the insensitivity of the premiers toward the agricultural industry.
He knows, and the premiers should know, that the GST will result in a saving in input costs of $250 million
Oral Questions
to the agriculture industry. Why would I want to be against that? Why would the premiers of the provinces want to be against that, if they had agriculture as a major priority in their governments?
With respect to the GST in a general sense, I ask the the hon. Leader of the Opposition, why would he be against a tax proposal that is going to generate an additional $9 billion worth of economic activity in this country-$2 billion worth of economic activity in the province of Alberta alone-which will create jobs and new opportunities for all Canadians from coast to coast?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Deputy Prime Minister is not listening to the western premiers any more than he is listening to me. The western premiers talked about the total economic environment of western Canada.

Mr. Speaker, my third question is directed to the same minister and concerns another aspect of this government's economic policies. Yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that with the exception of funding for measures that had already been announced, all funding for the fisheries program announced this week was "new money". Last week, however, his government was about to sign an economic diversification plan with the government of New Brunswick that would grant $38 million to this province.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could explain why, at the last minute, the government decided to withdraw from this agreement. Is it because the government preferred to spend the money on the fisheries program instead of helping the province of New Brunswick?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had bothered to call me before asking a question I would not want qualify as unparliamentary, I would have told him. The federal government never said to the Province of New Brunswick it was going to withdraw from negotiations on an economic diversification agreement for the province. Once again, I think you should talk to your research assistants and pay less attention to your Liberal friends in Fredericton.

May 9, 1990
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, amid the disaster in the fishing industry, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans now says that he is considering charging a royalty fee on all fish that are caught in the Atlantic Ocean. The minister referred to it as "a stumpage fee". "-I go back to my trees back home," said the minister. "When I cut a tree, I have to pay a stumpage fee. So how come we have all this fish and no one pays?"
Why is the minister further distressing our fishermen by announcing this new fee on fish? Does the minister not realize that fish are not like trees? We do not chase a tree around the forest before we chop it down and Canadian fishermen are not scuba divers with chainsaws.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I prefer trees to fences.
It is true that in our consultations on this adjustment package for plant workers, the federal government will be suggesting, as part of our consultation with the unions, the companies, and the provinces, the setting up of a self-sustaining fund to which all parties would contribute. Financial security can be provided to our plant workers as a caution against the reality of a cyclical fishery in Atlantic Canada.
Everyone talks about a common property resource. It is on the basis of a common property resource that the federal government and provincial governments are asked to participate. I see nothing wrong with having those big companies, which make a large profit from the fishery, providing for the financial security of their workers.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he prefers trees to fences. Well, with the damage that he did with a motorcycle, I would hate to see him with a chain-saw.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that there is not a person in Atlantic Canada who can
afford to pay a royalty fee on fish? The whole idea of paying a fee for every pound of fish that comes over the wharf is unthinkable, it is unworkable, and it is unbearable. Will he cancel this outrageous proposal?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member says that not one person in the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada could pay a fee on either the output of a processing plant or the fish being caught. I do not think he knows the reality of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada.
Larry Wark, who happens to be the Halifax Director of the Canadian Auto Workers, stated, and I am quote from an article in this morning's newspaper: "Mr. Valcourt has come up with a great idea." Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I think he is right.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last night in his appearance before the finance committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that he had made a mistake in mid-January by cutting interest rates. But he also said that his zero inflation policy will take quite a long time to produce results. He seems to be asking us to trust his judgment in this area, but we know that the zero inflation policy pursued by the Governor of the Bank of Canada means sustained high interest rates. Those are the same high interest rates are killing small business, killing farmers, and that the premiers are asking the government to lower.
Does this government support the Governor of the Bank of Canada's policy of zero inflation? Yes or no?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Leader of the NDP that inflation is a threat to the Canadian economy and a threat to lower-income people. Monetary policy and the interest rate policy which is being followed is a solution. Interest rates are not the disease but a manifestation of a problem which exists.
What the Governor said yesterday, if I understand him well, is that he will maintain this policy. That does not mean that interest rates will not come down, but we
May 9, 1990

must not expect them to come down artificially until such time as inflation comes down.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, inflation in the country has clearly resulted from the government's own policies, the policy of high interest rates, the policy of higher sales taxes, and the policy of tax cuts for the wealthy.
If this government is seriously concerned about inflation, why does it persist with fiscal and monetary policies which include trying to implement a goods and services tax which, by its own admission, will increase inflation? Why does the government persist with these kinds of policies?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we have to react to the fact that there are inflationary pressures in the system which are influencing matters not only in southern Ontario but in many other provinces.
As the Governor indicated, when interest rates were lowered in mid-January, because of inflationary pressures the dollar went down sharply and the market was very volatile. So we need to work not only on the monetary side but the fiscal side.
The leader of the NDP referred to our fiscal and tax policies.
The government has been trying to restore the finances of the country to good health, and it has been taking strong, difficult measures to do this. It needs to continue to work on both the monetary and fiscal sides.
Also, we need to work together on the fiscal and monetary policies to make sure that there is capital available to industries, and that the government does not use it all. These two policies are far from being contradictory.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that capital available at interest rates that nobody can afford is hardly capital available.

Here is my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the Governor of the Bank of Canada repeated many number of times that we had to maintain price stability and bring inflation down to zero. However, he did not make a commitment to full employment or to acceptable unemployment levels.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, where is the limit to what is acceptable for this government?
How high is this government prepared to let unemployment rates go before it decides to reverse its polity?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to jobs in this country is letting inflation get out of control. Our policies and the policies followed by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, which we support, are specifically aimed at controlling this threat, especially for the benefit of those on low incomes. It is imperative that we continue our methodical and systematic approach-and I am referring to the government with respect to our tax policy and the management of our finances, as well as to the Bank of Canada-to ensure that inflation is kept under control.
This is now being done. Yesterday, the governor indicated that according to certain indications the pressure was starting to drop. We cannot afford to ease up on these policies and we must continue to make sure that they are being carried out as effectively as possible and result in the kind of progress we all want.


FISHERIES
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is well aware of the disastrous conditions facing the lobster fishermen on the east coast.
The processors are in the same boat. They are having a very difficult year due to the very low prices and inventories that exist. I know there are marketing plans being developed, but that is a future solution. The fishermen need to pay their present expenses.
Has the minister considered using the Fisheries Price Support Board to help the fishermen and the processors in order to break the depressing psychology that now exists, and if not, why not?

May 9, 1990
Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Fisheries Price Support Board was seized with an application in January, which was turned down.
There are no new applications before the board right now.
A week ago last Sunday, I met with lobster fishermen from the maritimes and will be meeting with my provincial counterparts this Friday in Ottawa. I intend to discuss a proposal that was submitted to me by the lobster fishermen.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the same minister.
Yesterday, representatives of the Maritime Fishermen's Union indicated to us that there was nearly a $7 million inventory existing on the east coast at the beginning of the May season. That is an inventory of $7 million out of $260 million or is less than 3 per cent.
Will the minister admit that it appears the fishermen are being used as pawns in this very difficult situation and that high inventories are nothing but a hoax? What will the minister do to ensure fair prices to fishermen?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, lobster prices are market led. I do not think that anyone can relate the problem of market prices with a policy of that government. If one policy could be faulted it would be the conservation and management one which over the past ten years has led to the doubling of the landings of lobster in the maritimes and an increase in its value of 260 per cent. Our lobster fishermen have not done bad at all in the past.
This year the price is governed by the market and inventory. To put the whole thing in perspective, the inventory was $20 million when I entered this portfolio. Two weeks ago the inventory was at $8.5 million, now it is down to $4.5 million. This tells me that the marketing campaign which my colleague at International Trade has instigated in some 36 countries across the world is working. We will consider what kind of measures we can take to help the lobster fishermen in the processing industry this week.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
When the minister first announced his farm aid program, he said that only new money from the provinces would be recognized for the program. On Monday in this House he said he was now crediting the provinces for some of their existing programs. Today in The Globe and Mail,-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Where? In the Winnipeg Globe and Mail?


John Harvard: We read from the minister that if the provinces do not match his $500 million program, he will find another way to use federal funds to help farmers.
Why does the minister not stop his doublespeak? Why does he not stop his politicking and simply release the money to the farmers now? They need it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in what I said. I was merely responding to the suggestion of his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He suggested that we use this money to set up a contingency fund to fight international trade wars.
Because of the experience and the background of the hon. member I would have no other course but to take that suggestion seriously.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has a responsibility to make sure that confusion does not exist, and that is exactly what we have.
In the April 4 edition of The Financial Post the Minister of State for Agriculture is quoted as saying this about prairie governments: "If agriculture is so important to them, they must put their money where their mouth is".
Agriculture Canada says that the free fall in farm incomes is due to a 57 per cent cut in federal support programs. I ask the Minister of Agriculture, why don't you heed the advice of your colleague? Why don't you
May 9, 1990

put your money where your mouth is and deliver that money to the farmers now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the government has stood behind the farmers in an unprecedented fashion, and still continues to do so.
As well, the hon. member knows that under Section 95 of the BNA, agriculture is a shared responsibility. The hon. member should also know that we have been involved with various joint federal-provincial programs from livestock, drought, to soil and water, to agriculture ERDAs, to assistance for grasshopper relief, to floods, you name it. This is not something new.
We have limited resources available. We have asked the provinces to sit down and try to work out the kinds of programs they would want to meet their unique needs. Then we can target the assistance and make it the most effective assistance possible. We have asked them to do that, to sit down with us and work out that sort of program.
We have indicated that any new programs they bring forward that could be seen as improving the income position of farmers in 1990 would be taken into consideration as a part of the plan.
It seems very simple. Unless the provinces want to totally cop-out of helping agriculture at this very difficult time, then we will have no other choice than to do something along the lines that was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I might remind the hon. member that would not put cash into the hands of the farmers right now.
We are interested in getting as much cash as we possibly can into the hands of the farmers right now and we ask the provinces to join us in that regard.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of health I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Oral Questions
Up to at least 1983 one of the most popular household and institutional cleansers in Canada, Lysol, relied on the Monsanto manufactured chemical, Santophen-1 as its active germicidal ingredient.
In the late 1970s Monsanto found and then suppressed evidence of the presence in Santophen-1 of up to 65 parts per billion-that is one thousand, seven hundred parts per trillion in Lysol itself, of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi-benzodioxin-TCDD, the most toxic form of dioxin known.
When did the government know, not suspect, but know of the presence of TCDD in Santophen-1 and, hence in Lysol, and what steps did it take once it knew?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern in this matter. He was courteous enough to send me notice of the question and I will try to answer it as best I can.
As the hon. member knows, dioxin is a generic term for about 70 members of a particular chemical family. He also knows that it was not until the late seventies or the early eighties that there were mechanisms to detect the presence of the particular contaminant that he is referring to, namely Santophen.
I can assure the hon. member that it was essentially through Agriculture Canada and Health and Welfare Canada that we were able to devise the methodology to detect this. I can advise him also that its use in Lysol was discontinued in the early 1980s, shortly after it was detected as being a contaminant and harmful. Therefore, it is no longer used in Lysol.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister was able to make such good use of the research with which I supplied him. He only got a couple of points wrong.
As Monsanto's Santophen-1 was only one of the brands of 2-benzyl-4-chlorophenol in Canada, and as Agriculture Canada lists 56 pest control products containing the chemical and none have been tested by the government for dioxin contamination, will the government now move quickly-not wait for its current review to report-to test all sources of 2-benzyl-4-chlorophe-nol available in Canada for contamination by TCDD?

May 9, 1990
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in an argument with the hon. member but it is not 56. There may be 10 that have this contaminant, not 56. Those were grandfathered under the 1980 regime and they are being analysed further. When the results are known appropriate action will be taken.
I think the other contaminant he refers to is 2,3,7,8-TCDD. It has not been detected because it is in such minute quantities, that is less than one part per billion, that we do not have the mechanisms and the machinery to detect it. As it would be in so infinitesimally small quantities it would probably not be harmful.
Hc *	*


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is reported that Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia, in preparation for the Western Premiers' Conference, has apparently written to the Prime Minister asking for assurances that no attempt would be made to proclaim unilaterally parts of the Meech Lake Accord on the 7 and 50 basis if it fails to get approval of all 10 provinces by June 23.
Many Canadians are wondering the same thing. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, today, in his place, confirm that there is no intention of asking the Governor General to proclaim portions of the Meech Lake Accord on the 7 and 50 basis?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that there is a process in place. The McKenna resolution was a subject of a parliamentary committee study. That report is being written right now. When the report is delivered and the recommendations are brought forth, the government will respond.


Deborah C. Grey: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Many Canadians are concerned about the Prime Minister's response, saying that it is a seamless web and
should be agreed to in that vein. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to give Premier Vander Zalm and Canadians in general the assurances that they seek about this matter, would they acknowledge that the only way, if such a case happens after the presentation of this committee report, for western provinces to prevent such a unilateral proclamation of parts of Meech Lake would be for one of the legislatures of the three most westerly provinces to rescind its resolution of the Meech Lake Accord?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to point out that that is a hypothetical question. The minister may want to deal with it.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Statistics Canada has cancelled its original intention to publish monthly the effect of the GST on inflation in Canada. This was accepted procedure to the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance for three years.
Why this sudden change? Why will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not admit that the reason this is being cancelled is that the government does not like the information which will go to the people and realizes that the GST will increase inflation by more than the 1.25 per cent that the Minister of Finance has predicted?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my friend that I have been responsible for Statistics Canada for the last two months.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: I would like to say to my
friend first of all that that question was asked by Mr. Hartt when he was Deputy Minister of Finance. He should know that Mr. Fellegi, who is the chief statistician for Statistics Canada, said that it would be unfair to say that we could provide that kind of information on a monthly basis. He also said that Statistics Canada will be able to provide a quarterly report dealing with that kind of question. Once again, I believe that Mr. Fellegi is well
May 9, 1990

known as being very competent and there is no reason to believe that he is wrong.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the quarterly report will not provide the same information. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Stanley Hart, was the first to ask in 1987 that the consumer price index be calculated without the indirect tax. Why is the government suddenly saying today that it is no longer possible to come up with that information?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said in English. First of all, Mr. Hart was then Deputy Minister of Finance, an excellent one I might add. Secondly, Statistics Canada regularly receives requests such as this one and assesses them according to its ability to provide the information wanted. Mr. Fellegi, chief statistician at Statistics Canada, was very clear. It is not possible to provide information on a potential difference between the actual inflation rate and that due in theory to the Goods and Services Tax on a monthly basis. However, this information can be provided on a quarterly basis, and that is what they will do. It will then be relevant.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
With interest rates over 14 per cent thousands of Canadians have been forced out of the housing market. Statistics show that the number of potential first-time home buyers has practically been cut in half. There are only 270,000 potential home buyers today compared to
475,000	two years ago when interest rates were 10 per cent and 11 per cent.
Why is this government shutting out Canadians from the dream of owning a home? Why are Canadians being forced to pay more than 34 per cent of their income toward housing? How much more proof does this government need before it realizes that interest rates are too high and must be reduced?
Oral Questions


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Housing who is away on government business, I remind the hon. member that housing starts in this country over the last number of years have been running at about 220,000 to 230,000 units per year; far in excess of what we have experienced on average over the last number of years.
The projections now are about 199,000 units this year. That is somewhat of a drop from last year, but we feel that the housing market is still viable and very much alive and that there will be a fair number of starts, close to 200,000 this year, which is about the norm for Canada.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
In the last three weeks this government has often talked about the importance of economic indicators. How many hundreds of thousands of Canadians will have to abandon the idea or dream of owning a home, how many Canadians will have to lose their homes, how many Canadians will have to lose their jobs, and how many companies will have to shut their doors before this government realizes that its interest rate policies are too high and must be reduced and that Crow must go?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of questions in that supplementary.


Mr. Milliken:: Crow must go.


John Horton McDermid: I might say that the dream of owning a home in Canada is one that we of course support.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Only a dream!


John Horton McDermid: We are very well housed in Canada, as the hon. member knows.
Second, the home builders who are talking about the high interest rates right now are the same ones who last year raised the price of an average home 17 per cent in the metro area. Inflation as we know was 5.9 per cent.
Realtors today will tell the hon. member, as they have told me and others, that the market right now is adjusting itself. The hon. member knows that it was overheated in his area as well as in my area. They will tell you that this is a watershed period of the market adjusting itself and quietening down. I have every confi-

Oral Questions
dence that Canadians will be well housed today, tomorrow, and into the future.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Seniors.
Yesterday the Minister refused to admit that $4 million had been cut from the New Horizons program, although it is not clear that is what has happened. What this means is that over 500 really valuable and worthwhile projects for seniors across the country have been cut.
The minister will have the figures in front of her. Would she confirm that Saskatchewan's allocation is being cut by 35 per cent, from $750,050 to $488,943? Will she also confirm that the biggest cuts are to the poorest areas of the country-Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories-where they were 38 per cent?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: As
minister responsible for the programs to help Canadian seniors, I want to thank my colleague opposite for his interest in Canada's seniors.
I would just like to go back to yesterday's statement and remind him that in Table 29 of our Estimates, he can see that the budget allocation for the New Horizons Program is $15 million in 1990-91, the same as in 1989-90. So the program has not been cut.
And I would add, Mr. Speaker, that I find it shameful that the reputation of such an important program as New Horizons is being tarnished by playing on regional rivalry. The hon. member opposite knows very well that many government programs must be divided a certain way among the regions and we respect that when we evaluate programs like New Horizons.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I take it this means that the $4 million has been put back into the New Horizons Program.
Could the minister make this quite clear to seniors and stop teasing them about the money that is involved in the New Horizons Program?
Also, could she undertake on behalf of the government not to cut seniors' programs, either secretly or otherwise, for the rest of this government's term?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, it is shameful to mislead people as the member is doing now.
We have about $35 million in our various programs for seniors. The budgets are the same as for 1989-90. I repeat, if we want sound management and to respect the needs of seniors which have evolved over the last ten years, we must evaluate the programs and that is what we are doing with New Horizons.
I am rather surprised that no reference is made to the increased funding for the Seniors' Independence Program this year. People talk about New Horizons but they should talk about the Seniors' Independence Program, whose budget will increase 20 per cent this year, compared to what was spent last year.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
A number of factors currently affect Quebec's forest industry, including wood chips, Quebec's notorious Bill 150, and forest supply and management contracts. The result is that forest workers will be gainfully employed for only three to six months this year.
My question is this. The Quebec-Canada subsidiary forest development agreement expired last March 31. After his meeting of last week with Quebec Minister Remillard, can the minister tell us whether the negoti-
May 9, 1990

ations with Quebec concerning phase II of this agreement have begun, with a view to coming to the assistance of forest workers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the regional forest development agreement did expire last March 31, as was the case in other provinces. We are indeed interested in the private forestry sector.
I had discussions with Mr. Remillard of Quebec. We are to meet again in two weeks, Mr. Speaker, and I expect to be in a position to make concrete proposals to the Quebec government.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Communications lapsed into his Union Nationale glory days, suggesting that the CBC's 1968 national unity mandate had created today's divided Canada. Earlier his parliamentary secretary said that national unity mandates were the stuff of totalitarian regimes.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given that he stated strong views and passionate commitment to national unity, will he attempt to direct his Minister of Communications to reverse his obstinate views and put national unity back into the CBC's mandate in the interest of peace, order and good government?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question because she was among those who put her signature to Section 36 of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, which advocated the very change to which she now objects.
I would cite, as an authority, the distinguished new President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclar Havel who is an authority on such matters and who says that consciousness precedes being to think otherwise is to be a Marxist.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is really the most illogical, poorly stated, ridiculous statement I have ever heard from the hon. member.
Oral Questions
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it takes a big person-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Fuzzy-headed thinking, Jim.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put her question.


Sheila Finestone: I at least have the courage of my convictions and know when to change my mind when the circumstances in the country change.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, because of our unique geography Canadians use communications more than any other country in the world to link us, to inform us and to unite us.
Does the Prime Minister agree that our CBC Radio and Television, with its extended infrastructure and through its programs, should continue to enable greater contact between Canadians across this vast land? Does he agree that national unity is an appropriate mandate and that otherwise he is sending a very dangerous message across this land?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do take the question very seriously. Of course unity is the objective which we all have in mind. But in order for there to be unity, there must first be some kind of knowledge of what the country is all about.
The hon. member knows that the standing committee found that there was a tremendous gap. There was a longitudinal lacuna of knowledge about this country from coast to coast. She knows that very well.
The standing committee report urged that the country's regional and language solitudes come together. Without fostering that sense of identity and without fostering that consciousness there can be no unity. The horse must come before the cart.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my good friend, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls, made a comment during Question Period referring to the motor cycle accident that I suffered. The hon. member just sent me a note offering to withdraw or apologize. I told the hon. member that he did not have to do that, that I took no offence at all.

Government Orders
I do not want members to take offence at the comment made by the hon. member. He did not mean it in a bad way. I invited that comment and I have no problem at all with it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I made the comment in response to a statement that the minister had made. That is why I offered to withdraw the remark if the minister felt offended by it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the course of answering a question the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the sage advice that was being offered by the member for Winnipeg-Fort Gariy. Alas, there is no longer such an important influence in the House. The seat of Winnipeg-Fort Garry no longer exists.
However, I am gratified that the member is still looking for advice. As the member for Winnipeg South Centre I am quite prepared to continue offering all the constructive and thoughtful suggestions I have in the past.
However, I would say that in this case the minister is wrong. The advice he suggested I was offering was in fact coming from the western premiers and not from myself. I was simply their humble messenger in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is thankful for the advice from the hon. member that the seat remains the same but the name has changed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act; and of the amendment of Mr. Fisher (p. 11109).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 3 p.m, pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, May 8, 1990, the House will now proceed to the taking of the division on the amendment and the main motion in relation to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum (Mr. Fisher).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion in the name of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier wish to raise a point of order?


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I think you would have the unanimous consent of the House for applying the results of the previous vote to this motion, but in reverse, because we are against this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by honest toil before the taking of the last vote.
I am present for this vote, however, and wish my vote recorded against the government motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

May 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 45 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FORESTRY CANADA


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1988-89 Annual Report of Forestry Canada.
May 9, 1990

This is National Forest Week and I can assure you this is a wonderful year for forestry in Canada, since the proclamation of the Department of Forestry Act, which has given us, a full-fledged Department of Forestry.



BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1990-91 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

["I want to thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his thoughtful note and for the remarks that he just made.\nComing from a farm community in the east of the country, I am quite aware of the situation.\nWe have studied the hon. member's request very seriously. Notwithstanding the importance of the subject, we do not feel that at this time we should grant leave for a special debate."]
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House the Report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority, without amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians opposed to the goods and services tax. They ask Parliament to reject this tax.
These petitions have been circulated by citizens who are calling on taxpayers to join them at a rally on Parliament Hill on Saturday, May 12, at noon, to show that Canadians are opposed to the government's goods and services tax.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 regarding the government's proposed goods and services tax.
The petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia, outline a whole list of concerns, including applying the tax to heating fuels, haircuts, diapers and, in particular, to reading material.
They are asking the government to come to its senses and simply stop proceeding with this tax.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to table petitions on the subject of Lithuania and its independence.
Routine Proceedings
I have here the signatures of over 20,000 people who state that because the people of Lithuania through their democratically elected Parliament have passed unanimously a declaration of independence from the Soviet Union; and whereas the Soviet Union has failed to recognize the validity of this resolution; and whereas the people of Lithuania require the assistance of the various governments in the world to support their desire for freedom and independence, the petitioners call upon Parliament to act upon the all-party resolution of March 12, 1990, and recognize and support the right of the Lithuanian people to declare the independence of the Republic of Lithuania.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I have a second petition from veterans in my riding of Parkdale-High Park. These petitioners are complaining about the new measures in the last budget creating hardships for veterans because the money allotted for services will be denied to these veterans.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 rise in the House today to present a petition signed by Canadians who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
These petitions were circulated by residents asking taxpayers to join them in a demonstration on Parliament Hill on Saturday, May 12, at noon, to show that Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax proposed by this government.


Deborah C. Grey: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I also rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians opposed to the goods and services tax. These petitioners are followers of a group called Tax Busters, and they are very concerned that the Canadian government does not need more money from the taxpayers. It needs conscientious, responsible representatives to diligently manage the money it already gets in taxes.
These petitions have been circulated by citizens who are calling on taxpayers to join them at a rally on Parliament Hill this Saturday, May 12, at noon, to show that Canadians are still opposed to the government's goods and services tax.

May 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise under Standing Order 36 and present a petition on the government's low-level flight training in Canada.
The petitioners from various parts of the lower mainland in my province of British Columbia ask Parliament to demand that the Canadian government end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada and oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed tactical fighter and weapons training centre at Goose Bay, Labrador. They ask that the government redirect Canada's NATO and NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and livelihood, and toward promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I have a further petition containing 357 names from throughout the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, which names I would like to add to the thousands of names on petitions I have now presented to the House.
The people of various places within my riding including Grand Forks, Oliver, Greenwood, Midway and others, will simply not be tricked by this government dropping the rate from 9 per cent to 7 per cent or pushing through the goods and services tax. They are asking this government to bring in a proposal of tax reform that will, in fact, address fairness in all taxation.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 361 rise to present a petition signed by Canadians opposed to the goods and services tax, along with the thousands of petitions I have presented from Kootenay East. These are petitions mainly signed in Ontario.
These petitions were circulated by citizens who are calling on taxpayers to join with them at a rally on Parliament Hill on Saturday, May 12, at noon, to show that Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax and want the tax stopped.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands who are opposed to the proposal in the government's recent budget to slash the benefits to Canada's veterans. They call upon Parliament to reject any cuts to veterans' services in Canada.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have provided you with notice today under the provisions of Standing Order 52 requesting a debate on a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
As a member of a farm constituency I have witnessed the farm financial crisis first-hand. I have a large number of people who are communicating with me weekly on this issue.
May 9, 1990

As you are aware, Madam Speaker, on two occasions in the last two weeks members of the New Democratic Party have risen to request an emergency debate on the farm financial crisis in western Canada.
As you are also aware, Madam Speaker, this week the premiers of the western provinces who met in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, called unanimously for lower interest rates in this country, as well as for the release of federal funds earmarked for the farm community. They said that they could not match dollar for dollar the programs that the federal government was asking them to match.
The provinces in clarifying their views on this matter sent a message to this Elouse indicating that there appears to be little room left for negotiation and that possibly the federal government may have to act unilaterally.
I believe it is incumbent upon Parliament to express its views to this government as quickly as possible to ensure that this government has adequate information from the members of this House to make the point to act unilaterally and possibly to release the funds as the provinces are now asking it to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I want to thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his thoughtful note and for the remarks that he just made.
Coming from a farm community in the east of the country, I am quite aware of the situation.
We have studied the hon. member's request very seriously. Notwithstanding the importance of the subject, we do not feel that at this time we should grant leave for a special debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)) moved: that Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian
Government Orders
Heritage Languages Institute, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with much pride that I open debate today on Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.
Similar legislation, Bill C-152, was introduced in the last session of Parliament. At that time it was referred to a committee of the House for detailed examination and recommendations.
Those recommendations, and the helpful suggestions of many of my colleagues, are reflected in the bill we are considering today.
This legislation adds further substance to the multiculturalism policies of this government and to the strong commitments we have made to multiculturalism in Canada.

Madam Speaker, when the Canadian Multiculturalism Act came into force on July 21, 1988, it received the unanimous approval of all members of the House of Commons.
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act is a promise, a commitment made by the government on behalf of the Canadian people to this country's future.
The bill introduced in the House today is an integral part of this promise and reflects the hope and optimism contained in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Section 3, subsection (l)(i) of that act clearly states the policy of the Government of Canada to preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada.
I am proud to remind my colleagues of this government's commitment to official languages. They are the essential vehicles for our communication and progress as a people. We have strengthened the Official Languages Act. As Secretary of State, I continue to work with the provinces and community organizations to promote official languages throughout the country.
This bill, to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, gives substance to the spirit of our multiculturalism policy. It matches visionary ideals with concrete initiatives. As outlined in Bill C-37, the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute will facilitate the

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
acquisition, retention and use of all languages that contribute to Canada's multicultural identity.

Today, more than 70 languages are spoken in Canada. Some of them are native languages and were used well before the arrival of the Europeans in this country. Native languages are a very special part of Canada's linguistic heritage.

For this reason, I would draw the attention of all members of the House to the explicit reference to aboriginal languages in this legislation. I should note that this was an amendment to Bill C-152 proposed by members of both opposition parties, which I am glad to accept. I should also point out that the inclusion of aboriginal languages in the Heritage Languages Institute does not preclude native Canadians from pursuing the establishment of an aboriginal languages institute.

Other heritage languages were brought here by people from all over the world, people who decided to make Canada their adopted country.
Wherever you go in Canada, you will hear people communicating in languages other than French and English. Those languages are present all around us. They are a tangible and vibrant expression of Canada's cultural diversity.

Language is more than spoken words or a system of communication. It is the product of a community's past history. It is an important vehicle to transmit the culture of a community and its values to future generations.
Heritage languages enrich family life. When I was a young boy my only way of communicating with my grandparents was to speak Yiddish. I still am able to understand it and speak it quite well. At an appropriate time I might even introduce some of it into the debate.


Mrs. Maheu:: How about now?
[Editor's Note: Minister spoke in Yiddish.]


Mr. Belsher:: Translate it for us.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I will leave that for the record.
Without that third language, which I had learned at home, a whole world of eastern European culture would have been lost to me and, in later years, to my own children. Even more important it was a way of making contact, of reaching out to loved ones and of sharing the warmth and richness of family history.
In travelling the world and meeting family that I had never met before, some of them spoke Spanish, others spoke Romanian, others spoke Hebrew as their first language, but somehow, with Yiddish I was able to communicate and to have a better understanding of the family relationship. This was a way that the language of my heritage was very important to me in helping me understand my family roots. I know it is so for all other cultural communities.

Heritage languages are also a major economic resource. They are a tool that we can use when doing business at the international level, or in peacekeeping missions or educational exchanges. They revitalize our tourist industry by making it possible for us to welcome visitors to Canada in their own language. They are also an invaluable asset in multicultural publishing and broadcasting, on trips around the world and in academic circles. In all these fields, heritage languages serve our national interest and promote multiculturalism.

Our multiculturalism gives us an edge. It takes us beyond our homes and into the global market-place. If our trade delegations include people familiar with the languages, the values and the ways of doing business in other countries, then we have a competitive advantage.
The proposed Canadian Heritage Languages Institute will provide a new kind of support mechanism for the learning of ancestral languages.
In Canada today many languages are taught, both within and outside the regular public school system. In fact, we know that many provincial education systems have been expanding their activities in this field.
May 9, 1990

In the prairies, provincial governments support three types of heritage language learning: courses in which heritage languages are the medium of instruction, a variety of core second language courses, and community based classes. More than 41,000 children are involved in these programs. Almost 25,000 children in Quebec are also learning their heritage languages both within and outside the public school system with considerable provincial support. In British Columbia the provincial government has recently announced some funding for heritage language classes in addition to second language programs currently being offered.
In 1988-89 the province of Ontario had about 100,000 children enrolled in heritage language programs. These children were instructed in one of the 62 languages taught in Ontario. As a result of new legislation enacted in July 1988, these numbers are expected to increase considerably. The new Ontario policy requires that all school boards provide heritage language instruction of up to two and a half hours each week, when requested by the parents of 25 or more students within the board's jurisdiction.
These developments positively reflect earlier research in this area indicating the preference of many Canadians to have their children receive heritage language instruction as an integral part of the public school system. The teaching of heritage languages in regular schools ensures that they are indeed part of mainstream education activities, as they should be.
The growing importance that Canadians attach to the acquisition and maintenance of ancestral languages led my predecessor, the Honourable David Crombie, to consider the establishment of a Heritage Languages Institute.
He asked two eminent Canadians, Dr. Henry Kreisel of the University of Alberta and Dr. Michael S. Batts of the University of British Columbia, to advise on the establishment of an institute.

After much consultation across the country, these specialists discovered that the teachers in heritage language classes had little or no teacher training. They observed that they especially needed to know the various teaching methods. They also need access to Canadian material so that students can learn in a Canadian context.
Government Orders

In their research the professors found that heritage language teaching is often carried out in isolation and that teachers, even within the same language group, have little contact with each other. They discovered that there is an urgent need for networking. They recommended greater dissemination and sharing of information and resources between regions in the provinces and between the provinces. I am honoured today to open debate on legislation which will make these recommendations into law. What this legislation provides is an ambitious and challenging mandate, a mandate with one central purpose: namely, to provide a national focus for the teaching of heritage languages.
The institute will bring experts from across Canada together and direct them to the different priorities in various parts of the country. In this way, all available Canadian expertise and resources will be shared to find creative solutions to community needs. The Canadian Heritage Languages Institute will reach out to the educational and cultural communities, to the business community and to all levels of government. It will be an institution without walls, operating as a co-ordinator and a central contact point for the major areas of activity set out in its mandate: promotion, information exchange, teaching skills, materials development, networking and research.
The government believes that heritage languages are a major national resource. We believe they can best be preserved by a partnership that unites the federal and provincial governments, community groups, institutions and individuals.
As with any institution, there are financial considerations. The Canadian Heritage Languages Institute will be federally incorporated as a charitable organization. The status will give it much wider fund raising possibilities than would otherwise be possible.

The Institute will begin its work on a solid financial base. The federal government plans to give it a capital fund of some $800,000 for the current fiscal year and the next four fiscal years. Moreover, the Institute will receive $500,000 a year for its operating expenses in these five years.

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, this bill before us today is based on our past achievements and is also forward-looking. This legislation recognizes the importance of preserving and respecting our many cultures and languages. We thus enrich the life of Canadian society.

When we passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, this country told the nations of the world that we value our multicultural identity. We consider it an invaluable asset in strengthening Canada and in making this country a better, fairer place in which to live, a nation where all Canadians, of all origins, have an equal and fair chance to contribute to the process of our nation building.
The Canadian Heritage Languages Institute will be in keeping with this proud and visionary tradition. It will serve as a point of intersection, a crossroads, linking our many cultural communities to their own vast potential within Canadian society.
We are a people who understand what progress means and how to achieve it in real terms. There are opportunities today and every day to make progress happen, to foster a society that has fairness, equality and understanding at its foundation: a nation spurred on by a spirit of competition and committed to the cause of human rights around the world. We have made impressive inroads to date, but we know even greater opportunities lie ahead. This kind of Canada can be our generation's legacy to the children of today and tomorrow.
The Canadian Heritage Languages Institute bill is one step, but a vital one, toward a more progressive Canada for all of our citizens. It is my hope that the House will give this legislation rapid passage so that the institute can assume its rightful place as a signpost of a modem Canada, and as a sign of hope for the next generation.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-37, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.
The concept of legislating support for the teaching of heritage languages is not really new in this country. At the turn of the century, when the Prairies were settled, large numbers of immigrants who spoke neither English
nor French were attracted partly by the promise that their children would receive instruction in their mother tongue. At first, arrangements were made to provide for this, but towards the end of the settlement period, these provisions were withdrawn.
Sociologist Evelyn Kallen recently raised this question, saying that Canada's commitment to multiculturalism would be neither genuine nor realistic until heritage language rights were guaranteed under the Constitution. Without proposing to grant official status to heritage languages, she replied that if we are truly to respect our ethnic diversity, we must guarantee access to education in the language of choice.
A research study by Reitz, The Survival of Ethnic Groups, shows us that preserving its heritage language is more important for an ethnic group's identity and interaction than membership in an ethnic church or living in an ethnic neighbourhood or even marrying within the ethnic group. The conclusion is that the emphasis placed on language in our cultural policy by official and other language groups is, by and large, justified.
For all these reasons, I certainly agree with the principle of creating a Canadian heritage languages institute, but-there is always a but-I have serious reservations about the commitment of this government.

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight what the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute's goals are so everyone can have a clear understanding of the proposed bill.
They are: one, to promote and develop the field of heritage language learning in Canada; two, to undertake public education, develop and disseminate Canadian-oriented learning materials, assist in the development of programs to improve standards of heritage language instruction and carry out research activities of importance to heritage language learning in general; three, to be located in Edmonton and work closely with organizations, individuals and groups from across the country. It is to consult with community-based organizations, educational institutions and the provincial territorial governments to ensure that all who are concerned with heritage
May 9, 1990

language learning benefit from the activities of the institute.
It should be managed by a board of directors appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister following consultation with appropriate government institutions, organizations and individuals. It will receive $6.5 million over five years from the department, part of which will establish an endowment fund to ensure its continued operation. It will be a charitable foundation which can receive financial support from the private sector and community sources and as well, from provincial and territorial governments. It will present an annual report of its activities to the minister for tabling in Parliament which will include financial statements and an auditor's report.
It will be evaluated by the minister in consultation with the board following anniversaries of the passage of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Bill. These are very impressive goals. Let us look at them a little closer.
Madam Speaker, how can a government that claims to listen to Canadians on the one hand have a goal of consulting them and on the other turn a deaf ear to the requests made by the organizations consulted?
The 1990 Budget showed us how important the Conservative government thinks multiculturalism is. We saw that while it talks about its commitment to heritage languages through the creation of an institute, in one stroke it cuts the very necessary funds for the schools that teach these same languages.
That is a strange way to implement objectives 1, 3 and 4, involving education, co-operation and promotion of heritage language teaching.
But maybe I misunderstood. Perhaps the objectives will only be taken into consideration once the bill is passed and for now, they are to be ignored.
Madam Speaker, the Conservative government says that it wants to help community organizations so that they can benefit from the activities of the Institute. Could the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship explain to me how these organizations can benefit from the Institute's activities if they first have to
Government Orders
close down owing to his government's lack of commitment?
Canada is now going through a national identity crisis and this is the time the Conservative government has chosen to cut the funds for schools that teach heritage languages, nearly 1,500 schools affecting over 150,000 children and 5,000 teachers!
Madam Speaker, when I asked the minister in March why it was necessary to cut the funds, which seemed to me and still seems to me to be contrary to his policy, he answered, "Times are tough". However, going back to objective 6 of Bill C-37, we see that the Institute will receive $6.5 million. Would it not have been possible to decrease the Institute's funds a little in order to gradually reduce, instead of drastically cut, the funds for schools that teach heritage languages, thus giving them time to get back on their feet?

Madam Speaker, the cuts to heritage languages do affect unity, whatever the minister might say. We sell Canada as being a mosaic as opposed to a melting pot. The Conservative government, by oh so subtly denying individuals from belonging to their ethnic group through culture and language, does not permit these individuals to feel a part of this mosaic. Language training is essential in understanding the importance of culture, and maybe immigrant groups would have a better understanding of the French fact in Canada having had to work hard to maintain their own language.

Madam Speaker, promoting the establishement of chairs in multicultural studies in Canadian universities is to be commended. One cannot deny the importance of discovering the expression of ancestral cultures through literature, the performing arts and the plastic arts. All this is wonderful but far removed from the day-to-day teaching of heritage languages in some remote comer of Canada.
Why is this government cutting funds by $4.1 million, an amount that heritage language schools need to survive. Where did it find $14 million so that adults could get language training? Doesn't this government have strange priorities? I guess as long as it looks good and pays dividends-

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
The government is unable to find $4.1 million to maintain a long-standing heritage language teaching program, but has no problem spending $14 million on classes for business people. Would it be an investment in the next election?
Madam Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear. I am not against business people learning another language, far from it. But I am against using budget cuts as an excuse to withdraw $4.1 million, when both amounts are spent on non official language classes. Where is the logic in this?

In the news release of the Minister of State for Multicultural and Citizenship of September, 1989, the minister said, and I quote:
The need for this Institute is stronger than ever because enrolment
in heritage language classes is greater than ever. Our figures show that
there are 129,000 students enrolled in 1,557 supplementary heritage
schools across the country studying 60 languages.
The news release continues by specifying that these schools run classes outside the public school systems with as many students enjoying heritage language instruction offered under the aegis of the provincial ministries of education. Then, there is this specification which states: "All of these students should benefit from the activities the Institute is expected to undertake".
I would like to minister to tell us what happened between September, 1989 and budget day. Since when did the term "all" mean "half"? And, if one of the reasons justifying the creation of an institute was the number of students enrolled in programs. Why were the funds cut?

Madam Speaker, establishing such an institute will help us enhance the professional skills of heritage language teachers, but no attempt should be made to play the role of universities or provincial governments. Until further notice, education falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Another role of the Institute will be to prepare didactic documents of Canadian content, and this has to be done through consultation with and consideration for communities as such, and not only the intelligentsia.
These documents will reflect the Canadian reality to the extent that they relate to actual endeavours and past educational experiences. This will be one way to find out whether the Conservative government is serious, for to this day it has yet to demonstrate real interest in the survival of heritage languages and cultures.
The second aspect of the Institute's mandate will be to undertake extensive research into the learning of heritage languages in general. Again we will have to keep a close watch to ensure that the trend is not to publish papers which will end up gathering dust on the shelf.
It is far too easy to get sidetracked in research and write about lofty theories which are of no use to anyone. We in the opposition will see to it that any research undertaken is directly related to the teaching of heritage languages and that, above all, it is likely to improve the short- and long-term situation. Since the Institute is intended to be a tool for teachers, it will be up to us to make sure that it is and remains so.

Consultation seems to be a key element in the raison d'etre of the institute. If this is the case, why are aboriginal groups included in multiculturalism? Their view of multiculturalism is one that excludes aboriginal groups. They consider themselves as first people, and rightly so. Were they not consulted? Were they not heard? Or, were they not listened to?
The Conservative government said that it wished to promote heritage languages to enhance the Canadian mosaic. But, at the same time, it is ironic that in the 1990 budget cuts aboriginal people were hit so hard by the Secretary of State, that the Native Communications Program of $3.4 million was cut. It provided funding for 15 native language newspapers. They provided opportunities for work experience and enhancement of aboriginal literacy. These cuts dealt a severe blow to those seeking to preserve and promote aboriginal cultures. The natives provided funding to the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation and will affect 95 per cent of all the Inuit who watch its programming. Again, this corporation provided for the opportunity for cultural retention. Is this how the government promotes language and culture?
May 9, 1990

Government Orders
Madam Speaker, how can anyone trust a government that acts this way? A government that claims to promote Canadian multiculturalism and in the same breath destroys the bases of these cultures. Whether one closes down a newspaper, reduces funds to a radio station or cuts grants to schools for teaching heritage languages, the results are the same: denigration, destruction, and increased tensions and prejudices.
How can the Minister of State claim to be interested in the Canadian mosaic when he cannot convince his own party that it is important? How can he accept a $4.1 million cut-back in language teaching while the Minister for International Trade gets $14 million for the same reason but not for the same clients?
Madam Speaker, if we want a strong Canada, we must invest in its multicultural heritage. It is important for everyone to feel that he or she has a place in our society and cutting funding is not the way to achieve it. If the conservative government really wants to promote the Canadian mosaic in concretely and not only in theory, it must act without calculating to the penny how much its measures will bring in.
In these times of political and economical questioning, tensions build up and we look for scapegoats. We must act now! We must stop giving differences a negative value and find their plusses.
The conservative government doesn't seem to realize the importance of heritage languages in the preservation of cultures, pride and dignity. It is only when we are able to respect others with their differences that they will respect us and that we are going to build a strong Canada.
Madam Speaker, the creation of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute could very well be a step in the right direction. I say "could" because there is a long way to go from the project to its realization. That is why we, of the Official Opposition, intend to keep an eye on the government so that, as the minister promised in September 1989, the Institute will have positive impact as much on complementary schools that will have new financial needs as on public schools. If the government really believes in the Canadian mosaic, now is the time to prove it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, I would take this opportunity to indicate that tomorrow will be an allotted day for the purpose of supply.


CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Weiner that Bill C-37, an act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, Bill C-37, an act to establish a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute for western Canada. I think it is very much needed in many respects. However, I will say at the beginning that we have some very strong reservations related to the priorities represented in this bill.
As the minister indicated earlier, this was introduced as Bill C-152 in the last Parliament. I noticed, in looking over the previous bill, that there were some amendments that I assume were made in committee, including the emphasis on the promotion of heritage languages. I noticed the addition of "and their benefit to Canada." I think that is a very important point.
Before I get into the bill itself, I would like to mention something for the benefit of certain Canadians. I can imagine some of them in Vancouver East at this moment who might cynically say: "Why do we need to be putting money into heritage language classes and a heritage language institute? Why is this important when we are short of funds? Why should we not be teaching just English or French as a second language to the many immigrants who are coming to Canada? They need this in order to adjust, become part of our society, get employment, and so on."
I agree that teaching English or French as a second language is the important language responsibility of the federal government. It is a first priority so that people can become part of Canadian society and adjust very quickly.

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
However, the purpose of this bill, and heritage language training generally, is very definitely a Canadian purpose. Let us make no mistake about that. That purpose and the goal is to enrich the multicultural heritage of Canada and Canadian citizens, both those whose parents and grandparents came from another country and those who were born in Canada of English or French heritage who may also want to study heritage languages.
In Canada, heritage languages are treated as ancillary languages, supplementary to either English or French which all Canadians should speak. In many cases, we know that it is the children and grandchildren of immigrants who go to classes on Saturdays or in the evenings. They do it as a part-time activity. We think that heritage languages are very important, particularly to immigrant families, as an enrichment and to promote family unity.
Many of the children in my riding would not be able to communicate with their grandparents, as the minister indicated in his experience, unless they were able to learn the language of the grandparents. If they do not know it when they become teenagers, there is a greater risk than ever of both poor communications and a division of cultural attitudes.
Getting back to this bill, the purpose of the proposed Canadian Heritage Languages Institute was outlined by the minister today. Also, as my hon. colleague from the Liberal side has just mentioned, it was outlined by the minister last September. As she has mentioned, it is very important to look back at that statement because it was said in a different context.
The press release reads:
The Institute, whose objective will be to encourage the preservation and use of heritage languages throughout Canada, will be located in Edmonton-It will not, however, be a location where people will go to attend classes.
A lot of people have asked about this.
Institute activities will focus on national teacher training and program development, the production of Canadian-oriented learning materials, public education and research into all aspects of Canada's heritage languages.
The press release goes on with regard to funding. I am repeating what the member just said, but it is very important. The press release continues:
"The need for this Institute is stronger than ever, because enrolment in heritage language classes is greater than ever," said Mr. Weiner.
"Our figures show that there are currently 129,000 students enrolled in 1,557 supplementary heritage language schools across the country studying 60 languages," he added.
These schools run classes outside the public school systems; there are as many students again enjoying heritage language instruction offered under the aegis of the provincial ministries of education. All these students should benefit from the activities the institute is expected to undertake.
It was a very important statement by the minister last September. He is definitely saying-I believe he was right-that the reason we need an institute is to service the front-line, community heritage language classes in 60, 70 or 80 different languages. Parents are sending their children to those classes and some adults are going as well. Their teachers can benefit from the resources that an institute would provide. However, if there are only "x" number of dollars and you have to choose a priority, which is going to be your priority? The front line classes to teach heritage languages, or this fancy academic institute in Edmonton?
It is pretty clear that the $4.1 million the government took out of heritage language classes in communities is a first priority. If we do support this bill, it will be with that in mind, that the funding for those classes must be reinstated.
It is quite irrational to think that we would be proposing to spend over $7 million, if my arithmetic is correct, over five years for this new institute, if we are refusing to fund a veiy small amount per class to the community classes which this institute is to serve. I will come back to that point.
We originally did support this bill to establish a heritage language institute in western Canada. We felt that this would balance similar services that are now available in Ontario and Quebec. We do not object to it being in Edmonton because we know that the Tory members in Edmonton need a lot of political support these days. We will support it being in Edmonton, provided that there are decentralized services available in all four western provinces and in the major centres where there are a great many of the heritage language classes. This is very important.

In the briefing that we had from the minister's staff, we were told that there would be outreach and there would be resources that would be decentralized. But there is nothing in the bill to indicate that. That is something we should be looking at in committee.
As has already been said, the institute would provide resources and training for teachers and students and improve the Canadian content in textbooks and resources. That is a very important point. I have had complaints from people who are studying Cantonese and Mandarin. The Library of Canada and many of the local libraries only have books from Taiwan. Of course, many of them, both from the point of view of the culture and also politically, do not accept that these books should be produced in Taiwan. Canadian materials would make much greater sense.
The institute would also help to improve teaching skills, provide research and so on.
I would hope that in a western institute located in Edmonton it would stress the most common languages in the heritage of western Canadians. In this way, it may be very different than the eastern institutes. Again, I will use Vancouver East as an example because it is such a multicultural community. Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, Vietnamese, Punjabi, Hindi, Japanese, as well as Italian and Portuguese are the languages that the families in my riding need and that I would hope would be stressed in resources from the institute.
We also agree with the method of financing provided in this bill which provides an investment of capital funds, $800,000 per year, the interest to be used for operational purposes in developing programs and a further $500,000 for operating costs. That is a sensible way to do it. This would be a charitable organization which could raise funds additionally in the private sector and from individuals.
Now I come back to the crucial point of our criticism of this bill. We approved this institute prior to the recent budget. As I stated earlier, the minister had related it to local community programs last September. We felt that it was an important resource that should be funded.
However, the recent budget and the devastating impact that it has had on frontline heritage language classes in local communities is quite unacceptable. The complete federal funding of over $4.1 million has been
Government Orders
withdrawn from such programs with very little warning. This has undermined classes right across Canada. I was in Saskatoon not too long ago when this was announced. They were quite unsure of what to do. They were having to lay off teachers and close down classes. In their case, it was the total multi-language institute that they have in their own community that was threatened.
The teachers in these classes are not paid very much, and they should be paid more. They are dedicated people, usually immigrants themselves. Parents help out with the maintenance in the centres. The facilities are quite often donated so rents are not high. We are not talking about a lot of money for the number of children and the classes provided. The government must simply reconsider and reinstate funding for these community classes.
I mentioned earlier that the government has also taken money from ESL classes when they cancelled the CILT program. One wonders if the money from these two combined programs, heritage language classes and CILT are what is going into this new institute. If so, that is something that we cannot support.
The community languages classes are an integral tool of multiculturalism. The minister has stated this. They promote family unity and a real appreciation of ethnic culture. Someone once said that to eliminate language is to eliminate culture, because we transmit cultures through language.
The federal government's withdrawal of funding for community classes contradicts the minister's statement which he made and the statements he made today praising this bill. Yesterday in committee I asked the minister to give us the rationale for cutting the funding for heritage language programs in local communities. The minister said that he felt that classes could manage very well without federal funds. I know that for the classes in my community, this is not true at all. Many parents are working very hard. They have several children going to these classes. They quite often work for minimum wages, or they have a small business that they are struggling to survive in and they simply cannot afford to pay the full cost of classes.
The minister said that personally he could afford to pay for the language training he had. Well, perhaps that

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
is true in his case, but it is certainly not true for many families across this nation. It is very unfair to say that.
He also said that heritage language training should not be trivialized. I could not quite understand what he meant by that. Perhaps the minister would explain later what he meant by that. Heritage language should not be trivialized and therefore cutting funds somehow is trivializing heritage languages. It did not make any sense.
According to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the Canadian Coalition on Multiculturalism, recent figures show that there are 150,000 young Canadians learning 60 languages in 1,556 community schools across Canada. That means that thousands of teachers are also involved in these programs.
What a rich heritage this represents for all of us, not just for the people who are enrolled in those classes. It is an investment in our future. I am sure that the minister of trade has recognized that learning languages, particularly those of the Pacific Rim, will be very valuable economic assets and very essential to our international relations and trade. The best time to teach these languages is when children are young. We know from our experience with French and English teaching that it is far more effective at that stage. It is a small investment for such great benefits.
I have visited many heritage language schools in my riding and in other communities. I know how hard they are working and what an excellent service they are providing. We must have those funds reinstated, as I said before.
It seems most contradictory that the federal government would be willing to pay $7.5 million over five years to establish a heritage language institute as a resource centre for these community classes, when the community classes themselves are not going to be able to continue in many cases, or are certainly not going to be able to use sophisticated resources because they will probably have volunteer teachers.
The teaching of heritage languages is a fundamental aspect of multicultural policy in Canada. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council states that: "Federal funding cuts are a back tracking on the commitments that were made
in sections 5.1(f) and section 5.1(e) and 5.1(h) of the Canadian Multicultural Act".
These are the sections that deal with heritage languages and heritage cultures.
The CEC also states that this contradicts the government's intention to improve Canada's international competitive position, as fluency in the world's languages gives us an edge in trade development.
One cannot help but be mystified as to why the government is giving $14 million to the minister of trade to teach Canadian business people Asian languages in order to enhance their trading abilities, and it cannot even give $4 million of that amount of money-take it from the minister of trade, we do not care-for frontline classes that are a far more effective and economical way of teaching Asian languages.
The Canadian Coalition on Multiculturalism that was here a number of weeks ago also has taken a very strong position. This group represents some seven million Canadians in the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Polish Congress, Chinese Canadian National Council, the Federation of Korean Associations, German Canadian Congress, Hellenic Canadian Congress, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Canadian Committee and the United Council of Filipino Associations.
I met with these people and I know they tried to meet with the minister. I hope they did. They are absolutely furious and insulted that the government would take $4.1 million from the cultural enrichment programs, which are the language programs that their associations support for their communities. They give the statistics again of how many children this involves.
They are opposed to these regressive and ill-conceived measures. The coalition is composed of nine national organizations which represent some seven million Canadians. They state:
We realize that we must all contribute to the reduction of the national deficit. But this should not occur at the expense of the equality of cultures nor should it be used as a means to do away with multiculturalism. The people of Canada would be better served if there were as strong a commitment to multiculturalism as there apparently is to maintaining the public image of federal Ministers. In fact, each Minister's personal operational budget in this fiscal year will increase by 16 per cent -

May 9, 1990

That is an interesting figure the Canadian Coalition gives us.
They deplore the government's action and urge that this be corrected by the immediate reinstatement of cultural enrichment programs. And so do we.
Another matter which concerns us very much is the aboriginal people of Canada. In the definition of heritage language it includes the languages of aboriginal people of Canada. This is an error that must be corrected. The aboriginal people do not want to be included in any of the multicultural programs. They are the original first nations of Canada, of this nation, and their languages are unique throughout the world. They are unique Canadian indigenous languages. They are not imported languages. There are some 53 languages and I was told that only three of those are languages that are not threatened. Therefore, it is probably even more important that aboriginal people have an institute to fund, to sustain, to encourage the development and to research into aboriginal languages.
We agree, as do aboriginal people, that an institute such as that proposed by the member for the Western Arctic in her private member's Bill C-269, an act to establish the Aboriginal Languages Foundation, is the way to go. We would like to see the government give funding for a separate institute or foundation, if that is what people want to call it, for aboriginal people. They should not be lumped into this institute in Edmonton.
I am amazed that there was not closer consultation by the people who developed this, not just with one or two educated native people, whom I understand they may have consulted with, but with the grassroots, with native organizations across the country that feel so strongly about this.
We oppose very much that funds to this institute would take away from aboriginal languages. It is very important that both are funded.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has also taken a very strong position on this matter. It made a very good proposal when it asked for an amendment to the definition of languages in the bill and for aboriginal languages to be removed from the definition of heritage languages. We will come back to this point in committee.
One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Kamloops, will be speaking in greater length on the whole question
Government Orders
of aboriginal languages. We feel it is a very vital point and probably one of the most important priorities for the government in this whole field.
In some ways Bill C-37 is already out of date and it must be updated. The objectives of the institute were established in the earlier bill before the minister had time to withdraw these federal funds. It is very important when we go to committee that we look at this issue very carefully. It was before the minister emasculated the whole meaning of this institute by cutting out the front line heritage language classes. As I say, not enough consideration was given to the fact that aboriginal people do not want to be included in multicultural heritage language programs.
Because the situation has changed so drastically, I would urge the minister to consider an amendment to Bill C-37-and I believe that the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has also suggested this-which would provide an addendum to the functions of the institute. It could be included in one of the clauses that refers to other responsibilities and would allow the institute to give some direct funding to heritage language classes. This might be one way that would make people more appreciative of the institute.
It may not be that this would need to be used right away, if the government reinstates funding, which we want it to do, but it is something that should be more flexible. There may be certain languages that as yet do not have classes or teachers that the institute would give particular priority to helping to fund and establish in communities. That should be added to the bill.
I know that many community organizations would feel much more positive about this institute if it had more practical value in assisting to develop language programs in their communities which they feel are needed. I do not think that they are going to have too much sympathy for an elite academic service which is largely for professional linguists at the university level. They are certainly not going to feel very happy about it if they are losing funds for their own programs.
I have received a number of suggestions from the president of the Saskatchewan organization for heritage language programs, Mr. Shakeel Akhtar, which will be very helpful in committee as well. I would like to thank him for these suggestions and ask that other people contribute. I hope the committee will hear from witnesses and will tour the four western provinces so that

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
we can get input about this bill and about the need for heritage language programs generally.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, probably the three highest language priorities for federal dollars for languages should be the reinstatement of funding for English as a second language for immigrants of all ages, not just people going into the workforce but mothers who are still at home, grandparents who want to be able to communicate and become part of Canada, and for children in school as well who need much more.
Australia has one program that provides ESL classes- and in our case it would include French as well-for all immigrants regardless of their ages. That is what we should have in Canada, but instead of that the government has cut back.
We also think that a priority is to establish funding for aboriginal languages and, as I said, my colleague will elaborate on that.
Third, we feel it is very important to reinstate funding for heritage language classes in communities, taking this money from the minister of trade's $14 million if necessary.
In summary, we will support a heritage language institute provided that there is a restoration of funding for community heritage language classes, provided that aboriginal languages are funded separately under the administration of native people, and provided that there are assurances that the institute services will be decentralized and accessible in the four western provinces.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to express my support for the passage of the Canadian Heritage Language Institute bill. This legislative initiative will take an important lead in introducing a new era of federal support to Canada's heritage languages.
Many language groups from across Canada have called on our leadership in a promotion of this rich and living resource. They have been highly supportive of all efforts to realize the potential of an institute. They have
witnessed the evolution of this government's commitment to heritage languages, a process marked by a new direction and application of our efforts.
We are providing leadership at the federal level to ensure that these languages continue to give expression to our multicultural character. The Canadian Heritage Language Institute is a symbol of our new approach and will ensure that heritage languages continue to make significant strides toward mainstream Canadian life.
More and more people now understand that heritage language programs are not mechanisms for fostering sentimentality. They are the life source for our cultural communities and a vehicle to transmit culture from one generation to the next. Indeed they are a genuine source of cultural enrichment for all Canadians.
The institute will match ideals with practical means to achieve them. It will promote new ways and means to ensure the use, acquisition and retention of all languages that contribute to Canada's multicultural identity. One way it will achieve this objective is through the development of better teacher training and language programs and Canadian oriented learning materials. The institute will also conduct practical research into all aspects of Canada's heritage languages.
The institute will put an end to isolated research and will place a new emphasis on applied research. Above all, it will address the practical needs of particular language groups, help to and meet these needs where they matter most: in our classrooms.
The institute will be located in Edmonton. It will work closely with organizations, groups and individuals from all over Canada to encourage the preservation and use of Canada's many heritage languages.
The board of directors will consist of knowledgeable and experienced individuals with expertise in the area of heritage languages.
The institute will tap the collective knowledge of experts from across the country: linguists, teachers, language specialists, and scholars. It will make use of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins living within our borders.
May 9, 1990

While the institute will represent a collaborative effort, it will also play a leadership role by helping achieve nationally acceptable standards of teaching for the successful retention of heritage languages.
To be worth while our response and assistance must be timely, with a view toward future horizons. The institute will also have sufficiently broad scope to respond to contemporary challenges.
Since the institute will be incorporated federally as a charitable organization, its financial resources can be augmented by outside funds. In particular, we hope the institute will be successful in encouraging the support of provincial agencies and ethnocultural communities. The money allocated for the institute is nothing less than an investment in our cultural identity.
Charles Berlitz, the pioneer of multilingual instruction, compared living in this world and speaking one language to "living in an enormous mansion and staying in one room".
As Canadians we cannot close doors on the vast potential for growth offered by our multicultural identity. Heritage languages open a door to untold opportunities and potential for Canada.
I am proud to support the establishment of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute as a contemporary way to promote the development of Canada's rich linguistic heritage.
I urge my fellow parliamentarians to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation as we seek to fulfil the promise of this innovative yet also truly human institution. In the long run we can be confident in the knowledge that our support to this institute has contributed to building a truly multicultural society where the needs of our people are our greatest priority.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglington-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I imagine this applause is for the opposition, and I am referring to the Liberals, before they start speaking to a subject that is very important to the spirit of this country, the soul of its people and the vision this country wants to give Canadians of their future.
When I hear people- I see my colleague from Quebec who probably thinks this subject is far too
Government Orders
complex for his lights. I will switch to another language unless he shows some appreciation of the subject we are discussing today.
Madam Speaker, I find it hard to understand why we are talking about this matter in very vague terms and also with a certain amount of condescension.
Madam Speaker, why are we talking about multicul-turalism and heritage languages in a way that reflects shallow principles and statistics and figures without substance, when we should really be talking about the identity of this country? When I think about what I heard today in this debate, I wonder whether there is a basic problem when we talk about multiculturalism and the identity of this country. Personally, as I have said before in this House, when we talk about the multicultural character of Canada, we at the same time accept the distinct identity of all the various groups that together form this mosaic. To me, language is essential to express the identity of each of these groups. I believe that my friends and colleagues from Quebec, and they perhaps more so than others, will understand the significance of language for all ethnocultural groups in this country. What I have to say is perhaps more for their benefit because they can appreciate the true essence of language.

I heard various speakers address the question of the purposes of this institute. They are all valid. They are all acceptable. They talk about integration and the importance of bringing ESL studies in order to teach all of those new vast hordes of peoples coming into our nation those languages which are important for integration into the mainstream, whether that be English or whether that be French.
I heard them talk about setting up a model for establishing that which is necessary for a valid heritage lane program, be it in the question of developing resources, be it in the question of developing materials, techniques for training teachers or for establishing national standards for the teaching of a heritage language and training teachers so that they would be able to produce the kind of work in the classroom that would reflect those standards which are Canadian.

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, this surprises me.

I am really surprised to hear things such as this. Recently, we heard the minister acknowledge, as we all do, that education standards in the classroom are under provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps one of the great tragedies of this country is that we do not have enough national standards for our two official languages. We are going to impose national standards on the establishment of heritage language studies.
A Canadian context for the establishment of studying Cantonese and a Canadian standard for teaching Italian. Does the minister want to establish a Canadian context for the appreciation of materials that will help in the understanding of Spanish, whether the student comes from Ecuador, from Castille, from Mexico or from Argentina?
If we are going to recognize that this country is truly multicultural, and if we really are serious about establishing a centre that fosters, promotes and enhances the study of heritage languages, then we have to be serious about the diction that we employ. We cannot on the one hand support a centre that imposes a new image of Canada that recognizes the demographic reality represented by 8 to 9 million Canadians who are of neither francophone nor anglophone origins but share a great equality that we have established in this country.
We cannot in a most condescending fashion, dictate that they will learn their language in a way that we think reflects Canada when we do not accept those same standards for establishing a milieu when studying English or French. You might remember just a few days ago, Madam Speaker, the Sorecom poll that indicated that in Quebec the residents are, increasingly, beginning to think of themselves as Quebecois.
That sends shutters of fear everywhere. As I read the rest of the Sorecom poll, it gave me an indication that one of the things that is happening in Quebec and everywhere else-perhaps this government is beginning to recognize it-with the establishment of this particular institution, is that people are beginning to take great pride in the means by which they express their individuality, their character, their aspirations and, in fact, their very existence.
Language is the soul and expression of everything that we aspire to, and everything that we live. We use it to express our emotions, the love we have for our families, the aspirations we have for our children, and to conduct our business.
I am not of English or French origin. I had to learn both languages. English is not the language that I use when I speak and communicate with my family; nor is French the one that I use when I conduct business. I really do not appreciate anyone telling me what my cultural and linguistic metropolis should be, whether it is in Edmonton by a group of academics, scholars or linguists who come together to establish a linguistic national standard for the way that I address my family, with the experiences that I have had in this country and before.
Madam Speaker, if you will permit me, in my own language-
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]

I cannot allow another to dictate to me how I should express my thoughts, experiences, aspirations, the love I have for my family, my culture, the manner in which the history of my people developed and continues to develop, and how to express the veiy essence of my being and character. I cannot permit this, especially when funds are being cut in one area, and an effort is being made in another to camouflage it. I find this intolerable.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to express these views, which I stated already in English.
The hon. minister gave us an indication that a true appreciation of the heritage language character, the multicultural character of Canada, should be expressed with great pride, without shame, without reservation, but with a sense of acceptance and equality, whether it be Italian, Spanish, or in Yiddish as he spoke earlier when he introduced the bill.
As I said in Italian a moment ago, one can accept this particular concept of establishing the institute even in the context of having cut $4.1 million from a heritage language program. That cut is clearly unacceptable, and is certainly inconsistent with the kinds of principles the

minister presents to us today in consideration of the bill. I think he would agree with that.
I think he might also agree that while the Secretary of State contributes close to $300 million for education and promotion of two official languages in a domain that goes clearly beyond the federal jurisdiction, it is a valid and valuable exercise nevertheless. In that context, however, this institute will not be given the kind of mandate that would suggest that we have made funds available to one-third of the population that regards another language as its method of expressing its psyche, its character and its aspirations.
I want to applaud the minister for having taken the initiative to establish such an institute. At the same time, I want to reserve the right as an opposition member to criticize and analyse whether this institute will be practicable in the context of a budget that calls for cutting away opportunities which permit the expression of heritage language. I find the inconsistency virtually unacceptable. I say it is virtually unacceptable because I know we will get this institution.
I want the government to understand very clearly that academics and scholars who will operate out of Edmonton on an international basis will do nary a whit for all these children in Toronto where the funds available for them to practise their language, my language. My children are personally affected. Those children will go into class with well qualified people, but people who do not meet the standards presented by the Department of Education in Ontario. They talk about a different type of educational system and a different type of program. I do not know whether this institute will be able to set the kinds of standards that I will be happy with as a parent.
I want my children, and I know I speak for many Canadians who desire the same things for their own children, to be able to study the language of their origin in the language and environment in which their parents feel comfortable. The integration process involves family members being able to relate to each other in a dignified fashion that respects the past, origins, cultures and history, and which is expressed in a language that is alive, current and contemporary. The minister will understand this, because he has given us a personal example of his
Government Orders
own history. It is not classed in the parochial confines of, what we would say, one country.
Madam Speaker, there is a no more proud Canadian than the one that stands before you this moment. There is at least one Canadian who says "I want to be able to dictate how I learn my language and how I want my children to learn my language. I want to make sure the minister understands that the funds be available for them to practise their language in the way that funds are available for every other language, including the two official ones, especially when it comes under the area of federal jurisdiction, which is outside the parameters of both the BNA Act and the amended Constitution Act. I refer obviously to education. If we are going to be involved then we will do it on a much more equitable basis and I charge the minister to do that, and take that spirit along with his initiative on this institute.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who made such an eloquent speech to give his views about inclusion of the aboriginal languages in this institute. If he looks at the bill he will see that the definition of heritage languages includes aboriginal languages. I think native people to whom we have spoken, including many organizations, are very upset about this. They feel there is quite a difference between their languages and the need to protect them, being unique to Canada.
If there is not an Italian class in Toronto Italian will still survive. We want all kinds of Italian classes in Toronto and elsewhere, but the languages of the native people are dying out and if there is not something to develop them they will become non-existent. This is a loss not only to them but to all of us, in fact to the culture of the world.
Now they say, and this is not surprising, that they want any such institute for aboriginal languages to be under their jurisdiction. It should be under a board which would include native people and there should be experts from their communities who are developing and teaching these languages. They want it to be under their control and funded directly. This means there should be money set aside for that program. To immerse it in an institute that is teaching all kinds of languages and where the majority of the staff is not likely to be aboriginal is not

Government Orders
the way it should go. I wonder what his views would be on that.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, I want to suggest to the hon. member that if there are no longer Italian classes in Toronto perhaps Italian may still prosper and flourish in Italy. But the soul of Italian Canadians will have been extinguished in Canada. There are only about a million of us in all of Canada, and only about 600,000 in Toronto and environs. That may not be a significant figure to many people; it certainly is significant to me-just as it is significant for all Canadians to be able to use language as a means of expressing their total being and character.
I find no problem with aboriginal Canadians thinking in terms of having standards they think are appropriate, not only for the maintenance of their language but the promotion of their language, so that the spirit of their being is not only protected-and I think we have to go much beyond that-but is allowed to flourish. If it would flourish to the extent that it spills over and is then appreciated by others as a focus point not only for study but for communication, so be it.
I have to take the minister at his word when he says that the establishment of this centre is not going to preclude the establishment of one for an aboriginal similar type program. I will take him at his word. The hon. member may not.
What I do not agree with is that there is a suggestion some place that there are those who fit into the multicultural definition and those who do not. Perhaps I did not make it very clear although I tried very hard, but as far as I am concerned this country is multicultural. There is an ethnic language called English; there is an ethnic language called French; there is an ethnic language called Italian; there is a heritage language called something else, whatever that case may be.
It is true that on an official basis for legal, traditional, economic needs, we use two languages. I recognize the importance of that but, if we are going to achieve total equality in this country, then we have to respect each other in the way that we express our experiences with and among each other. If, in this House, in our laws, and throughout the nation, we use French or English as the means by which we access government and justice, then so be it.
I caution the member not to think in terms of excluding ourselves from the multicultural concept. I can think of and treat everyone as equal because to me they are all part of that same multicultural, ethnocultural mosaic. Whether their particular language has a specific focus is another matter and I do not want to contest that. I want, for all others in Canada, the same kinds of considerations that I know the member would like to have for that particular group.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join members here in speaking to this bill which deals with the issue of heritage languages in our country.
I cannot get into my remarks very far without noting, for the record, the nature of the riding that I represent, Scarborough-Rouge River. It is a riding that has many new Canadians who have brought with them their own languages from other countries around the world. One of those languages is English, but the proportion of others is so great that, as I look to my own riding executive, almost everyone on it brings with him or her another language beside English. This has made us in our community stand and deal with the issue of first language, second language, and heritage language.
As we all know, this country has been founded on diversity, so much so that many of us wonder from time to time how we ever managed to bind the country together in the first place. To begin with, we have many native tongues still spoken across the country by the aboriginal community. I think it is fair to say that this is an area where the country has not paid enough attention to fostering the continuance of the native languages for our aboriginal peoples.
Culture rides on the back of language. Language is a vehicle that carries culture and, in many cases, the continuance of valid and rich native cultures is in jeopardy.
In my riding-I am sure it is true for many urban ridings-there are many languages being spoken on the street: Greek; Italian; German; Chinese, by some 30,000 constituents, both Mandarin and Cantonese; Filipino; the south Asian languages of Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, and others; Japanese; Armenian; Spanish; and Portuguese.
May 9, 1990

My native tongue is English, and there are others who, of course, speak the other founding language, French.
Bill C-37 is intended to assist the country, its educational institutions, and its community institutions to rationalize, Canadianize, consolidate and manage the delivery of heritage language education. Why do we feel it necessary to do that? I suggest to the House that every single heritage language that we have-and perhaps I could just walk away from the word "heritage" and say every single language that is spoken in this country-is an asset.
I believe they are assets to the country in the same way that our museums and art galleries attempt to acquire and secure representations and manifestations of our history and culture. Perhaps a terrible example of that is Voice of Fire, which is not Canadian at all. We have in existence in Canada something which is not artificial and created by artifice but true and living languages which we now recognize as being an asset for all Canada. I know that we would be remiss if we did not attempt, as a country, to organize and assist in the furtherance of the teaching of those languages for all the children who will come after us.
There is a problem that we run into. We have already run into it in my riding and in other parts of the country. The public school board in Scarborough has now realized that the influx of large numbers of new Canadians bringing with them languages of birth, that is original languages other than English or French, has become a very serious problem for elementary and high schools in communities where large numbers of new Canadians settle. This becomes a very serious problem in a community that prides itself on its quality of education.
Where you have significantly large numbers of students who do not speak English or French as their first language, the school board has an obligation, if it is going to teach them at all, to provide them with additional supplementary training in the English language. At the same time, the study programs of these students is damaged severely by their inability to undertake programs in English or French as a first language. As a result, there is a real danger that in some parts of our country an entire generation of students is not receiving the standard of education in English or French needed to cany on with their lives and to be successful in Canada.
Government Orders
That is the problem we run up against in a riding where there are a lot of heritage languages.
I regard this statute as an opportunity for the country to step into the field of heritage language and to assist Canadians who have a heritage language other than English, French, or a native tongue. I suppose I should be including natives as well because they are mentioned in the bill, but they may in fact warrant special attention and I will not speak to that directly. The statute will give the opportunity to the country to get into the field and assist in consolidating the delivery of the education in those heritage languages, to set priorities, and to provide a Canadian focus. The net result will be to produce continuing generations of Canadians who will know other languages and all the value that has for Canada.
In addition, it will be at least a small step in reducing indirectly the barrier of intolerance that exists across the country in the general population to other languages and cultures. That does not mean intolerance on the part of someone who happens to be English-speaking, Frenchspeaking, or native tongue-speaking. It applies to anyone, of any culture or language, being intolerant of the language of another group or person.
By willingly and aggressively undertaking the task of locating management and finance, and the setting of priorities in the field of heritage language, we will at least in part address the need to overcome those barriers of intolerance.
While there are challenges in many urban ridings such as mine, I am convinced that a real initiative, not just a cosmetic one, that can follow implementation of a bill like this, will produce benefits for all Canadians right across the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to participate in today's debate on Bill C-37, an act to establish a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. I speak with mixed feelings about the legislation.
In my constituency, there is a large variety of ethnocultural communities dominated by Italians, Sikhs, Germans, Ukrainians, Norwegians, Finns, Swiss, Swedes, and I could go on. It gives the community of Kamloops a special richness that one may not find in all communities. When it became known to the various organizations that reflect those communities, there was some rejoicing that finally we were going to take a serious step toward recognizing the heritage languages in Canada by estab-

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
lishing an institute in Edmonton to promote and encourage the development of heritage languages.
On the other hand, the interpretation of heritage language in the bill states:
"heritage language" means a language, other than one of the official languages of Canada, that contributes to the linguistic heritage of Canada, and includes any aboriginal language;
It is that particular phrase, "and includes any aboriginal language", that was brought to my attention by all the chiefs and band councils in my constituency. They said to me that in their minds their language was not one of the heritage languages and ought not to be considered alongside the various ethnocultural groups and their languages in this institute. They represented the founding languages of Canada. They settled the country of Canada, or the area we call Canada now, and settled it thousands of years ago, literally thousands and thousands of years. They had flourishing cultures, dynamic languages in terms of communication and rich, dynamic communities. To find themselves attached to an institute with a variety of other heritage languages was something they could not understand. Their languages are unique to here. The only place you will find the Haida language is in Canada.
I certainly respect the value of the institute and the promotion of languages such as Italian, Ukrainian, and so on. The point is that these languages do not live or die as a result of this institute. In Canada, they may and that is why it is so important. Over all, this is not life and death situation. However, for aboriginal languages that is the case. There are 53 aboriginal languages across Canada and only three can we identify as being safe and secure in terms of their ability to carry on. It is a real struggle for all of the others.
One of the reasons we have this struggle is that last year the Secretary of State spent $500 million on official languages, encouraging the development and promotion of English and French in Canada. And we support that, of course. But only $1 million was spent on aboriginal languages. I think we can make a case, with aboriginal languages being the founding languages of Canada, that it would not be unreasonable to expect that substantially
more money be put into the development, encouragement and promotion of those languages.
However, the situation is going to worsen now. If you look at the bill, you will notice that only $1.3 million will be spent each year on all the heritage languages which, at the moment, includes aboriginal languages. So the situation is actually going to worsen, to say nothing of the almost embarrassing announcement by the government not long ago that it is going to cut back on native communications, on native publications and the ability of native organizations to communicate with one another. For any culture to maintain itself, it must have the ability to communicate. Language is the culture. The medium is the message, if you like.
At a time when we are encouraging aboriginal peoples toward self-determination, self-reliance and self-government, when we are trying to establish in a whole variety of ways self-reliance among native people, to say we are going to cut back serious funding for native publications and native media, I thought was, quite frankly, marginally embarrassing. The native community, of course, to this day cannot believe that it is happening.
That is why the native communities are so concerned that they not be part of the heritage institute. They have some interesting support. A letter written by the President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to the minister responsible says the following: "On behalf of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council executive committee, I am writing to urge that the aboriginal languages be removed from the definition of heritage languages in Bill C-37, the bill to establish the Canadian Heritage Language Institute."
Here we have the umbrella organization, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, agreeing with aboriginal people across the country that they ought to have their own institute, or their own version of institutes, or their own facility to promote the founding languages of the country so that native people can communicate among themselves.
We are simply agreeing with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council on this particular suggestion. My hon. colleague from Vancouver East made an excellent presentation. I have heard a lot of excellent speeches in this House by members from all sides, but the speech today by the member for Vancouver East must be one of the most thoughtful and compassionate speeches we have heard in this House for a long time. She pointed out
May 9, 1990

some of the strengths as well as shortcomings in the legislation before us and indicated that she wants to move appropriate amendments to improve the legislation.
She also referred to the staggering rate of illiteracy among native people, something which we should keep in the back of our minds as we consider funding for the appropriate system to encourage aboriginal languages.
I said that there were 53 aboriginal languages in the country, 50 of which are endangered. The 53 aboriginal languages are grouped into 11 language families, six of which are found exclusively in British Columbia and Yukon. The Haida, Kootenayan, Salishan, Tlingit, Waka-shan and Tsimshian languages are all perilously close to extinction. Well, extinction might be too strong a word to associate with the state of the languages, but perhaps not. They, particularly the young people taking advantage of the elders of the tribes, are struggling to develop an understanding and appreciation of and competency in these languages.
The Assembly of First Nations' Declaration on Aboriginal Language states:
The Aboriginal Languages were given by the Creator as an integral part of life. Embodied in Aboriginal Languages is our unique relationship to the Creator, our attitudes, beliefs, values, and the fundamental notion of what is truth.
Aboriginal Language is an asset to one's own education, formal and informal. Aboriginal Language contributes to greater pride in the history and culture of the community; greater involvement and interest of parents and the education of their children; and greater respect for Elders.
Language is the principal means by which culture is accumulated, shared and transmitted from generation to generation. The key to identity and retention of culture is one's ancestral language.
Those are beautiful words which I think come to the very heart of the point being made, that is, the need to have a separate initiative from the Canadian Eleritage Languages Institute to establish a foundation for aboriginal languages.
I might also emphasize the point made by my hon. colleague for Vancouver East in terms of the consultative process that went into the formation of this legisla-
Govemment Orders
tion. You know, Madam Speaker, that Bill C-37 was influenced by a consultant's report prepared for the then Secretary of State, David Crombie, back in December of 1987. One hundred and thirty groups and individuals were consulted or invited to submit briefs during the consultation process, yet only three academics knowledgeable in native affairs were consulted, two from St. Thomas University in Fredericton and one from the University of Alberta. Not a single national aboriginal representative organization was consulted in the process of drafting the bill nor was there any consultation with native experts or native groups across the country.
I think this is a gross oversight and, as a result, the government has made this woeful error of lumping in aboriginal languages with heritage languages generally. I think the minister understands the error of that decision and we will look forward, in committee, to changing this whole matter.
We would be remiss if we did not say what it is we are advocating. In the moments remaining I want refer to Bill C-269 which is an act to establish the Aboriginal Languages Foundation, sponsored by the hon. member for Western Arctic. I want to read the purpose of this foundation as set out in this bill.
The purpose of the Foundation is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of aboriginal languages that contribute to the country's aboriginal heritage by
(a)	promoting, through public education and discussion, the learning of aboriginal languages and their benefit to aboriginal peoples of Canada;
(b)	providing the public with information about aboriginal language resources;
(c)	developing programs to improve the quality of aboriginal language instruction;
(d)	assisting in the production and dissemination of Canadian-oriented materials related to the study of aboriginal languages;
(e)	assisting in the development of standards for the learning of aboriginal languages;
(f)	conducting research into all aspects of aboriginal languages;
(g)	establishing scholarly and professional links between the Foundation and universities, colleges and other organizations and persons interested in the Foundation's work;
(h)	ensuring the perpetuation, revitalization, growth and protection of aboriginal languages;

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
(i)	responding to the needs of aboriginal communities as each community is in the best position to determine what is needed to ensure the survival and functional use of its languages;
(j)	providing the funding required to enable communities to develop and control the process, resources and activities needed to promote their languages; and
(k)	undertaking any other activities in furtherance of its purpose.
I cannot imagine anything that would be more appropriate as a beginning in launching a foundation to establish aboriginal languages securely across the country.
In conclusion, we support half of the principle of this bill. We have serious concerns about the other half of the principle of the bill since it includes aboriginal languages as part of the heritage language definition.
The Shuswap nation in central British Columbia has spent a considerable amount of not only financial resources but human resources in developing their language and support literature, books and research for the enhancement and development of the Shuswap language. They have struggled on minimal resources.
I hope and pray that as a result of this initiative to create an institute of Canadian heritage languages, and through recognition by all of us that we must take a special initiative in terms of aboriginal languages through a foundation or some other course, that funding, support and encouragement will be forthcoming in the future to all native organizations which wish to enhance and expand their ability to communicate within their cultural groupings through language, both written and spoken.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my friend on his presentation to the House. I also congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East for her excellent dissertation on this matter.
There are a number of things about the legislation that bother me somewhat. Although the idea appears to be an excellent one, there are to be fairly massive expenditures of money. There is $800,000 to constitute the capital endowment fund and an additional $500,000 to be expended for the purpose of the institute.
The expenditures, I suppose, are to be commended except when looked at in the context of what we have just seen happening in this last budget with cuts to English as a second language and cuts to citizenship and language training. I wonder what good a heritage language institute will be if there is no money for heritage language classes.
Section 10 of the bill sets out very nicely that the chairperson and the other directors shall be paid such fees for their attendance at meetings of the institute and for work performed for the institute as are fixed by the Governor in Council. We have no way of knowing what this will be. I am looking at these expenditures of money at a time when there are cutbacks. Although the idea is a good one, I would suggest that there is some hypocrisy in the government setting up an institute at a time when it is cutting out other programs that help in the binding of this country together as a mosaic.
We have often heard some very good ideas brought in with much fanfare, but as soon as the government gets the program instituted it seems to run on the rocks of the finance department's shoreline and the good idea sinks on those rocks. Does my friend have any comments comparing this program to other programs in the past that started out as a good idea but, because of funding cuts by the Department of Finance, were scuttled?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I suppose it is a matter that is on the minds of many people watching or listening in, who are concerned about how serious are the government's intentions of proceeding with the heritage institute and supporting aboriginal languages.
This is no reflection on the minister-I am certain that the minister is sincere-but I do remember on a number of occasions the huge fanfare and announcements about the Polar 8 contract for British Columbia. Finally, after all sorts of promises, fanfare and so on we were to have this Polar 8 icebreaker built which would provide jobs. It was to be a symbol of British Columbia. I notice my hon. friend from the Fraser Valley is here. He will remember those days. We all felt proud that finally British Columbia was going to get something. I remember bands playing, people cutting ribbons, fireworks, and everything else.
May 9, 1990

Then of course nothing happened; it all fizzled out. The government said: "We are sorry. We have changed our mind. We cannot do that any more". British Columbians felt as though someone had jammed a dagger in their stomach one more time. We are looking like a pin cushion out there. We are getting jammed and jabbed all of the time.
My friend is absolutely correct to ask whether the government is serious this time. It sounds good. On paper it is a great idea. I guess we will just have to wait and see. It is easy to say all these things, but of course the commitment must be there financially to make it work.
When I see the government cutting back on native publications, language training programs for new Canadians, and ESL courses in the west, I just wonder how serious the government is in its commitment to the development and encouragement of heritage languages. I can only assume by its actions that it is not serious. Let us hope that there has been an enlightenment, a change of mind, and that as a result of this legislation today the government will start putting its money where its commitments are verbally.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to stand in support of the principle of this bill.
The establishment of a Heritage Language Institute is certainly a step in the right direction of supporting our commitment as Canadians to a multicultural society and to something which has been happening at the grassroots of Canada for many decades now, that is teaching young people in particular whose families come from a different cultural background based in a different language how to speak that language, how to relate through that to the culture of their family's origin and how to relate through that to other parts of the world and other peoples of the world.
As we all know, as we face a changing global economy, as we face the tremendous challenges of the global environment, as we face the challenges of learning to live peacefully together on this earth, the ability to communicate with and relate to people all around the globe becomes an increasing strength, not only for an individual but for a nation.
That is what many people who have come to Canada over the generations have done. That is the foundation
Government Orders
they have built for Canada as a nation to play a stronger role on the globe and to play a stronger role in some of the major issues confronting the world in the next decade and indeed in the third millennium.
The institute is intended to support, as I said, what has been happening throughout Canada for decades now and for well over a century in the case of some language groups, that is the teaching of heritage languages and all that goes with it. It is for that reason that in rising today to comment on the bill I cannot avoid commenting as well on the fact that it raises some spectres of empty promises and empty shells of institutions when in the same year that the government brings forth this bill it has also obliterated any direct federal funding for heritage language programs.
I met recently with perhaps 60 people in the national capital region. Where better to represent the essence of Canada? These were people represent over 50 schools where heritage languages are taught in this region. I want to mention a few of them because I think it is important that people know the richness and wealth of different cultural backgrounds that exist in our communities, not only here in the national capital region but across Canada.
We have schools teaching Armenian, Arabic, Lebanese, Bengali, Hebrew, Yiddish, Aramaic, Jamil, Spanish, Czechoslovakian, Mandarin, Lithuanian, Dutch, Finnish, German and Urdu. We have schools teaching Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Khmer, Laotian, Portuguese, Malayalam, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, Ukrainian, Punjabi, Filipino, Persian, Polish, Russian, Italian, Swahili, Sinhalese, Tulugu and Ibrkish.
We have a wealth in this country, a microcosm of the entire globe. The idea of supporting the continuation and enrichment of that is certainly one deserving of our support. Yet the people with whom I met and the people across this country who are in their own communities, their own schools and their own churches, in whatever place they can find to teach their children through the second, third and fourth generations the language of their family's origin, are concerned about whether they are going to be able to carry on those programs as effectively as they might.

May 9, 1990
Government Orders
The programs that are going to be most affected by the cut in funding the government has delivered this year are the smallest programs with the smallest pool of parents, families and community to draw on to support their schools. These are not schools that have ever been supported just by government. They have been supported by the communities, the families, and the businesses in those communities.
Those communities that are the poorest-and that often means the ones that have most recently arrived in Canada-absolutely need the kind of funding they are getting. They really question whether it is more important to continue the funding of the actual teaching of the languages than to fund an institute.
The smallest communities-and again those are often those which are newest to Canada with the least base to draw on-are those that are going to suffer most. Many of them are concerned about whether they can continue their program or will have to start charging fees such that the parents will not be able to afford them.
The newest schools, those that are just starting out of communities which are just getting established in Canada or have just reached a critical mass where having a school is a real possibility and which have all the start-up costs, are the ones that are deeply concerned their programs are going to be hurt by the funding cut that has hit them this year. They too question the priority of putting money into the actual teaching compared to the priority of putting money into an institute.
There is basic funding through the provinces for the teaching at heritage language schools, but that provides only a bare minimum. It does not provide enough to create a school. That is why there is such deep concern about the diversion of funding away from these programs. It does not provide enough to introduce the cultural element that keeps young children in school on a Saturday morning when all their friends are out playing, for three and sometimes four hours. The diversity of activities that teach them the language is what makes it meaningful for them, rather than just the book learning.
It is the federal funding that has provided those extra things which go into making a school and making a total cultural experience of the language. It is the federal funding that has allowed them to buy the books, the videos and all other things that go into a complete
program. It is that which has allowed them to pay their teachers more than a bare honorarium, to avoid charging excessive fees to the parents, and to bring in all those extras that make a school function.
The people who run these heritage language schools talk to me about what they feel they contribute to their community, to the broader Canadian society, through their schools. They talk, as well, about how the schools are important in their integrating into Canadian society.
There is one school in my riding which is a virtual United Nations. It is wonderful to see. The children have over 27 different languages, most of which have been learned through their heritage language schools. They know their culture and they have learned that with the help of federal funding over the years. They are sharing that with other young people. They are building in other five, six, seven, eight and ten-year olds an understanding not only of their own backyard but of the world. They are building bridges between cultures right there in their classrooms, in their playgrounds, and in their social life with their friends before and after school.
They are making an invaluable contribution, not only to the personal experience of their fellow students but to what those other students bring to Canadian society, bring to their adulthood, and bring to Canada's role in the world.
Their schools also serve as a useful bridge in other ways between the broader society and the members of the family who are slower to integrate and slower to learn the language, and that often means the woman in the household who may be home looking after the children, who may be in a job to earn extra money to support the family where her learning of the language is hampered and where she simply does not have the opportunities that other members of the family have to learn the Canadian language. The heritage language schools become for the mothers and for other people in the community another bridge integrating them into Canadian society while they retain their own unique identity.
That is why the schools are concerned that at the same time as we are building and funding an institute we are cutting back the funding to the very heritage language teaching that the institute is supposed to support. They really question not whether the institute is a good idea but whether they are going to get the institute at the
May 9, 1990

expense of the very programs the institute is supposed to assist and to enrich.
I will just refer in my last couple of minutes to what are the objectives of the institute. The first is the learning of heritage languages. We do not need an institute for that. For nearly 200,000 children across Canada that is already happening.


Mr. Nicholson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe if you will canvass the House you will find a disposition not to see the clock so that we might proceed with the second reading debate of Bill C-39.


Mr. Angus:: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I concur with my hon. friend, but I would not want to leave the impression that the extension of the hours would allow for continuation of the debate on the bill that is before us. That is certainly not the intention and not why I have waited around. I had assumed that that bill, by agreement, was going to be completed in this particular stage this afternoon before we moved on to Bill C-39.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, to clarify the situation, my intention was to speak for no more than two or three additional minutes. Is the understanding that we will not see the clock until I have completed my speech, as I understand there are no other speakers, and that that will conclude the business for the day?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the understanding reached through discussions among the House leaders was that we were to wrap up this debate and to complete debate on Bill C-39, which is to follow immediately thereafter. I am sure that the House is agreed that we will give the member another couple of minutes. We will not see the clock on the understanding that immediately after that each party will have a few moments to express itself on Bill C-39, which will also be passed at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I was referring to the objects and why there is some concern that this institute
Government Orders
not replace heritage language teaching across the country as it seems to have done in this budget year.
The institute has as one of its objectives to provide the public with information about heritage language resources. It can only do that to the extent that those resources are also supported and continued.
It also intends to produce materials for teaching. One of the problems is that it has been federal funding that has gone traditionally to the heritage language schools which has provided the extra funds we need to purchase those materials. They are a little sceptical about an institute providing materials for them which they concede are badly needed materials with Canadian content, materials that can be more easily acquired at a more reasonable price, but if they have no money to buy them, then those materials do not do them an awful lot of good.
While I personally agree and support the principle of this bill, I caution the government against thinking that funding an institute, or for that matter a department of multiculturalism, in any way replaces its obligation to fund the very programs in the communities at minimum cost to society. These programs are carried out by the communities themselves, with only a bit of support from the government.
This institute in no way replaces that obligation. That message is clear from the groups and schools I have spoken to. I deliver that message now to the minister.
I am certainly in support of the principle of the bill, with some of the provisos that have been mentioned already by previous speakers on the bill. But we are not finished yet with the funding for heritage language schools.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1990
Government Orders

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-39, an Act to apply federal laws and provincial laws to offshore areas and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mir. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the other members of the House who have co-operated to help move this important piece of legislation through the legislative process.
The Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act provides for the application of all Canadian law to the offshore and it is designed to reflect the sovereign rights and jurisdiction given to Canada by the modem Law of the Sea.
In preparing this legislation, the government has had three fundamental concerns in mind: legal certainty, Canadian sovereignty and co-operation with the provinces.
Before beginning with the issue of legal certainty, a few words of background about the concepts of international law that we are dealing with here will help bring the legal problem into clear focus. The bill is concerned with the application of Canadian law to installations on the Canadian shelf.
The general presumption is that Canadian law does not apply beyond the territorial limits of Canada unless there is some specific and express indication that it is intended to have such application. This means that there could potentially be serious questions about the applicability of Canadian laws to areas that are under our resource jurisdiction, but that lie beyond the 12-mile limit of our territorial sea. This is obviously a legal question of great importance. Bill C-39 is designed to remove this uncertainty.
The second of the three objects I mentioned a moment ago is the strengthening of Canadian sovereignty. The bill reflects our sovereignty concerns in a number of ways. Sovereignty is secured through the effective exercise of national jurisdiction, which is precisely what we aim to achieve by establishing a comprehensive legal
regime in the offshore through the application of Canadian laws.
Another of our basic objectives is co-operation with the provinces in the context of offshore development. This is the spirit that has given birth to the Atlantic Accord and the Canada-Nova Scotia Accord, and it is the spirit that animates this legislation.
We have taken great care to ensure that the legislation is entirely neutral and non-prejudicial with respect to those provincial offshore claims that remain unsettled at this time. You will note, for example, that Clause 3 vests offshore rights and interests in Her Majesty in right of Canada. But it does so only with respect to areas that lie outside the limits of any province.
In addition to applying federal laws offshore, the legislation will establish a basis for the application of provincial and territorial laws to offshore areas outside the provinces and territories.
Clause 7 of the present bill will allow for the application of provincial and territorial legislation to the offshore on a more general and comprehensive basis. I should think that this provision will be especially useful in the context of ordinary private law matters such as contracts and tort claims, where we have no body of federal law that can be applied.
We recognize that the provinces and territories will want and expect consultations on the application of their laws to adjacent areas outside the provinces and territories.
Clause 7 will be proclaimed in force separately for each province or territory and each proclamation will require 60 days advance notice in The Canada Gazette. These requirements are designed to guarantee an opportunity for full consultation with each province or territory-
I would like to bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, a consequential amendment made necessary by the introduction of this bill. I attach particular importance to the application of our criminal laws to offshore activities. This will be accomplished both through the general provisions of the bill and through a series of amendments to the Criminal Code.
At present, with some exceptions, the code applies only within the territory of Canada and on Canadian
May 9, 1990

Government Orders
ships and aircraft. We consider it essential that offences on installations operating on the continental shelf and under our jurisdiction should be be able to be tried in Canada.
The Criminal Code amendments will mean that our law will now be applicable to offences committed by a Canadian beyond the territory of any state.
I would like to point out that we have simplified and replaced provisions dealing with the world-wide application of Canadian criminal law to Canadian flag ships.
Finally, to complete the package, the legislation provides that the jurisdiction of the courts, federal, provincial and territorial, will extend to installations on the continental shelf in the same manner as if they had arisen on land. This, again, will eliminate the jurisdictional uncertainty that has been apparent in a number of decisions over the course of the last few years.
Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in asking the House to support this bill.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, first, let me thank the hon. member for Moncton for trading places with me tonight so that I can make my brief intervention and attend to the other business that we all have to do around this place.
Let me say at the outset that the member for Niagara Falls has clearly indicated the purpose of Bill C-39, and I will not go into that.
I would like to indicate that my caucus is in support of this legislation. We welcome the fact that the government has finally produced a bill that purports to protect Canadian sovereignty. It follows a steady stream of initiatives that have seriously eroded our control over our own destiny-the free trade deal, gutting foreign investment review, cutting the Polar 8, and acquiescing time and time again to U.S. foreign policy. It is nice to see the government moving the other way just for once.
We do have some concerns with the manner in which the legislation is to be implemented. For that reason we want to see the bill go to the legislative committee to deal with a number of questions. They are not major items. However, we think the principle of the bill is sound. It is to extend our jurisdiction in a number of ways beyond our 12-mile limit.
For example, we are concerned with the power that this bill gives to the Governor in Council. We need to know just what effect this bill would have to whole new areas that suddenly fall under provincial purview, for example, collective agreements, environmental laws, safety standards and labour laws.
It would appear that with a stroke of a pen-I realize it is not quite that simple-that Cabinet can switch on or off provincial or territorial laws in a particular offshore area at a whim. We want to be sure about the ramifications of those matters.
In terms of its application of provincial and territorial laws, the bill may in fact give additional powers to the federal government to control the tax, royalties and resource revenues that are currently going to the provinces. We want to make sure that that is not the case.
We would like to know more about how Cabinet may suspend the operation of certain labour standards to make an area's economy more attractive to large employers-in other words a federal version of the Miche-lin bill in terms of Atlantic Canada.
We want to know what the effect will be on the day-to-day lives of the people who work on the offshore, be they riggers, fishermen, sailors, or what have you.
We are concerned about the lack of appeal over and above the 60-day notification in The Canada Gazette. Because of the far-ranging nature of the kind of regulations that may be made, we are not sure that 60 days is an appropriate period of time.
These are the kinds of things that will be around for quite some time and have a major impact. Perhaps a period of 120 days or longer might be considered.
Finally, we support the principle of the bill. We welcome it. We wonder why it took from October 2 of last year to get to second reading. I notice in the draft paper that the House leaders are reviewing that it is not even on the agenda for completion of third reading by this summer. I question the government's commitment to move quickly on this matter. Certainly, we need the review of it but we are quite prepared, providing that we get satisfactory answers, to continue to support the bill and to move for its enactment as soon as possible.

Government Orders
I again thank my colleague for Moncton for trading spots with me. I thank the member for Niagara Falls for his intervention as well.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-39.
Our party, as well, supports this bill going to a legislative committee. We see that the bill has some definite progressive implications in the area of Canadian sovereignty, the application of federal and provincial laws and with the Criminal Code amendments.
As we see it, the bill is an attempt by the government to assert Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic and in our offshores generally, and it updates our laws in order to take into account the increased jurisdiction of coastal states under the Law of the Sea.
It sends a clear message to the international community that international waters and territorial seas are definitely part of Canada's concern. For that reason we support it.
It also confirms that the reference to internal waters or territorial seas includes a reference to the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below. Those are important matters and issues to be considered.
It also takes into account the growing importance of the Arctic and the oil and mineral rights and assets of which exist there, something which we are most supportive.
As well, the bill recognizes that no longer can oil rigs be considered, but also other areas like production platforms, subsea installations, pumping stations and the like. These are all very positive aspects.
We are also pleased to see the Criminal Code amendments which allow us to have some hot pursuit and search, arrest and seizure provisions on the international seas as well as in our own waters.
It also makes Canadian laws applicable against Canadian fisheries in Canada and allows Canadian fisheries officials to carry out their duties on foreign vessels which, again, we see as positive.
I should say that we are looking forward to it going to the legislative committee. It needs detailed study, obviously in the area of the discretionary powers that are given to the Governor in Council.
There are concerns that the provision of the bill may subsequently be compromised or altered by regulation which can cause us some problems. It is essential that we have a very detailed study at the legislative committee stage.
This legislation looks at a new frontier, new definitions, and new players. It is very far-reaching in the areas of energy policy, environment, the Criminal Code, as well as natural resources such as fish and the like.
We are supportive of the bill. We will have other comments to make when the matter is before committee.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.16 p.m, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 10,1990