1990-02-02

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved:: That this House condemns the intolerance and prejudice in Canadian society that damages the fabric of the nation and urges the government and all members of Parliament to play a role in strengthening understanding and respect among Canadians.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to tell the House that the Liberal Party will be using 10-minutes speeches followed by 5 minutes of questions and comments for all our speakers starting with the hon. member for York Centre, the justice critic. In that way we will be allowed to have more members speak on this very important subject. It is very interesting to our members, and they would all like to speak on it.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this within our caucus today, but I will make a commitment that should we decide to follow suit we will indicate at the commencement of the appropriate speaker that in fact we would wish to split it between two. That certainly would not happen until after the first round of speakers.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the clarity from both opposition parties. The clarity that I can give at this point is that our minister will take the full 20 minutes with a question period. Subsequently our speakers will divide as the Official Opposition is dividing: 10 and 10 with a 5-minute question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to thank the representatives of all three parties. I realize that as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, everyone will be using only 10 minutes.
It will still be helpful to the Chair if, after the hon. member for York Centre speaks, members would remind the Chair. It would make things a lot easier.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have moved this resolution on behalf of the Liberals because in a word not enough is being done across this land to fight bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, and racism.
Canadians possess one of the world's most fortunate and favoured countries. We have national and personal security, peaceful lives, great prosperity by any standard, spiritual freedom, democracy, personal privacy, an abundance of individual choices about how we live. Our public policies express the decency and tolerance which is a large part of our heritage.
Unlike the nations which embody the values of a single culture and empower that culture with little need to give thought or care to minoritarian interests, Canada began with an accommodation of a minority. Otherwise we would not have had this country. The fundamental principles on which Canada is built reflect the need for justice and fairness for minorities and for the individual. Over 120 years history has made us a nation of minorities. Today, no one culture or historic national group can claim the allegiance of more than half the country.
Our successful life together has given us the background, the tested and improved tools of the experience of our national life and in the human experience of our citizens, on our statute books federal and provincial, in the rules of our public institutions, to be a truly just society.
The genius of Canada is that not only did we learn to cope with our diversity, but we made it an enriching feature of our national life and not a drain on it.
It would be a betrayal of the truth, however, to set out the record of Canada as a fair and justice democracy, as I have done, without acknowledging the history of shortcomings and living up to the ideals which we call Canada; to say what I have about the openness and tolerance,

February 2, 1990
Supply
which is the greatness of Canada, without acknowledging the denial of rights, the suppression of fundamental freedoms to whole groups, and the official injustices based often sanctimoniously on sex, race, creed, region, religion, or historic origin.
The resolution before the House is not about history, because we cannot change our history and because through all of our history our eventual resolution and the national purpose was to recognize our faults, not to seek to justify them; to be more sensitive; to learn from our mistakes to the minorities in our country; and to design measures to promote fairness. Even if solutions were found too late to help the actual individuals who were victims of injustice, solutions have come and we have recognized our shortcomings and moved to improve the system.
While I do not want to dwell on the failings and shortcomings of the past, I do want to dwell on the failings and shortcomings of the present, because I am alarmed by them and because I think the whole country should be alarmed by them.
There are developments all over Canada which show the extent to which we continue to fail ourselves and our fellow Canadians. There are vast shortcomings which doom whole groups and communities to lesser status and which make a cruel joke out of the idea that everyone has an equal opportunity, or anything like an equal opportunity.

Madam Speaker, during the course of the day, my colleagues will speak of our country's shortcomings with respect to the status of women, to racial minorities and to our Native peoples.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, we intend to spend a whole day dealing with injustice towards Natives, and outlining our ideas for improving the situation to Canadians and to the government.

On the subject of native justice and the situation of the native people, I have to address and mention as a particular case the Donald Marshall inquiry, the results of which were made public over the last two weeks. That inquiry reveals the extent to which racism underlies the whole of the criminal justice system of the province of Nova Scotia. We all know that similar findings could be
made in other parts of our country. An Indian man was sentenced to prison for 11 years, totally based, according to the report, on elements of racial prejudice.
There are vast systemic injustices in our country which doom too many to less opportunity, less education, less income, less health and to shorter lives. This denial is in itself unfair, but Canada cannot afford it either. We cannot afford the loss that is caused by denying opportunity to all Canadians. We need the contribution that every individual can make when his worth is recognized and when he is given an equal opportunity.
I want to talk about large injustices and the deprivation of rights that result from them, but I also want to talk about small matters and incidents. I want to give some examples which do not in themselves take away anyone's rights or reduce anyone's individual entitlement but which affect their dignity and which diminish their pride in Canada and, in diminishing their pride in Canada, weaken the country. I want to talk about two such incidents.
One is the decision of the municipality of Sault Ste. Marie to follow the example of a few other Ontario municipalities and to go "unilingual English". Every informed citizen in that community knew that no one was asking Sault Ste. Marie to go bilingual, whatever that would have meant. The achievement of Bill 8 by the Province of Ontario does not impose requirements on any municipalities. In fact for Sault Ste. Marie it would not alter the life or the opportunities of any of the people of Sault Ste. Marie so far as provincial services are concerned.
The resolution of that community is nothing but a mean-minded statement designed, I would assume, to send a message. What is the message? Maybe it was meant to punish all of Canada's francophones for the action of the Government of Quebec in limiting, to the extent that the Government of Quebec has, free expression by anglophones in the province of Quebec.
That sad development in Quebec was also deplorable, and I and many other Canadians condemned it. Unlike the gesture by the town of Sault Ste. Marie, it was a move in the province of Quebec which actually does limit the rights of people as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a move which confirmed a sense of despair in the anglophone community of Quebec and which no doubt will be a factor in contributing to the departure from the province of Quebec of some anglo-
February 2, 1990

phones, a province which anglophones love as much as francophones who live there do.
I spent some time yesterday listening to the hot-line programs across the province of Quebec. I can tell the people of the municipality of Sault Ste. Marie that if their message was meant to encourage an improvement, it has not done so. It has only made things worse, as predictably it would. It makes it look as if this country has forgotten the openness or accommodation which is the essential ingredient of our creation as a country and the key to our good fortune as a country.
We never had the choice in Canada of being the monolithic culture which some countries are and which for some has given meaning to their national identity. We do not have that choice today. If we try to deny our diversity and suppress our differences, we will destroy ourselves.
The second example that I wanted to refer to is also a small incident in itself, small in a sense that it takes no one's rights away, but it directly affects the dignity of Canadians. I am referring to the rash of racist buttons which are being sold and eagerly bought by some in western Canada. As I say, these buttons do not take rights away, but they do attack the dignity of those they insult. They are most hurtful in their portrayal of non-whites as inferior races who are not a cultural match for whites.
This could be ignored as nonsense if it was not so hurtful. The false portrayal of the so-called sad plight of the whites in Canadian society makes a statement very far from true about the status of whites in Canada in every category of status comparison with non-whites. It is deplorable if not illegal and, while no one suffers the loss of rights, I ask the people who wear them to consider how it makes young Sikhs, young blacks, young Indians, and young orientals who were born in Canada feel when they see these insults.
In conclusion, the resolution is moved because it is not enough to identify problems. It is not enough to put in place national institutions, as we have done, or those which we will establish today to address these problems. We need to call on all Canadians who recognize what is at stake, who see that something precious is in danger, that our heritage is in danger and that our future
Supply
together is in danger, to speak out. For the worst to triumph all that is required is for good people to remain silent.


Mr. Allmand:: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his very worth-while motion. It is a motion which asks this House to condemn intolerance and urges the government to play a role in strengthening understanding and respect among Canadians.
As the member knows, yesterday was the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. It is a landmark statement with respect to tolerance and understanding. It is a report which recommended tolerance in language rights, and which said that both francophones and anglophones in this country should have the right to use their own language, to have their own schools, to have their own institutions such as radio, television and health institutions. Unfortunately, 25 years later progress has been uneven.
The hon. member mentioned in his speech the recent decision by the city council at Sault Ste. Marie, a very unfortunate and prejudicial decision directed against francophones. We deplore and condemn that action. On the other hand, we have the passage of Bill 178 in Quebec, passed against the judgment of the Supreme Court by the use of the notwithstanding clause. Therefore, we have instances of intolerance and prejudice both directed against francophones and directed against anglophones.
I would ask the member if he has some suggestions to make to the House with respect to not only the situation in Sault Ste. Marie, but also to the fact that the Government of Quebec would pass a law which I believe to be an intolerant law forbidding the use of languages other than French, even though the Supreme Court suggested that the Government of Quebec might mandate the use of French but should not ban the use of other languages. It even recognized the priority of the French language in Quebec.
What recommendations can the member make to this House, since he is the initiator of this motion, to bring about greater understanding and peace, not only in Quebec between anglophones and francophones but throughout the country, and to move ahead in the true

February 2, 1990
Supply
spirit of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to thank my colleague for expressing so well the problems of intolerance behind some of the setbacks taking place in the country which inspired today's resolution. I hope it will lead to a greater recognition across Canada of a fact which I offer to the hon. member as at least a large part of the solution, that is recognizing what it is that has made this country great and what it is at the bottom that has made this country possible: the accommodation of difference and respect for it.
I do not want to abstract the problem from the context of the two situations that he referred to, the situation in Sault Ste. Marie and the situation with the anglophone language of signs right which was affected and diminished by Bill 178 in the province of Quebec. I deplore what happened in the province of Quebec at the time, as I deplore what happened in the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Surely the solution is for us all to recognize as a nation what we have to gain by mutual respect and by respecting in particular those rights which are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.
We do not build a nation and then sit back and enjoy it. Building a nation is something that has to be done every day. We should be alert and vigilant every day to the suppression of rights, to insults to minority groups, and we should take steps when we see them to call them what they are.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).
I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. As a people, Canadians commit themselves to the creation of a society that ensures equality and justice for all, regardless of race or ethnic origin.
We find these words in the preamble to the Acknowledgment text signed by the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).
Madam Speaker, I would like to know to whom these words apply. If we look at what is happening in this country, the principles of equality and justice for all
seem at times, I would even say all too often, to be ignored by the very people whose mandate it is to uphold these principles.
Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), where was justice in the trial of Donald Marshall in Halifax? Where was equality for all, when Donald Marshall, son of the Grand Chief of the Micmac Indians, was arrested? And this is only one of many cases.

Two research studies done in Nova Scotia have shown that prejudice against the natives and blacks is prevalent and leads to discrimination against them in the justice system.
A study by Dr. Wilson Head, president of the Federation on Race Relations in Toronto, and Donald Clair-mont, a Dalhousie University sociologist, state clearly that "blacks have been viewed as undesirable, unable to adapt to a cold climate, shiftless, lazy, and fit only for slavery and as servants of the wealthy."

Madam Speaker, the intolerance and prejudice that exist in our society are unacceptable. It is high time the government got the situation under control, before it is too late. We must invest in citizenship programs. We must provide new immigrants, who often become the scapegoats of our frustrations, the resources they need to acquire a better understanding of the culture in which they have chosen to live. We must give them the means to adjust to their new country by helping them acquire a good knowledge of the language of daily life. Above all, however, and this may be where we have failed most, we must encourage Canadians to learn to know and accept Canada's new image.
Madam Speaker, it is important for various ethnic and racial groups to be visible in all areas that influence the image the government wishes to project of Canadian society. We need them in the government, at the decision-making level; in the media, to help prepare programs and series that are representative of the new Canadian reality; and in education, at all levels. If the government really wants to wipe out inequality and intolerance in this country, it must set an example. All Canadians must have their place in all sectors of our society.
February 2, 1990

Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable that in 1990, I should still receive letters from people who are being denied-one wonders on what authority-the right to be different.
I would like to read a short passage from a five-page letter I received from one of my constituents. I may point out that this person was employed in the Public Service. She has been in Canada for 25 years, and her only fault was that she was an immigrant. She explained in her letter that she tried to open the window of a room filled with cigarette smoke. I apologize for the unparliamentary language, but this is a daily part of some people's lives.
So I beg the indulgence of the Chair and my colleagues. I quote:
"I asked for permission to open the window (since I did not have the right to touch any window or door and I always had to ask for permission, just in my case, but if any other employees did, it was all right. -Then the cleaner jumped on me, shouting and calling me a 'damn immigrant woman. Why don't you go back to your land of camels? You have come to take our place, damn you. You won't stay here long.'" She continues: "I asked him, 'How do you know that I won't stay here?' He answered, 'I have been told and everyone knows, damn you.' I went to see the manager. He blushed and told me, 'This is a democracy. The majority wins.'"

The letter continues. This is not an isolated case. I am certain that everyone in this room knows of someone being abused in some way. We even do it in our ethnic and racial jokes. We never think of the effect it can have on the group we are joking about.
If we really want our nation to stay one, it is high time the government publicly condemned intolerance and prejudice and played a leading role in strengthening understanding and respect among Canadians and those who aspire to become Canadians.
The government must be pro-active. It must stop reacting to crisis and start weaving bonds between all, young and old, all professions and all cultures, all religions and all races. If we can do it to fight a war, why can we not do it to guarantee peace? What does this say for our society?
Supply

I am very concerned when a society has reached a point where a disenchanted employee can take the liberty to give the weather forecast, slipping in a message of intolerance like this, and I quote:

"Today, mainly sunny with racists. Then clouding over this afternoon with a chance of flurries and Nazis."

Those were the words used.
Madam Speaker, throughout Canada, intolerance is on the rise. Now we must stop saying so, playing the ostrich and hoping it will go away. We must take concrete action. We can no longer afford to wait for miracle solutions. The government must act, take a stand and provide support wherever this positive action is taken.
Madam Speaker, how can we tolerate racist buttons whose purpose is to denigrate another human being? Have we become so indifferent to what is going on around us? When will the government admit that however small the offense, even if it is just a button, it is still an offense and often it is an accumulation of small incidents that finally cause peace to break down, just as water eats away at a rock?

I do not think at this time that I need to pinpoint events where intolerance and prejudice are, sad to say, daily news. I condemn this and urge the government to play its role in strengthening understanding and respect among Canadians.

In conclusion, I would like to quote another great Canadian: "If we want to be independent and proud, we must keep this country united."


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville (Mrs. Maheu) for her excellent speech on Canadian citizenship and what it really means. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). First, his motion:
That this House condemn the intolerance and prejudice in Canadian
society that damages the fabric of the nation and urge the government

February 2, 1990
Supply
and all members of Parliament to play a role in strengthening
understanding and respect among Canadians.
As a Canadian citizen who is a fourth-generation Franco-Ontarian, I have often lived with prejudice and I am very sorry to see how much prejudice some people in Quebec have against their English-speaking fellow citizens. This week I was greatly distressed by the negative reaction exemplified in Sault Ste. Marie. As a former alderman, I know that small groups often lobby municipal councils for one cause or another; 99.9 per cent of the time, these causes are very worthwhile and municipal councils often present motions to accommodate groups and thus show their attitude to some event or other. In the case of Sault Ste. Marie, they had nothing to gain; it was negative, very negative. There was no reason for it to happen. I am afraid that the next resolution in a place like Sault Ste. Marie will be about people's colour. Then will it be religion? Canada was built by French, British, European, Asian and other immigrants. Because of intolerance, we came here to America to find a better world. And it is really deplorable that a generation or two or three later, the descendants of immigrants present such negative resolutions. So I congratulate the two hon. members who spoke before me for their presentation on tolerance in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Further questions or comments? Resuming debate. The Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Wiener).


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's motion I wish to reaffirm this Canadian government's commitment to the principles of tolerance, respect and understanding for all Canadians.
About three decades ago Martin Luther King, Jr., said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This is why we have been working with groups across the country to eliminate intolerance, racism and racial discrimination in order to build a more just and caring society. It goes without saying that the first salvo in the battle against intolerance and racial discrimination is the acknowledgement of the presence of these evils in our society. We know there is prejudice in our society. We
have all come into contact with it. But government alone cannot eliminate intolerance and racism.
We must have the co-operation of like-minded citizens. A recent incident shows that we have many Canadians willing to speak out against prejudice. Hon. members are aware of the racist pin being sold in Calgary. Its sale was another example of the intolerance we must overcome. The sale of this pin also brought home the fact that Canadians will not tolerate such an attitude. The swift reaction to this pin was most encouraging. The community came together and spoke out against its blatant prejudice. Editorial writers, columnists, the mayor of Calgary, the Alberta Human Rights Commission, the business community, all have spoken out against the blatant prejudice of these products. I myself issued a very strong condemnation of this very abominable behaviour.
The reaction to an incident such as this demonstrates the true heart of Canada. Canadians not only in Calgary, not only in Alberta, but throughout the country made their voices heard. They spelled it out. Racist symbols and the hatred they generate will not be tolerated.
We know the majority of Canadians celebrate the rich cultural diversity of Canada, but this government wants to ensure that cultural diversity, which we have declared in law to be a fundamental characteristic of Canada, is realized in fact.

Madam Speaker, Canada is lucky to be a young and free country, founded on the principles of openness and tolerance. We are a peace-loving people, a society that has always put the well-being and interests of its citizens above any other considerations, a country that has always cultivated the values of equality.
Entire generations of Canadians of all origins chose Canada because they knew they could live in peace and prosper in this country. They did far more than that, however. They helped make this country what it is today. It is largely thanks to them that today, Canada is a prosperous nation and one of the world's great industrial powers. It is also thanks to them that today, the Canadian character stands for something unique in this world, based on generosity, solidarity, and respect for others.
February 2, 1990



The multiculturalism policy of this government has created a vision of this country. It is a vision of nationbuilding and of national unity. We are building political and national unity out of our cultural diversity. Our diversity is what strengthens us. This is nation-building; this is equality; this is social justice. For this government multiculturalism is not simply the recognition of cultural diversity. For us it is an egalitarian and anti-racist philosophy and program.
Philosophically multiculturalism is a way of thinking about cultural diversity which emphasizes that all citizens have equal political, social and cultural rights. It views cultural differences as features of social life which must be incorporated into all aspects of the functioning of the state. To do otherwise would be to allow our cultural differences to destabilize society. With regard to racism, multiculturalism holds that it is at best pseudoscientific nonsense and at worst a blatant fraud.
Programmatically multiculturalism seeks to preserve, enhance and share the elements of cultural diversity by, among other things, supporting the teaching of heritage languages, establishing chairs of ethnic studies and encouraging various artistic productions. In this endeavour it recognizes the need for active participation with the community, with institutions and with all levels of government as we pursue the important task of nationbuilding. Multiculturalism is also dedicated to the eradication of racism by relentlessly exposing its pseudo-scientific and fraudulent assumptions and by bringing about changes in social institutions that perpetuate inequality on the basis of cultural and physical differences.
This government introduced the first Employment Equity Act. It also established a committee to advise the Treasury Board on the representation of visible minorities in the Public Service. We opened up the Canadian Jobs Strategy to enable more immigrant women to benefit from language and skills training. We have addressed the grievances of Japanese Canadians, brought into law the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and introduced Bill C-18 to establish the new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. This new department will strengthen national integration and national identity and will enable all Canadians to participate fully and without discrimination in building the nation's future.
Supply
It will work with community groups to break down the barriers and limitations that deny some Canadians full participation in day to day community life.
This nation has a rich cultural and ethnic diversity. It must be allowed to be given full expression in terms of our citizenship. Full citizenship demands full participation. It demands equal access for each one of us and we will not accept any less.
We have been working very vigorously to make Canadians much more aware of the benefits that this brings to the nation and to show how much more productive we have become, how much more challenging we are, how much more competitive we are when we use our full human resource.
We have been building partnerships so that multiculturalism is mainstream for every institution of the community. We have been examining how we can, through this program and with this cross-government commitment, examine every institution to see how they can be helped to become more familiar with it, allow more participation and derive more benefit from having this full and open participation. And, we have been making significant progress.
Our Canadian Multiculturalism Act provides a strong legislative base to promote social justice and equal opportunity for all Canadians. There is an increasing appreciation that the task of nation building is profoundly influenced by our social and cultural relations. Recognizing this, our Multiculturalism Act pledges that the Canadian government go beyond establishing equality rights. It promotes a multicultural and open society where all Canadians can participate and can contribute to their fullest extent.
The act strengthens our Canadian identity. It contributes to our understanding and acceptance of each other's uniqueness. It commits the Canadian government to ensuring that all Canadians can participate fully and without discrimination in defining and building Canada's future. Our multiculturalism policy will help Canada enter the 21st century with emphasis on the positive aspects of coexistence among culturally diverse communities.
The act is a direct result of our efforts to develop a model society. We have developed a society where diversity is acknowledged as a strength and where

February 2, 1990
Supply
freedom and tolerance, fairness and courtesy, compassion and common sense are overriding characteristics. This is what we mean by cultural integration, not the form of assimilation which has been tried in other parts of the world. We believe in the preservation and the enrichment of our society for all Canadians. This has become a unique world model being examined and followed by nations around the globe.
The act that we brought forward states that multicul-turalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society. That is a key statement of government policy, because it establishes for the first time in law that cultural diversity must be taken into consideration in the decision making of all government institutions.
Our new Governor General, His Excellency, the Right Hon. Ramon Hnatyshyn, expressed the identity of our country in his inaugural address this past Monday:
The ability to change and move with history has been bred into the Canadian character. We are an Atlantic country, a Pacific Rim country, and we are linked almost mystically with the north. Rather than locking ourselves into rigid definitions and ways of acting, we have moulded ourselves into a complex and subtle nation.

The Department for which I am responsible has always worked very hard, especially in recent years, to fight discrimination and promote equal opportunities for all citizens.
For instance, in recent years the Women's Program at the Department of the Secretary of State has provided financial and many other types of support for many organizations involved in promoting women's rights. We have placed special emphasis on promoting economic equality, access to social justice and services, and the full and complete participation of women in society.
For a number of years the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal and provincial human rights legislation have helped to reduce various forms of discrimination and inequality affecting women. Of course, much remains to be done, but in this respect Canada compares well with most other countries.
Earlier I spoke of a racist incident that brought a strong response from many Canadians. Now I wish to say a few words about the government's formal efforts to combat racist attitudes.
We have a race relations and cross-cultural understanding program. It supports efforts by Canadian institutions, community groups and individuals to eliminate discrimination and foster understanding. The program encourages institutions in fields such as justice, education, labour, social services and the media to better serve our multicultural society. It helps community organizations promote equality and mutual understanding. It provides financial assistance for research and development of cross-culture training methods.
Under this program, in partnership with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, we have carried out several initiatives designed to help police forces become more sensitive to our country's cultural diversity. We have assisted the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in implementing its own municipal race relations program. We have supported such activities as the establishment of the National Action Committee on Race Relations. The program has also assisted the Canadian Human Rights Foundation in helping promote awareness in the legal community of the legal basis of multiculturalism.
Under the program, we held a national symposium on the impact of media on race relations. Hon. members will recall that only two days ago I tabled a bill in the House to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation with its principal office in metropolitan Toronto.
Hon. members will also be familiar with the government's initiatives marking the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21. We will continue to use special days like March 21 to focus attention on the issues.
The Prime Minister of Canada, speaking at the installation of our new Governor General on Monday, said:
Canada has constitutional promises to keep, multiple cultures to
reconcile and regional disparities to redress. The task of nation-
February 2, 1990

building is often difficult, and its fruits are rarely perfect. But they
are the culmination of generous contributions to a noble cause-the
building of a strengthened and progressive nation.
I share with the Prime Minister a vision of a new Canada, a Canada where our different customs and traditions, our origins and colour of our skin are a wonderful and varied expression of our common humanity. We are striving for a diversity to which we all contribute, a diversity from which we all benefit.

To achieve harmony among our various cultural groups remains one of the fundamental objectives of Canadian society.
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to have been given a chance to work towards this goal. Considerable progress has been made this year.

I have noticed a lot of good will, a lot of realism, a lot of understanding. We will soon be bringing forward a Canadian multiculturalism advisory committee. It will bring forward individuals representative of the varied institutions that we will be working with: labour, business, the voluntary sector, education, private and public sectors, health and social services. It will be an opportunity for us to examine institutions within the community to see how they can, once and for all, allow the full participation of all of our citizens.
It is an area of our endeavour of which we are particularly proud. There are still far too many incidents that are disquietening, with distressing undercurrents. We are developing initiatives to address concerns such as those raised by the Marshall inquiry in a very proactive manner. We have been consulting actively. For example, I have been to Halifax four times in the last year.
We have some very exciting ideas. I signed an agreement this past year with the city of Halifax on a very important initiative. We are looking to bring forward more important programs to help create equality in this society.
Wherever we turn, I have been forceful and vigilant on behalf of the government. I am pleased to say that Canadians from coast to coast have been very helpful in wanting to get more involved in the issue. I am thankful
Supply
that we have an opportunity today, not only to reach all members of Parliament, but to be able sensitize the entire Canadian community to the benefits of what we are talking about. To keep a situation of second-class citizenship in the country is dangerous. It promotes racial tensions, and it is something we must avoid at all costs.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, an initiative that was supposed to deal with intolerance and prejudice in the workplace was the government's Employment Equity Act passed in 1986. This law was supposed to implement affirmative action programs for women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and disabled people. Two years after the passage of the act very little progress has been made, and that was pointed out in the annual report pursuant to the act which was tabled in this House at the end of 1989.
Following the tabling of that report, Max Yalden, Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stated that very little progress had been made. That criticism was seconded by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
In his speech the minister made some very strong statements against prejudice, and I congratulate him on that. There were some very good statements.
If he is sincere in what he says, will he not recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is responsible for the Employment Equity Act, to amend that act so it can be an effective act? The stated purposes in the act are very good, but the act is inadequate in that it does not have effective sanctions or an effective enforcement agency.
If the minister is sincere and if the government is sincere in trying to do the things that they say they stand for, surely they will want to amend that act so that we will not continue to get the kind of reports that we got this year. For example, even companies like the Canada Post Corporation and the CBC, all Crown companies, were getting failing grades against all target groups such as women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and disabled people. They had a horrible record, according to this report. It included private companies as well.
Would he not support an initiative to amend that law to make it do what he really wants to do?

February 2, 1990


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace will know that I served as the parliamentary secretary at the time the employment equity bill was brought forward.
I have heard the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration respond that they are currently examining the whole process of what has been implemented and the effect of it on the program. In a very short period of time, she will be coming to her cabinet colleagues and discussing with them an opportunity of perhaps further strengthening the process.
I am certainly awaiting what she will bring forward from within her area of responsibility. I will indicate that those who have heard me across the country, wherever I have been, certainly have not found me to be lacking in the understanding I have of the inequality I have found.
I am not new to this issue. I have worked as a volunteer in the field all my life. If there is one thing that I carry with me from my youth it is a remembrance of the intolerance, the lack of understanding and the lack of opportunity that I faced as a member of a cultural community at that time. Many members of my community have now overcome it, but it is still blatant and present for many others.
What I have said as an individual and offering the leadership of the federal government is that we have been prepared to examine every institution beginning with ourselves and demand that once and for all it provide full equality, full access, and full understanding. That is what our citizenship demands and we will accept no less.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There will be five minutes left in the questions and comment period following the minister's speech after Question Period.

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, for many months now my office has been offering a sympathetic ear to small business in my riding. Their concerns are not simply the monetary expenses which they will be confronted with in administering the GST. They are also concerned about the logistics and added pressures of dealing with the ever-deeper reach which this government is making into their lives and livelihood.
For example, tax preparers will be forced to submit pages 5 and 6 of every individual return for 1989 on green paper. Normally blue paper is accepted for income tax returns but pages 5 and 6 are the GST refund application forms. The government seems unable and unwilling to take its time to sort these pages out on its own. Instead they are placing the monumental task of submitting 2.5 million prepared forms on the backs of the tax preparers.
I suggest to the government that the Minister of Finance has set these tasks and expenses upon the backs of the small businessmen of Canada at his and his government's peril, and a further frustration for small business.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the outstanding performance of Quebec athletes at the Commonwealth Games in Auckland. I would like to pay tribute to Guillaume Leblanc of Rimouski, who yesterday won a gold medal in the 30-kilometre racewalk. He finished the race in two hours, eight minutes and 28 seconds. This was Guillaume Leblanc's third time at the Olympics, after Seoul and Los Angeles.
I would also like to mention the excellent work done by Joanne Falardeau of Quebec City and Denyse Julien of Rouyn-Noranda, who won a bronze medal in badminton doubles. These achievements are the result of

incredible perseverance and hard work, something only exceptionally dynamic athletes can manage. I am sure that hon. members will wish to join me today in applauding these athletes from Quebec who honour our country with their success.


RELEASE OF NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, radio and TV today announced that Prime Minister de Klerk of South Africa will he says soon release Nelson Mandela and legalize the African National Congress and other organizations which have been banned. This is something that people all over the world have worked for.
But we should be especially thankful to the courageous and mainly peaceful struggle of the South African people, blacks and whites, Christians and communists, who have struggled for half a century for justice against apartheid. We should thank also the United Nations which made apartheid illegal under international law and encouraged sanctions by many countries to put pressure on the apartheid government.
We should also look to the future because the African National Congress Charter, which was banned as a subversive document, calls among other things for universal literacy in a government drive against illiteracy, for health care, for housing and these are all matters in which we could copy the Charter of the African National Congress.


CANADIAN RACE RELATIONS FOUNDATION
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the hon. Gerry Weiner tabled a bill to establish a Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Tabling this legislation reinforces the government's commitment to equality for all Canadians as expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the Multiculturalism Act.
The foundation will serve as a national resource for community groups, governments, institutions, the private sector, researchers and the general public to further. their understanding of racism and racial disrimination in Canadian society. The foundation, whose principal office will be located in the Toronto area, will be instrumental in the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society.
I urge the hon. members to support the new foundation in its effort to combat racism wherever it exists.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, the role of the CBC in Canada is no less vital today than it has been at any time in our history. Canadians who value this great national institution should, may I say with great respect, wake up to the fact that the CBC as we have known it in this country is now about to be destroyed. May I suggest, Madam Speaker, by a deliberate design of the government opposite, primarily by the Minister of Finance who, in his headlong rush to meet his economic priorities, is destroying a part of Canada's heritage, destroying that institution that has provided the nation with a mirror of itself and mirrors this nation to the rest of the world, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
On Tuesday, the CBC announced cuts of $140 million over four years laying off 500 employees. On Wednesday, the Minister of Communications suggested CBC should get out of the advertising business, a loss of $360 million a year, and today we find out that childrens' programming is being cut by the CBC. There is pitifully little enough good children's programming available to our children in this nation. There is fewer still of good Canadian programming. Let's stop the destruction of Canada's culture and a great national Canadian institution.


REFORESTATION
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, government and landowners should seek every opportunity to plant more trees. Presently there are a variety of federal and provincial government programs to assist reforestation. While these programs have proven quite successful, we still face a tremendous opportunity and challenge for replenishing and expanding our forests. Canada has vast areas of rural wasteland in regions

February 2, 1990
where the climate is ideal for growing trees. This land should be planted with trees.
The National Soil Conservation Program and associated agreements with the provinces offer another opportunity to stimulate reforestation. Under these new programs highly erodable land will no longer be used for production of annual field crops. Trees could be a part of the permanent ground cover for such lands. The largest challenge and responsibility falls on individual landowners. I urge those with unproductive or erosion-prone rural lands to make a resolution for the 1990s. That resolution should be "Plant Trees".


FINANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on a serious concern. We know that sometime this month the Minister of Finance is going to introduce his budget for the upcoming year. We also have been told by the same minister that he does not have the time to meet with ordinary Canadians. This year the hon. minister has chosen to prepare his budget behind closed doors surrounded only by his nearest and dearest.
The government can promise Boeing $150 million prior to the budget but it cannot meet with ordinary Canadians. Perhaps since the minister refuses to meet and consult with the rest of us, he will simply announce in this House what he will do and what workers should do with regard to negotiating higher raises to counteract the GST. You know the GST, Madam Speaker. That is the tax on which Jean Chretien will not give his position.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Should northern workers start bargaining for benefits to compensate for the impending loss of northern tax benefits? Should other workers be concerned about what is going to happen to UI premiums? What is going to happen to medicare and health programs across this country? When is the minister going to talk with ordinary Canadians and tell us what our future is all about?


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, the report of the Royal Commission on the Donald
Marshall case is forcing Canadians to re-assess their attitudes and examine the extent of intolerance, discrimination and prejudice in Canadian society.
Aboriginal people are still in some parts of the country confronted daily with racial prejudice. It is hard to for aboriginal people to watch television movies in which our people are slow, dumb, vicious, blood-thirsty and speak in one- syllables. It is difficult to read old books which portray aboriginal people as "primitive" and "uncivilized". The recently re-released book of Pierre Berton, The Mysterious North is a modem example of old attitudes. Originally published in 1956 its descriptions of aboriginal people are offensive.
In a preface to the 1989 edition, Berton acknowledges that attitudes have changes toward the north and aboriginal people since the 1950s. While the book may be entertaining reading for most people-it won the Governor General's award-its repackaging is painful reading for aboriginal people.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, in the past couple of weeks we have had a couple of announcements coming out of Prince Edward Island. Both of these announcements were made for the best of reasons. They were made by two major corporations, McCain's and Irving's.
They were really announcements of how positive we are in Atlantic Canada. Both of these companies are expanding in Prince Edward Island for the very best of reasons, namely, that we can in Atlantic Canada do what we do best, do it better than any part of the world and compete on a very even and level playing field.
With these announcements nothing was done at the expense of the industry in any part of Canada nor will they endanger the industry in any other part of Canada. I am very proud of what the Irving and McCain corporations are doing in Prince Edward Island. I think as Canadians we can be very proud of the fact that we can compete on the international market.
February 2, 1990


WINTERLUDE 1990
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, the temperature in the National Capital Region dropped overnight and as the final ingredient for another successful Winterlude the weather kicked into gear.
Thanks to all the volunteers and organizers, the people of the National Capital Region and the more than the million tourists who come to the nation's capital to participate in the ten-day party, Winterlude, 1990, can begin.
This year's theme is distinctly Denmark and promises to be the best ever. So put on your toque and mitts and have some fun. See the ice sculptures, watch the races and the fireworks, go for a skate on the canal while feasting on a beaver tail. Take a sleigh ride and cheer on the participants in the many competitions. Laugh with the clowns and watch the barrel jumpers. Enjoy the culinary dishes available at every turn. More than 300 events will take place over the next ten days so participate and enjoy.
In my constituency of Nepean we too will have programs. Hot air balloons and kites will fly the air tonight. The nation's capital is ready. The people are energetic. The weather is perfect.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Madam Speaker, this morning we have every reason to rejoice, since President de Klerk of South Africa has made a start with reforms, announcing he will release leader Nelson Mandela and showing his willingness to negotiate in order to unban the Africa National Congress and other factions that want recognition of human rights in South Africa. This step is partly the result of pressure by Commonwealth countries.
Since 1985, our Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have worked very hard to fight apartheid and to support recognition of the rights of our black brothers in South Africa. I want to congratulate them, and I also wish to mention the courage shown by our Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver in October 1987, and on so many other occasions.
I would urge President de Klerk to perseveres, and I think all Canadians should be delighted with the first step made this morning.


ALLEGED COMMENTS OF MINISTER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, in this morning's Journal de Montreal, the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil), who is the minister responsible for Montreal, said: "If Montreal's economy is in decline, it is mainly due to an ignorant labour force."
Madam Speaker, "an ignorant labour force". Is the Labour Minister speaking on behalf of the federal government when he says that about the working people of Montreal? Do his colleagues here from Quebec agree with the Minister of Labour of Canada? This morning, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is in Chambly for a by-election. Does the Prime Minister agree with his minister that the Montreal labour force is ignorant? If the Prime Minister agrees, will he repeat it to the voters of Chambly this morning? Or if he completely disagrees with his Labour Minister who said that this morning in Chambly, will he apologize on behalf of his minister? It is quite important, Madam Speaker!


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, with the announcements received today from South Africa's President de Klerk about proposed new directions toward the elimination of racial discrimination in that country, the world takes another giant step forward in the historic journal of global civilization.
This will be encouraging good news for all nations but particularly so for the Commonwealth countries whose efforts to promote reform in South Africa have been diligent and dedicated for a very long time. Canada has played a major role in these respects and credit is due both to our Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for their personal stands and influ-

February 2, 1990
Oral Questions
ence on these issues leading up to today's dramatic events.
Surely this profound progress on the world's stage in which Canada has had a part will intensify the commitment and the creative energy of all Canadians to the continued building of our own country as a leading model among nations of racial and linguistic tolerance in a caring, compassionate and civilized society.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question this Friday morning is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Environment Minister, who is not here this morning, is well known as the great expert on by-elections. He promised his own riding more than $160 million to ensure his own election on June 20, 1988. But as the Deputy Prime Minister well knows, only the Prime Minister's prestige friends are entitled to such special treatment.
After promising for months that he would find a solution to the problem of the PCB containers which are still in Saint-Basile-le-Grand, the Environment Minister told the people of that community very recently that the cost would be so huge that it could not be justified, even in an election campaign. That is what the Environment Minister said.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is: If the government can provide a safe seat for the Environment Minister, why is it unable to provide safe living conditions for the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I would remind the right hon. member that the federal government has already contributed some $2 million in services to the people in the area and, furthermore, it is agreed to provide compensation in partnership with the province of Quebec. Those negotiations are still occurring. I might add that we have not as yet received a package from the
province of Quebec indicating what its request will be of us.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, again I address the Deputy Prime Minister, hoping for a reply. To show his alleged commitment to the environment and recycling programs, the government is recycling its old promises.
In 1988, the government promised to convert part of the firing range in Chambly into a green space. Now the Environment Minister is making the same promise again for this by-election. But only two years ago, eight soldiers were injured by a buried shell which exploded when they made a campfire. Will the Environment Minister stop manipulating the voters of Chambly? Why did he not ensure that the place was completely safe before recycling his own program?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Of course, as he knows we have reached an arrangement whereby 85 hectares of the 512-hectare St. Bruno site will be transferred under the jurisdiction of the parks department. It is on the hillside to enable public access to that area which the public had been requesting for a number of years.
I would like to assure him that that range is only used for firing with blank ammunition. No live shells are used in the firing exercises at St. Bruno.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remind the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the incident to which he referred did not occur at the St. Bruno firing range. It occurred at Val Cartier which, of course, is quite a different place. So we can assure the public that there is no danger in the public utilization of the St. Bruno range. I am sure that it is going to be a very welcome addition for recreational activities for the people of Chambly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that once more this government, when it comes to a by-election, shoots nothing but blanks in order to get votes.


Some hon. members:: Oh, Oh!
February 2, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the following question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Only he can answer a question on general government policy.
The Minister of the Environment, using a metaphor that the minister has just used, has bombed in his portfolio as Minister of the Environment. He is too busy on by-elections to concentrate on the big picture and his big program. For months we have been told that the government has a new plan for the environment. For months we have been told that the government has real spending plans for the environment. For months we have been told to wait for the Minister of Finance because he and the Minister of the Environment, when the Budget is brought down, are going to have a great new environmental protection program for Canada. Now we read, and I want the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on these reports, that the Minister of the Environment has failed and has fired blanks with his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance, and there will be no such program.
Would he confirm or deny those press reports? Would he assure us, hopefully, that that great plan for the environment that we have been waiting for from this newly-minted minister will finally see the light of day for Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to shooting blanks, the best example of that is the performance of the Leader of the Opposition in Question Period.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is relying upon The Globe and Mail for his research. I suppose his research staff has left him already because he is looking for a new job. The fact is that the-


John Napier Turner: Where is your answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will give you an answer. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition had two
Oral Questions
good answers to two very legitimate questions. I want to compliment both members for enlightening the minister.


Mr. Simmons:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If you will just give a little time, I will answer the question.


John Napier Turner: How much time?


An hon. member:: Stop rushing him.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: If you would like to sit down and get up later on-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am momentarily speechless. Perhaps the minister could finish his answer.


Ms. Clancy:: He hasn't started yet.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should stop relying on The Globe and Mail for his questions in Question Period.
I can assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues, and the people of the country that the Minister of the Environment is working on a new environmental policy which will be all-encompassing. It is a very major priority. It was outlined in the Speech from the Throne and, as in so many other cases, when this government makes a commitment, it delivers.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for Montreal.
Three years after the publication of the Picard report suggesting a development plan for Montreal, noted the renowned economist Laurent Picard who wrote this report advises us now that it is being implemented in Toronto and not in Montreal.
Could the govemement advise us whether it needs to take a geography course to find out where Montreal is really located? Could the Minister explain to me what stopped the government from implementing the recommendations of this report?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear to the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville that contrary to

Oral Questions
the previous administration, this government has dealt effectively with the situation which has developed on the Island of Montreal over the past few years.
As a first step, the government passed a legislation dealing with pharmaceuticals which the opposition had fought tooth and nail and which now represents nearly $700 million in investments on the Island of Montreal.
Something the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Car-tierville might be unaware of, this government has contributed to the prosperity of the riding she lives and works in by granting $43 million to Canadair to help this corporation get involve in the production of the stretched Jet liner and create 2,000 new jobs in that industry.
The government I represent has located in the Montreal area the Space Agency which should be worth $3 billion to the Montreal economy over the next few years and which, as recently as last Friday, awarded a contract to the Spar Aerospace corporation in Montreal, resulting in some $140 million investments in that area.
When one considers the situation now with what it was previously, Mr. Speaker, one realizes that the level of unemployment is much lower on the Montreal Island.
Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville): Mr. Speaker, I wish I had as much time as the minister!
By the way, most drug manufacturers are based in Toronto.
I should like to know why Mr. Picard, the author of the report, has seen fit to focus on the inaction of the very government that commissioned his report. Just what does the government plan to do in the immediate future to implement the Picard report recommendations?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to do the excellent job it has been doing in recent years. Again I would remind the seemingly forgetful Member for Saint-Laurent that our government made a major contribution towards the establishment of an agency called CITEC in her riding.
With respect to Montreal East, Mr. Speaker, which happens to be the island's worse off sector as a result of years of neglect on the part of our colleagues opposite,
last year we invested $13 million in the Industrial Recovery Program for East End Montreal which attracted private sector investments of $65 million.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat in the House that, contrary to Mr. Picard's statement, a man whose professional credentials I duly acknowledge, the federal government is not primarily responsible for the economic recovery of the Island of Montreal. The impetus should originate from local circles and we intervene only to grease the wheels, not to set them in motion.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Before the election in October, 1988, the Prime Minister made several very strong statements. He said on October 15, "We are prepared to subject every federal undertaking and every undertaking on federal lands to a full environmental impact study". On October 20, he said: "No area is higher on our environmental priority list than the Great Lakes themselves". On October 1, he said: "We stand for a cleaner, safer environment".
In the Throne Speech, this government's last Throne Speech, we were told, and I quote: "The world itself is facing an environmental challenge of unprecedented magnitude". These are serious words but there is no serious action. This government is doing nothing. It now appears that even the Minister of the Environment does not have the support of his colleagues. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, when will he give this House a firm deadline for the introduction of the government's environmental plan?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I think all members of the House know, it is exceedingly important that this country have the kind of legislation in place which will ensure that decisions of government respecting the environment made in the future will have clarity and certainty with respect to the responsibilities of this
February 2, 1990

government, the responsibilities of the provinces and all the interested parties.
As we know, the ERP guidelines which we inherited when we came to power in 1984 have clearly been found to be inadequate. As a result of that, the Minister of the Environment has committed himself to the formulation of new legislation which is part of an environmental agenda. That legislation and the environmental agenda require the co-operation and participation of all departments within this government. It is absolutely essential that this legislation and this agenda be drafted in such a way that we avoid the mistakes and messes created in the past by that party over there. Therefore, we are ensuring that the legislation be done in such a fashion. Although it may be later than we would wish, it will meet the test when it is there.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
All that we can hear and all that Canadians can hear from the answer to the previous question is that this government was inadequate in 1984 in dealing with the environment, inadequate in 1988 and inadequate again in 1990. They cannot get their act together.


An hon. member:: Six years later, nothing.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up waiting for the government to act.
Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister something more specific. Earlier this week the city of Toronto committed itself to a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2005. This was something the minister of energy rejected despite the recommendations of many experts.
Will this government take some real action and commit itself to a reduction of carbon emissions by the year 2005?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to the government's record on the environment as being inadequate, she is really misstating the facts. Quite frankly,
Oral Questions
since this government came into power we have brought in a Canadian Environmental Protection Act that stands as a model in the world, a made in Canada acid rain control program. We have the toughest controls on car emissions of any country in the world.
When it comes to water, we released a comprehensive federal water strategy, a $110 million clean-up of the St. Lawrence River, a $75 million clean-up of the Halifax Harbour, a clean-up of the Sydney tar ponds. We have negotiated and signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the United States, created six new national parks, $106 million to South Moresby, the Rouge River Wilderness Park and created the first national marine park at Bruce Peninsula.
In addition to that, the leadership internationally has been outstanding both by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians are fed up with the empty promises of this government. Throughout the electoral campaign the government kept saying it would launch effective environmental assessment programs. Last fall the minister promised to introduce this kind of legislation. When will the minister table his bill?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what I enunciated on behalf of the Minister of the Environment were not promises; they were undertakings and they were accomplishments.
As has been pointed out in the Speech from the Throne and has been enunciated by the Minister of the Environment, he is working on a comprehensive plan. Included in that will be legislation. I hope when the legislation is brought forth that that party will not diddle-daddle and subvert the democratic and parliamentary process by refusing to debate legislation with innocuous points of order and disruptive tactics that do that party no good and the House of Commons no good either.

February 2, 1990
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This is a black Friday, finishing off a black week for the CBC. On Tuesday Canadians were told about budget cuts totalling $140 million.
There were 400 or 500 jobs slashed. Today we get the news of a children's program chopped which is regionally produced in four centres and seen in most parts of the country. This is step by step dismantling of a great Canadian institution. The next thing we know the government will be telling Canadian kids that they cannot watch Mr. Dress-up.
Is it the government's objective to preside over the destruction of the CBC? Is that the goal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am told by members who attend the respective standing committee that the hon. member made quite a strong case about the fat that occurs in the CBC on Bronson Avenue. He made strong representations. Obviously, his representations have been taken into consideration by the management and they have acted.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has just attacked the management of the CBC. He evades his own responsibility. It is quite clear what is happening. This government has slashed the CBC budget. The CBC has had no choice but to cut its regional program budget and this is not going to be the end of it. Down the road we are going to see program cuts at the network level. Canadians are not going to stand for this. What we are seeing is the slow death of the CBC, death by strangulation.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. When is the government going to take its responsibilities seriously and provide support and leadership and not just a knife to the CBC?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear to the hon. members of the House that I am not attacking the CBC management. As a matter of fact we are
supportive of the CBC management. We think they are doing a great job.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he really meant what he said. Is he in favour of the cuts that have occurred on Bronson Avenue? Obviously the management has taken cognizance of his representations and they have acted on the basis of some recommendations that are coming from members of the committee. I think that is the way the parliamentary process should work and I congratulate him.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the effects of the 7 per cent goods and services tax are a slap in the face to those Canadians who built this country.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. How does this government plan to significantly compensate those seniors, including the 27,000 in my riding, living on fixed incomes, when we know the cost of day-to-day living will increase under this oppressive and regressive goods and services tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I commented on this yesterday and I will comment again. There are a number of items that are not taxed under the goods and services tax which are of direct interest and concern to senior citizens: basic groceries, meals on wheels, meals served in nursing homes, charges for health and dental care, hospital and nursing-home care, prescription drugs, medical devices. No tax will be charged on residential rents, on municipal transit, passenger ferry service, legal aid services and other financial services.
Eighty-four per cent of seniors will receive the benefit of the goods and services tax credit which is a cheque that is paid in advance four times a year to people who are eligible to receive it. As I have said, 84 per cent will receive that credit. The result is that a large proportion of senior citizens will be better off after sales tax reform than before.
The hon. member is shaking her head. These are the conclusions that have been arrived at by people in the Department of Finance. They have certified these numbers and if my colleague, the hon. member, disagrees with those numbers she has the responsibility to state
February 2, 1990

precisely where those numbers are wrong. Otherwise she should not be leading senior citizens astray with this faulty information.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, many studies, including the Canadian Seniors Network report, disagree. They say seniors living on a tight budget near or below the poverty level will pay still more under this 7 per cent goods and services tax.


An hon. member:: Clothing, services, home repairs.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I might ask hon. members to allow the member to put her question.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the clawback makes pensioners pay more. The 7 per cent goods and services tax will make pensioners pay more. When will this government accept its responsibility to seniors by providing them with security and an adequate standard of living and promise them that once the rate is set at 7 per cent, it will remain at 7 per cent; not 7 per cent this year, 9 per cent next year and 11 per cent by 1992?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hear again that the Liberal Party is supportive of continuing to pay seniors who are earning more than $50,000 for a program which we cannot afford. Surely the hon. member realizes the significance of the deficit and the debt problem that we are facing. Many seniors understand the significance of that. Many seniors have stated directly to me that they support our efforts to get the deficit down. That requires as broad a sharing of the burden as is possible.
For senior citizens, we have only asked those who are earning more than $50,000 to participate in sharing that burden. That amounts to 4.3 per cent of seniors to share partially and only 1.8 per cent of seniors will have to pay back, through the tax system, their full old age security payment. That, I think, is a fair approach to dealing with what we believe on this side of the House is a most serious problem and that is the problem of the debt of this country.
Oral Questions FINANCE


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rendered a decision in the Hall case that allows chartered banks to repossess farm machinery, cars and other chattels that are in default without any notice and without any consideration to any other creditor. This means that there are two standards in this country, one for the chartered banks and one for the rest of Canadian lenders.
Will the minister ensure this House that it will introduce changes to the Bank Act by removing this unfair advantage so that the chartered banks are placed on the same level as any other financial institution such as credit unions and trust companies in terms of security and enforcement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hear the representation that the hon. member has made. This is a decision that has been rendered quite recently and, once we have had an opportunity to review that decision, we will be making known our views.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary will be on a subject that was decided some time ago.
There are thousands of Canadians who have signed promissory notes at a given rate only to find that later the bank had unilaterally increased their interest rate. A number of legal decisions have already been rendered ordering the banks to repay these overcharges, estimated to be between $2 and $3 billion to farmers alone.
Will the government today put a freeze on the destruction of bank records which they are doing to hide the facts and when will it take steps to force the banks to pay back these overcharges?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there has been extensive discussion in past years on this particular issue. I think the hon. member is quite aware of the position that the government has taken. As regards the destruction of records, there are specific rules in the Bank Act. They vary from four to ten years. The hon. member will be able to participate in the discussion of the review of the Bank Act when the Bank

February 2, 1990
Oral Questions
Act is opened. It must be opened every 10 years and that is something we can look at then.


HOUSING
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State for Housing. Prior to coming to the House I was in the construction industry. I still have many friends working in the home renovation industry.
They keep voicing their concerns to me about the implications of GST in the home renovation industry. They have concerns about whether or not these people are going to go to the underground economy and do things themselves. Has your department considered the implications of bringing GST in and what the repercussions will be for the home renovation industry.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, in other jurisdictions such as New Zealand where a similar tax to the GST has been introduced, there has not been growth in the number of people who have gone to the underground economy, the cash economy. Rather, it has been the reverse because if one goes on a cash basis one does not receive the benefit of the credits that flow from the GST that has been paid in the past. In that way, it is likely we will see less of an underground economy, particularly in the home renovation industry.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women said that the President of the Treasury Board had announced the fairest pay equity plan ever seen in this country.
The Human Rights Commissioner does not agree. The Commissioner severely criticized the President of the Treasury Board for acting unilaterally in deciding to grant women half the compensation to which they were entitled, by depriving them of benefits and denying them two years back pay, while failing to provide for any real equality in rates of pay.
When will the government stop this charade and pay women in the Public Service what has so long been rightfully theirs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the President of the Treasury Board has announced a $317 million retroactive payment which amounts to an average of some $4,900 per person.
There is an ongoing amount of some $76 million per year which will be paid as recognition of the responsibilities that the government has taken on the question of pay equity. We believe that this is a generous and fair approach. We think that it recognizes the responsibilities that were acknowledged back in 1985 when the union-management committee was established.
I believe what my colleague the President of the Treasury Board has done is a very fair response.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is obviously unaware that the human rights commissioner does not agree with him. He thinks these people are getting half of what they deserve, that equalization payments are not pay equity, that only salary adjustments are pay equity. He also believes they are being deprived of benefits and that this is a plan that comes nowhere near meeting the complaints these people, 70,000 of them, have before the Human Rights Commission and have had since 1983-84. Will this government stop stalling, stop hiding behind technicalities, stop trying to bribe people to give up on their rights and give people the pay they deserve.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand the attitude that the hon. member is expressing.
When we came into office, we recognized there was a problem that had been outstanding and festering for a number of years under the government of the party that she represents.
In 1985 we established a union-management committee. We have made retroactive payments to 1985. Seventy thousand public servants will benefit from these payments. I understand that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission has been in contact with the President of the Treasury Board and that the President of the Treasury Board will be communicating with him in due
February 2, 1990

course, after he has had a chance to study his points of view.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The regulations that arise from legislation are the tools with which the legislation is implemented. As far as I am concerned, a government that passed a bill 20 months ago and is reluctant to table a copy of the regulations in this House is negligent and does not have its priorities straight, and its priorities may even differ from those of most Canadians.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the regulations arising from the Official Languages Act will be published by this government very shortly. We have received notice of the regulations. We do not have the regulations themselves. After waiting for 20 months, considering that it will take another year before we can adopt them in this House, will this tiger ever have any teeth? Will there be any regulations so that we can implement this legislation in a manner that is fair and equitable?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend has long had an interest in the Official Languages Act.
The House will know the new Official Languages Act was passed some 18 months ago. In the intervening time the government has been carefully preparing new regulations. We do not suggest that this is something that is easily done. We want the regulations to implement the act. We want them to be done fairly and in the best interest of the public and our employees.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are three important areas in the regulations that we are expecting from this government. These deal with the language of service, that is the people of Canada wanting to receive services in their language from this government; the language of work, which gives Canadians the
Oral Questions
right to work in their language in the Public Service of Canada, and equitable participation which means that Canadians can have access to the Public Service of Canada according to an equitable representation.
In the book called Federal Regulatory Plan 1990 no mention is made of language of work. It has been dropped from the publication this year. Why is the government dropping at this time regulations promised to Canadians on language of work.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I reject the suggestion that the government is dropping anything. As I said earlier, the Official Languages Act was brought in under our previous administration. We have been working at all levels to try to come up with regulations which will implement the act. There is no suggestion of delay. There has been no suggestion of delay by anyone up to now, until my hon. friend came up with his question. This is something that we are working on. We make no apologies for trying to give the best regulations possible. When we have them ready they will be published.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Canadians are losing jobs at an unprecedented rate these days, particularly in the Atlantic region. The government could do a lot to alleviate the problems these people are having by implementing and passing legislation on the variable entry requirements instead of playing politics on the backs of the unemployed.
The government would have us believe that the changes in Bill C-21, which is being held up elsewhere, are the same as the variable entry requirements. This is no so and the Canadian public ought to realize it. In 40 of the 62 regions the increase is going to be six weeks and in the Atlantic region alone 45,000 people will not qualify for unemployment insurance.
In a statement, one of the major ministers of the region, the Minister for International Trade, said that what the workers in the Atlantic region ought to do is get off their duffs and stop complaining. When is this government going to get off its duff and introduce

February 2, 1990
Oral Questions
variable entrance requirements in this Eiouse, preferably before C-21 comes back?


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As he knows, Bill C-21 is in the Senate. It has been there for some time and they are doing very little with it as far as I understand it. The minister is going to appear in the Senate next week so we may see a little movement on their part.
As the member knows, the variable entrance rates are already in the legislation because he travelled on the committee across the country.
There are numerous other programs in Bill C-21 that will help employment in the Atlantic region and other parts of Canada, particularly for workers over 65 and those who are in industries that are having some difficulty-
We are looking forward to the passage of the bill by the Senate. Perhaps if the member has any friends in the Senate he might like to encourage them to pass the legislation.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose I have any friends in the Senate but I have a lot of friends in the working communities. And they are all employed too.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ron Fisher: I travelled with that committee and I know what the entrance requirements are in C-21. What I said before is absolutely true, that it is a lot worse than the variable entrance requirements would otherwise be.
In the absence of the Prime Minister, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he is going to get this government to pass this legislation and stop holding those unemployed workers up for ransom?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, we have passed the legislation. Were you asleep? Where were you? We passed the legislation and the variable entry requirements for people in the Atlantic provinces are not worse, they are better. They would still only have to work for 10 weeks in order to qualify. The member
should go back and re-read the minutes and he would know what he is talking about.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. VIA Rail has a Canrailpass which is similar to the Eurail pass and allows Canadians to see Canada for as little as possible.
I have a copy of a notice which was sent to all VIA reservation desks that, effective March 31 Canrailpasses are only available for sale to permanent residents of countries other than Canada. Some Canadians can purchase passes if they are members of a club, such as the Ambassador Club, but they can only use it for off-peak travel, with limited quantities available. Why are Canadians second class citizens on their rail service?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that VIA Rail is not the only company in the world which operates in this way.
In any case, the internal operations of the corporation are not, on a daily basis, determined by the Minister of Transport. I think my friend should address his question to the board or the management of VIA Rail which would be able to give the answer that the hon. member requests.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. At this time in our country's history when Canadians see regions of Canada pitted one against the other, leading to distrust by some of Canadians of other Canadians and when we are concerned about a weakening confederation, why would this government permit one of the mechanisms which allows Canadians to see Canada, to meet other Canadians and to explore our great country to be cancelled? Why is this government allowing VIA rail to cancel the Canrailpass?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, to repeat what I said, I think this type of system is also used in Europe and, I suppose, for the same reason that it is used here in Canada. I will say that the operation of the company and the way its policies are arrived at is determined by the management of VIA Rail. Therefore, the question should be addressed to the management of VIA Rail.
February 2, 1990


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries I want to put a question to my bosom pal for St. John's East, the parliamentary secretary and future minister. He will know that the Harris report-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: It is all right. The parliamentary secretary will-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put the question to whoever is supposed to answer?


Roger Simmons: The parliamentary secretary will realize that about two weeks ago the finishing touches were put on the Harris report in St. John's. Could he indicate when he expects his minister will receive the report and when it will be made public? Does he know whether it will deal with the economic and social price which is being paid as a result of the northern cod situation? Finally, does he anticipate that there will be further quota cuts recommended by that report?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would say everyone in Canada not just in Atlantic Canada, are anxiously awaiting the report of Dr. Harris with the analysis that he and the people who have been working with him have done in addressing the problems which face particularly the science, the quotas and the allocation of fish. It is not known exactly when the report will be provided to the minister. It is my understanding that his committee is still meeting to discuss the report in order to finalize it. I can assure the hon. member and the House that when the report has been received and the minister has had a chance to look at it, obviously he will make it available in this House, in Atlantic Canada and across the country. I think at that time he will be anxious to see how Canadians view the report and ask for suggestions on how it can be implemented to improve the Atlantic fishery and address the problems, not only in Newfoundland but also in Nova Scotia.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Routine Proceedings
Now that the Prime Minister has grudgingly come to the conclusion that there is a crisis in the Atlantic fishery, can the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether it is the Prime Minister's intention to visit the Atlantic region, particularly Newfoundland, in the near future in response to a number of invitations to do so in order to take a first-hand look at the crisis and get an idea first hand of how deep that crisis is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not come to the conclusion that there was a crisis in the Atlantic fishery grudgingly. He acknowledged that. He said there was not a crisis in Atlantic Canada. He said there was a crisis in Atlantic fisheries. Premiers have made the same statement.
I want to assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in this issue, as have cabinet ministers. This is very, very important. We are working on several options that will be available which I am sure will be very satisfactory and acceptable to the hon. member. I expect that a fairly comprehensive program will be announced in due course.
The Prime Minister has visited the Atlantic region on a number of occasions and has been warmly received. I am sure he will do so again and that he will be warmly received when he returns.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to serveral petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

February 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings



CRIMINAL CODE


William Warren Allmand: for leave to introduce Bill C-283, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (control of firearms).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to strengthen our gun control laws and to make them more effective in screening out applicants for the firearms acquisition certificate who are dangerous, unstable or irresponsible.
The bill would implement a two week waiting period for those who apply for the firearms acquisition certificate. It would require the signature of two other citizens who would attest to the responsibility of the applicant. It would also require the firearms acquisition certificate for the purchase of ammunition. It would require that the permit be valid for only two years rather than five years so that on renewal the police would have an opportunity to reinvestigate the applicant for the firearms acquisition certificate.


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

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been certified correct under the Standing Orders. This petition relates to the goods and services tax. It has been signed by over 400 Canadians and others who express their concern with the government's proposal for the goods and services tax. These petitioners call upon the House of Commons to withdraw this tax and to institute a program of fair taxation.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that this petition has been signed by people in my riding from Thompson, Easterville, Lynn Lake, The Pas, Flin Flon, Snow Lake, Churchill, Ilford, Bissett, Cranberiy Portage, Poplar River and Manigotagan.
In addition, other Canadians from Surrey, B.C., St. Eleanor's, P.E.I., Southport, P.E.I., Bathurst, New Brunswick, Shediac, New Brunswick, Campbellton, New Brunswick, Moncton, New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Greenwood, Nova Scotia, Toronto, Ontario, Oshawa, Ontario, Edmonton, Alberta, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
In addition, people from Florida, California, Argentina and Australia have signed this petition against the goods and services tax, proving that it is unpopular throughout the whole world.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition certified under Article 36 of our Standing Orders from 1,160 Canadians who call on the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on the wealthy individuals in corporations and cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians who object to the federal government's proposed goods and services tax or GST, which should really stand for the grief and suffering tax.
They urge the government to immediately withdraw this ridiculous proposal and replace it with meaningful and fair tax reform.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to submit a petition signed by a number of residents of Regina and several other communities in Saskatchewan in which they deplore the fact that the government accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament and the government to bring in such an amendment to the Human Rights Act without any further delay.

February 2, 1990


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have two other petitions in which, like hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, these Canadians from a number of locations in Ontario humbly pray that the government cease and desist from its proposal to implement a goods and services tax and they request Parliament to so instruct and call upon the government to no longer try to pass such legislation.


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the minister from Lisgar-Marquette, signed by 42 petitioners who call upon Parliament to consider construction in skating and educational services and, therefore, exempt skating educational expenses from the proposed goods and services tax.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce a petition entitled "Elelp Save the Rouge". Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge Valley, 10,000 acres of beautiful geography of Canada. It is a wilderness state. There is endangered wildlife there to be saved.
I was very pleased to hear the Deputy Prime Minister in Question Period today mention the Rouge Valley as a park and the commitment by the federal government of putting up $10 million to save the Rouge Valley.
It is my pleasure to present to the House today the names of the petitioners who wish to support this very important endeavour.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege under Standing Order 36 to introduce a petition from a number of residents of Toronto who urge the government to join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador in halting all war training in that area, particularly the low level flight training, and to cease to ask for a NATO base there, but to use the money instead for a development both of Canada's First Nations and of all Canadians.
Routine Proceedings


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of London, Ontario, Denfield, Alberta, and Thorold, Ontario, urging the government to cease reducing and eliminating VIA Rail services, to modernize existing equipment and build a high-speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions on the subject of the grief and suffering tax being foisted on Canada by the present government.
The petitioners, some 140 of them from throughout the province of Ontario, with particular emphasis on the community of Hawkesbury, a number of lakehead communities and the Kitchener-Waterloo area, condemn the government for bringing in a proposal which will shift the tax burden onto ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax. They ask instead that the government, if it is seriously concerned with the deficit situation, conduct a vigorous and real system of progressive tax reform for all Canadians.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition duly authorized under Standing Order 36 from residents of Vancouver, Delta, Iroquois Falls, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, to name a few, who point out that the goods and services tax which is being introduced is an extremely unfair one because it taxes people, not on their ability to pay, but rather on their consumption. They point out that the government has not addressed the unfairness in the present tax system in that it is not applying it the way it ought to be and the way it is intended. They decry the fact that reading, haircuts, coffins, diapers, home heating fuel will be taxed.
I could also point out a few things that will not be taxed, but I will not go into that.
They ask that Parliament reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and enforce the present tax system fairly.

February 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



EXCISE TAX ACT


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Last Wednesday, January 31, the hon. member for Okanagan-Simil-kameen-Merritt concluded his remarks in debate on second reading of Bill C-62, by moving that the House do now adjourn. That motion was subsequently defeated on a recorded division.
When debate was resumed on the bill, the hon. member for Edmonton East rose on a point of order to suggest that the House was still entitled to the opportunity to proceed to the 10 minute question and comment period on the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Churchill and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca have argued that the right to proceed with the 10-minute questions and comments period is the prerogative of the House, not that of the member who has just ended his remarks.
After listening to arguments the Chair deferred ruling on the point of order to check precedents and past practices and then recognized the hon. member for Calgary West.
The Chair indicated as well that the House would be allowed the 10-minute period if the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton East were deemed to be legitimate.

The Chair is now prepared to offer a ruling. According to Standing Order 74(2), following the speeches of members speaking 20 minutes on the second reading of a
bill, a period of 10 minutes, if required, is provided for questions and comments. The rule does not mention any qualification which would prevent the House from claiming this 10 minutes.
By practice, however, it has been established that if proceedings are interrupted before the 10 minute period is reached or exhausted and the member is not present in the House when debate is resumed, the Chair will recognize the next member seeking the floor. It is also true that there have been occasions when members moved superseding motions that were negatived only to have the House cariy on to another member who was recognized without a claim being made for the 10 minute question and comment period.
On the other hand the House has frequently claimed its right to the 10 minute period after members have moved amendments to the motion for second reading or motions to extend the sitting in order to prolong the debate and the claim has not been denied.

However our research uncovered the fact that during second reading debate on a bill on March 14 and 15, 1985, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, now Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, moved the adjournment of the House. The motion was defeated in the ensuing vote. When debate resumed the following day the hon. member asked for a 10-minute questions and comments period. Speaker Bosley ruled that the fact that the hon. member had concluded his remarks by moving a dilatory motion did not prevent the House from proceeding with the 10-minute period.
In the case now under consideration, which is practically a repeat performance of the precedent I have just referred to, the Chair must keep previous practice in mind and allow a 10-minute period when second reading debate on Bill C-62 resumes, if the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is in the House to respond.

The Chair would like to thank all members for their understanding and for giving the Chair the necessary time to do some research and some reflection on this very technical point before rendering its decision.
February 2, 1990



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan:
That this House condemns the intolerance and prejudice in Canadian society that damages the fabric of the nation and urges the government and all members of Parliament to play a role in strengthening understanding and respect among Canadians.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this motion today. It is a good motion and I commend the member for York Centre for having introduced it. The motion is:
That this House condemns the intolerance and prejudice in Canadian society that damages the fabric of the nation and urges the government and all members of Parliament to play a role in strengthening understanding and respect among Canadians.
I wish to deal only with certain aspects of this subject as it is a very large one. I want to concentrate particularly on the problem of certain long term and unresolved racisms in Canada. I would like to deal with, in particular, the bias against blacks and indigenous people.
My point will be that the basic problem is organizational rather than individual, although there may be complaints about an employer making improper advances toward a female employee, and those may be justified. There have been complaints about the shooting of certain people. In both cases we find that it is too often a person of one of the visible minority races.
The problem, in my opinion, does not arise from an individual quirk. It arises mainly from the low economic and social status of those racial minorities and in particular the low economic and social status of our indigenous peoples and of our black peoples. These things have historical roots and they cannot be got rid of solely by preachments and declarations of how kind and just and honest Canada and Canadians really are.
Supply
We have to take account of what we have done in the past and figure out what we need to do to change it. With regard to black people, I refer to a study from our parliamentary library called Canada's Treatment of Black Immigrants by Michael O'Neill. He points out among other things that early in this century as the prairies were opening up, there was quite an increase of black immigration from the United States. There was hostility to this among the white settlers.
In fact, in 1911, the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier prepared, but never proclaimed, an order in council which would have effectively prohibited black immigration. Instead, and I quote:
Unless the overt course of action was adopted, agents were sent into the American south to discourage black immigrants. Medical, character and financial examinations were rigorously applied at border points with rewards for officials who disqualified blacks. American railways were influenced to deny blacks passage to Canada. Continued under the Conservative government after the 1911 election, these efforts eventually succeeded in stopping black immigration into Canada by 1912.
Those who are familiar with complaints in our immigration system know that these practices did not stop in 1912 merely because for a time they stopped some black immigration.
I refer to another study on the legality of slave marriages because an immigration question often involves a question of family relationship and identifying a family relationship. I personally heard, and I know of others who have heard of comments by immigration officials who seemed to believe that because people are of a certain race, they have a standard of morality that is lower than the general Canadian standard of morality in marital matters.
Therefore, I would point out that in the United States, and also, of course, in the British Empire up until 1834, whites were allowed to own black slaves of both sexes. In fact, marriage was legally prohibited to black slaves because they were slaves. In all the southern states before the Civil War, they were not allowed to have the right to stay together if the owner chose to sell the father one way, the mother another way, and the child another way. They had no civil rights, and therefore no rights as a family. Husband and wife had no rights as husband and wife.

February 2, 1990
Supply
This has coloured the perception that white people have of black people, for example from the West Indies. It has, unfortunately, sometimes biased decisions about immigration of a family member such as a spouse or a child.
These things are easily forgotten by most white Canadians. They are not so easily forgotten by black Canadians. The latter, of course, is not limited to blacks. We had reference already to the racist lapel pins. One minister of the government expressed strong disapproval of them. However, he did not say, and since he did not come back for questioning I could not ask him, whether he had discussed this with his colleague, the Minister of Revenue Canada. I quote from the January 22 Financial Post.
Canada Customs has ruled a controversial lapel pin imported from Thiwan does not constitute hate propaganda and will be allowed to enter the country.
This government is condoning racism to that extent by allowing Taiwan, which we do not recognize as a government, to send racist lapel pins to Canada.
I quote from a letter from Mr. George Elliott Clarke of Ottawa to the minister:
Dear Mr. Minister:
Being a seventh generation Afro Nova Scotian, whose ancestors escaped the slavery and bigotry of the post-bellum American south, I am outraged that your officials have apparently decided to permit the importation from Taiwan of a racist lapel pin which depicts a Sikh, an oriental and an African, all of whom, dressed in stereotypical costume surround a man of European descent wearing a business suit, and above whom appears the slogan, "Who is the minority in Canada?". This pin, though cleared by your officials is derogatory, offensive and utterly destructive of the dream of multiracial, multicultural and cosmopolitan Canada.
I have a quote also from a letter addressed to the same minister. I quote:
Dear Mr. Jelinek:
As a Canadian of black heritage, I am appalled that you as a minister of the Crown would condone the importation of these racist lapel pins now being made in Taiwan and marketed in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It should come as no surprise to you or your colleagues if they are eventually marketed in all provinces across Canada.
She points out further:
The salient observation of the Donald Marshall report was that racism in the justice system played a major role in convicting this young Micmac Indian.
This is from Mrs. Anne John-Baptiste of Ottawa.
When immigrants come from the non-white countries, which for the most part the white countries still oppress economically, we have these prejudices against the immigrants who arrive from those countries and the oppression continues, for example, in the decision of the government to cut the overseas grants. I quote from an article in La Presse of February 1 referring to Stephen Lewis:
Lewis said Canada could be a bridge between developing countries and the developed world. He said only Canada and the U.S. among developed countries have reduced foreign aid.
The kind of prejudice in Canada that was reflected in the study by the Urban Alliance Against Racism showed that in Toronto statistically a white person had three times as many chances of getting a job as a black person did. That kind of prejudice is not to be found only in the minds of certain employers or other individuals, it is found in the structures and organization of our internal relationships in Canada and of our external relationships. In Canada we have the case as cited in The Globe and Mail of January 11 under the heading "Ojibway civil servant subjected to racial insults, federal investigator says". The article reads:
-Mary Pitawanakwat, a social development officer-
Ms Pitawanakwat is a social development officer for the multiculturalism branch of the Department of Secretary of State.
-Ms Pitawanakwat complained to the human rights commission that she had been racially and sexually harassed. After she was dismissed she obtained an order from the Federal Court of Appeal instructing the human rights commission to investigate her case.
The article goes on:
One employee heard an official call the Ojibway woman a "goddamn Indian," the investigator said.
Another bureaucrat joked about being "scalped" by natives, and others made derogatory remarks about the laziness of natives.
There is evidence that Ms Pitawanakwat was sexually harassed and subjected to special monitoring by the Regina office, the investigator said. She was also asked as part of her job to investigate allegations of drug offences within a native group-a request that was "unheard of and improper."
It might seem only that we have some bad apples in the management of that branch of the Ministry of State, of which the minister is so proud, as he told us this morning. In fact, that sort of attitude arises very naturally or easily from the fact that Canada continues after 300 years of white settlement here to oppress and to be
February 2, 1990

unjust in many organized ways to the indigenous people of Canada.
We have the example of Nitassinan where the Innu people who have lived there 9,000 years are being strafed by low level flight training on the excuse that we need to do this to protect Canada against the Soviet Union. In fact, nobody believes there is any such need any more. Of course, it is good for business. The government has explained that it is worth billions of dollars if we can get a NATO base in Labrador. Therefore, the training program will go ahead. The government despises the Innu people who are objecting to our taking of their ancestral lands.
On a smaller scale, the same thing is being done with the Lubicon in Alberta where the government has quite illegally undertaken to split the Lubicon band so as to weaken their insistence on having the land claim settled that was promised to them decades ago. In Ontario, the provincial government in the same way ignores the rights of the native people in Temagami.
The point is that we have a structure of economic oppression and social abuse of the indigenous people in Canada which has become institutionalized in our habits and sometimes in our legal practices that result in, for example, a very large minority far out of proportion to the population inhabiting our jails.
It is not sufficient simply to preach against racism and to investigate individual cases through the Human Rights Commission or individual employer's practices. Those are useful things to do but they are not enough.
I do commend as one example a report that was done for Dalhousie University entitled, "Breaking Barriers: Report of the Task Force on Access for Black and Native People", chaired by Mr. A. Wayne MacKay.
This report, after showing how black people and Micmac Indians are hindered in having fair and full access to the university, makes certain recommendations. In general, the report recommends that the university must adopt four components of policy; (a) encouraging and assisting indigenous black and Micmac people to enter and complete the university's undergraduate degree programs; (b) restructuring and revitalizing
Supply
the transition year program; (c) promoting black and Micmac participation in professional programs and (d) developing a university policy on educational equity, race relations and affirmative action in education which compliments Dalhousie's employment equity through affirmative action policy.
The report does not just state generalities. It states that the programs should be co-ordinated by the Registrar's office-they lay the responsibility there-as part of the university's larger recruitment effort and should comprise features such as, and I quote: "The involvement of black and Micmac students and alumni in recruitment efforts, parents nights in black and Micmac communities-''-that would be to explain this program-"-invitations to campus functions, such as open house and scholarships to attend many university and summer orientation programs".
The report goes further. It recommends that the university establish a number of renewable scholarships for blacks and Micmacs, that those who are not able to maintain grades should have the option of completing their programs with loans, that the awards office ensure that black and Micmac students in financial difficulty have access to bursaiy funds. It also recommends that the vice president of student services seeks to arrange summer and part-time employment for black and Micmac students, seeks to arrange the appointment of a black counsellor to provide advice and support to black students on campus, and seeks to establish a resource centre for black Canadian students on campus comprising adequate space to meet, study and house the students' counsellor. It recommends that the vice-president of finance and administration provide adequate university facilities and services at no cost to the office of the native education counsellor, thereby reflecting the value of that officer's contribution to the university.
If those recommendations are adopted, they will have some effect in reducing those historic organized institutional conditions in the province of Nova Scotia and in our country which encourage racism. This is the kind of action we have to study. It is far more than one government could do, even the federal government. But it must be done at whatever level of government we find ourselves, to search out the ways of providing the material means by which black people or Canadian

February 2, 1990
Supply
natives, such as the Micmac people and, of course, the other visible minorities who have immigrated to our country as well, by which these people may be assured that they have full entry into education and other opportunities in Canada. The poverty that marks many of the black communities in Canada and most of the indigenous peoples communities in Canada can and must be eliminated through fair and honest treatment of the natural resources in the areas they inhabit.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member on his comments and his commitment. I know of his work in the Toronto area for and on behalf of his party to eliminate discrimination in Canada. He has brought up a number of items concerning research.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship tabled in the House of Commons the legislation for the establishment of a race relations foundation. I would like to ask the member if, with his commitment to the elimination of discrimination, we might be able to get the early commitment on behalf of his party to have the legislation to establish this foundation pass very quickly so we may get on with doing the work that he has suggested and the research that needs to be done.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Since I have not had opportunity yet to read the legislation, I cannot substantially comment on its value. I was disappointed in the bill establishing the multiculturalism department because it lacked teeth. It made almost no reference to racism as distinct from ethnic conflict. It did not define the duties of the department or the minister and therefore it did not give a citizen the proper means of claiming upon his or her rights under that legislation. The legislation left the scope of the department and the minister so vague that if he chose to do something, or the department chose to do something, that might be fine, but the person in a minority position was not able to point to a statutory right or a statutoiy obligation to serve that would be given in a person who had that kind of need as a minority.
I would be very interested to see the detail of the legislation that was tabled yesterday. I can see the hon. member wishes to say more on the subject and I will listen attentively.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to send the member a copy and an outline of the bill. Without going into detail on this legislation today because we are debating another motion, it is primarily to carry out research activities, to facilitate consultation, and to publish and disseminate relevant information concerning it. I think this is going to be a very good foundation that will be able to get information, feed in information, and then allow volunteer organizations, police commissions and such to get the kind of information that we need from an up to date national collection of data. It will be involved with the developing and training approaches in materials and effective policies and approaches for the elimination of racism and racial discrimination.
I will be very pleased to send this to the member and I look forward to discussing this with him in the House in the very near future.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I think research can be very useful. I would be interested to learn the details and scope of the plan. There has been research from time to time. For example, in our library there is a book in typescript called *1Racial Discrimination in Canada, The Black Experience by James W. St. George Walker. I understand, and it is curious, that this book was never published in the usual sense. It exists in perhaps several hundred copies in typescript. It cannot be found in our public libraries and it has never been printed in the usual way in an ordinary print format. If it is limited to about 400 copies then it has not been much use to the black or white people of Canada.
I hope that the institution the minister is proposing will be an open institution and that research done, and especially research that should be done by black people, by Canadian aboriginal people and by other visible minorities, will be identified, advertised and made readily available throughout public libraries and other systems of information rather than neglected as this rather good study found itself.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Spadina for an excellent speech. He pointed out a lot of things that are good in our nation and some things which are certainly in need of improvement. I know that he has done a lot of work in the field of immigration and I think in the context of the motion
February 2, 1990

we are debating today immigration certainly has to be one of the aspects of it.
I was wondering if the hon. member, in light of his experience in the field, could expand on some of the things he feels this government and this nation should be doing in the realm of immigration to ameliorate some of the problems we have as far as racial tension and inequality is concerned.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Since my time is short, I want to mention briefly a couple of things. At present, our immigration department has the responsibility for determining whether an applicant for landed status in Canada is acceptable under the rules. One of the rules is that if a Canadian is married to a non-Canadian the spouse has a right to be sponsored by the Canadian spouse. That is qualified by the question of whether the marriage is a bona fide marriage or a marriage of convenience for immigration purposes only.
I have been distressed to find that this rule has been misused in many cases, for whatever reason, by the immigration officials concerned in order to delay, delay and delay the entry of the non-Canadian spouse into Canada. I have heard of it happening to spouses from countries of Asia and the West Indies. I have never heard of it happening from Britain, France or from western Europe. I have heard of it happening from South America but not from white countries.
So I have to believe that while there are cultural differences in marriage customs and in expectations of permanency of marriage that in those cases racial prejudice overrode the obligation of our officials. This is something that has to be examined within our department.
The other matter is the single biggest injustice that Canada has committed toward non-white peoples by the denial of land claims of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I do not see how we can honestly look in the eyes of peoples from other non-white races when we are refusing legitimate justice to our own Canadian aboriginal peoples. That lapel pin about which we spoke reflects a guilty fear that our sense of superiority is based on the fact that we had guns and those people did not, or we had more guns than those people did and, therefore, we are better than they are. We are afraid that some day
Supply
they might turn the tables and, therefore, this fear of people of a different skin colour reflects our guilty recollection of our own military conquest of them. That has to be acknowledged before we can have a clear policy either toward our own aboriginal peoples or toward non-white immigrants.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today and I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.
Each of us knows there is a gulf between the aspirations and reality out there. That gulf is widened by prejudice and discrimination. In the form of racism they shatter the lives of individuals and destroy nations.
Racism is an uncomfortable word for us. It is an uncomfortable topic. But it is a reality that we have come grudgingly to acknowledge here in Canada and one that we must face up to.
What does racism do to us? UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, put it in a nutshell in its 1967 statement: "Racism stultifies the development of those who suffer from it, perverts those who apply it, divides nations within themselves, aggravates international conflict and threatens world peace". What does racism cost a society such as ours? It costs us young people who turn to the illusory opportunity of drugs and crime because they cannot see or find other opportunities or expectations for their future. We pay the cost of alcoholism, in lost productivity, in family violence, in the trivialization of relationships and the devaluation of human life, others and our own, bom of the endless and ultimate overwhelming frustration of alienation, of never belonging.
The cost is in increased welfare and social services, in increased health care and mental health care, in the resources which must be spent on law enforcement and incarceration instead of universities, libraries and literacy programs. But, most of all, the cost of racism is in people who no longer know how to talk to one another or even begin to work with one another to solve problems that they share in common. It becomes the destruction of that trust and respect for one another which, in the final analysis, is what binds and holds us all together as a community.

February 2, 1990
Supply
We have to face up to what the researchers and the evidence tells us. It tells us that many Canadians actually believe in the theory of racial superiority, that one Canadian in seven carries out acts of open discrimination. Imbalance and discrimination does exist. Prejudice, discrimination and the virtual exclusion of visible minorities and native Canadians have been the standard operating procedure in much of the Canadian life for just about as long as anyone can remember.
How can we accept that blacks are turned down three times as often when looking for rental accommodation? Or that a black applicant is offered only one job for every three offered to a white? Or that a Micmac can spend years in prison for a crime that he did not commit? Or that products with demeaning stereotypical representations of minority Canadians can find ready markets? Is there any justification? Well, of course, there is not and we all know it. In order to eliminate racism in Canada, we have to comprehend how and why it works the way it does, how it perpetuates itself generation after generation. We must make our way beneath the paint on the surface, as British writer Paul Gilroy put it. We must understand this frightening ultimate perversion that makes the victim himself responsible for his fate.
The stereotyping that we see in broadcasting and advertising, the jokes told in locker rooms all contribute to making possible the act of discrimination itself and they help justify it afterwards.
But a great myth is the idea that racism is somehow part and parcel of the human condition, something we have to accept whether we like it or not because we cannot change it. Racism is not part of the human spirit. We can change racism. We do not have to live with it in our society or in any society. As Canadians we cannot allow racism to corrupt our own principles. We must uphold the values of equality and social justice. They are centre to who we are as Canadians. To cure this cancer there must be firm, clear and determined leadership.
In this proclamation of the United Nations Second Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, the Prime Minister expressed the will of this government when he called on us all, and I quote: "To work together toward the day when racism and racial
discrimination become history and when every Canadian can participate fully and equally in the life of our country".
We have put into place structures and mechanisms to take up this challenge. This government introduced the Employment Equity Act. Then in July, 1988, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was unanimously adopted by both Houses. This provided a legislative base for new directions for multiculturalism programs featuring a major new race relations and cross-cultural understanding program. Through these programs Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada is forging strong partnerships in all sectors of society; business, labour, professional groups, municipalities and community-based volunteer organizations and to take action to eliminate racism and racial discrimination in Canada. These partnerships are active-and I want to give you several examples-building awareness through public education, changing the policies and practices of our own institutions, finding out more about racism and racial discrimination and how to fight it with the foundation that we are establishing, working to set the example in federal institutions and agencies and working together with other levels of government.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship tabled a bill in the House to establish the race relations foundation. We look forward to early passage of this bill in order to get this foundation going. The new department of multiculturalism and citizenship to be established by Bill C-18 will be another permanent expression of the government's commitment to fighting tolerance and prejudice and another important resource in this battle.
March 21 is International Day designated for the elimination of racial discrimination. It will be the focus for a major public education campaign again this year. Events are being organized in communities across the country, and Canadians in all parts of the country will have an opportunity to get involved personally. I encourage everyone to take part. This is an occasion for each of us to affirm our personal commitment to equality, to our fellow Canadians and to a stronger Canada in the days and years ahead. Only if we stand up, each in our own way, for the values that we share as Canadians can we stand with pride and look with confidence to the future.
February 2, 1990


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, just a short question for the speak who just spoke.
One of the problems that we have experienced in Canada is actually institutionalized racism, racism that seems to have the sponsorship of the government.
The concern that I have had over the past little while is the number of petitions and letters I have received, not just from my constituents, but from constituents across Canada with respect to opening the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to members of the Sikh religion and the fact that devout Sikhs cannot serve in the RCMP without wearing the turban and other symbols of their religion. It means that they are barred from serving in the national police force of Canada.
I am wondering what the ministry of the Secretary of State has done in order to make it possible to open the RCMP to devout Sikhs by allowing changes in the uniform allowing Sikhs to wear turbans. There is a necessity for this change to take place. It has been recommended by the senior officers of the RCMP and it is also a necessity to provide adequate policing within the Sikh community itself in Canada. I am wondering what has been done in that respect. I know there is a long delay with the Solicitor General in making a decision. Just what has been in that respect?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I think the members of the House appreciated the opportunity provided by the Speaker yesterday to meet with members of the Sikh community. We spent about an hour with them. It was very enlightening to all of us and I know the member who just spoke was also at that session.
Members of the Sikh community met yesterday with the Solicitor General. They were very satisfied with the meeting and I understand the Solicitor General told the community at that time that he would be making an early decision on the recommendation from the Commissioner of the RCMP concerning the wearing of turbans. I believe the Solicitor General recognized that the decision has taken some time but he has been consulting with a number of groups across the country.
In relation to the pins and buttons referred to by previous speakers, I want to draw to the attention of members the pin that I saw recently. I hope to get one. Around the edge it shows people of visible minorities holding hands. Around the edge of the pin it says, "Canadians working together". I think that is the mes-
Supply
sage that we, as members of Parliament, want to send out to the people of Canada, that we have people of all visible minorities, every person making up this great wonderful country of Canada holding hands and working together.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of understanding and pride in what I am hearing in the House today as hon. members get up and speak to this motion.
The hon. member who has just spoken spoke about some new initiatives that the government is undertaking to try to bring about a greater awareness of minority groups, of the differences that we have as Canadians and to try to bring about a better understanding from all Canadians.
There are certain pieces of legislation that are in effect such as the employment equity legislation. Rather than building new structures, does she not agree that perhaps we should go and look at the existing structures, such as the employment equity legislation? It is a very progressive piece of legislation. But it has no compliance mechanism; it has no teeth. It sets about almost a panacea of what we would all like to see. But it is very weak in the compliance section. I would like to get the hon. member's comments on that to see whether or not she believes there are things we can do as parliamentarians in a non-partisan fashion on both sides of this House to ensure that the legislation in effect is as effective as possible.


Pauline Browes: I am really pleased the hon. member asked that question because it is a very progressive piece of legislation. I had an opportunity to sit on that legislative committee when the bill was being discussed.
When we were discussing the legislation, the importance that we put on it was that we wanted results. All parties wanted results. What we wanted was to give the companies which were contracting with the federal government an opportunity to put those affirmative actions of visible minorities, the disabled, within their own structure. We wanted to have that data base of one, two and three years.
We have the second report. The first report was the benchmark, and everything is going to flow from the benchmark report. So it is important that we look at the

February 2, 1990
Supply
subsequent reports in order that we do have results out of the employment legislation.


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, the issue before us relates to the attitudes and acts of prejudice, discrimination and intolerance in our society.
As representatives of the various constituencies across this country, I expect all of us in this House have from time to time heard the claims of the disadvantaged members and groups in our communities. Over the years, several broad-ranging studies by committees of the House and the Senate have documented the phenomenon of intolerance.
"Obstacles", the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped evidences the difficulties of the disabled people. "Equality Now", the report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian society speaks to the problem of racism, and "Equality For All", the report of the parliamentary committee on equality dealt with the equality issues in federal laws.
We can also find many clear and objective studies in the provinces. McAlpine reported on the activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia, for example, and more recently, there was the report of the Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that prejudice and intolerance remain a fact of life for many Canadians.
Happily, I think that the overt conscious acts of discrimination based on ignorance and fear, hatred and intolerance are now socially disparaged. That direct form of discrimination and prejudice is widely regarded as the work of fringe elements in our communities. The general reaction to racists in the hate propaganda cases that were recently before the Supreme Court was one of some surprise and mild shock that such violent, anti-Semitic and other racist propaganda, would still be the stuff of the 1990s.
The fact that the Keegstra case had to go to court substantiates the point that the poison still flows, that it can contaminate the equal, multicultural society that our Charter enshrines, and that it has a propensity to promote attitudes that can lead to intercommunal strife and violence.
We have some tools to respond to the fringes when their intolerances become intolerable. We have some controls to deal with the extremes such as the Criminal Code or the provisions of the Human Rights Act across
the country. The law exists to deter and repress the most extreme cases of prejudice and an issue for the future, once the court has ruled on the Keegstra case, may be the adequacy of our laws.
What is more insidious to me is the level of indirect discrimination that is implicit in the results of the reports of the Employment Equity Act, or the figures of complaint in the annual reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We have too many employers who seem to share our shock at the purveyors of racial hatred, but who have, nonetheless, no visible minority representation in the work force. Women, natives and disabled people know the polite smile that too often accompanies literal compliance with our Human Rights Code, but that nonetheless deprives them of their fair share of the fruits of our economic and social progress.
The tools to moderate this kind of discrimination are more subtle but vitally important to the shape of our society in years to come. The roots of intolerance lie in the base of ignorance, the fear of the unknown. The only long-term weapon against the attitude of intolerance is familiarity, the sense of community that comes with the understanding of others.
Understanding depends on enlightenment. We need to break down the barriers of ignorance through education and I am optimistic at what I see. For example, community relations courses for our police forces across the land; continuing education efforts for judges and lawyers to familiarize them with cultural, racial and other differences; a uniform human rights education program for elementary schools developed by the Human Rights Foundation with federal help is now being implemented in different provinces; promotional and educational assistance to advance the evolution of employment equity and pay equity provided by the Departments of Labour, Employment and Immigration; modest funding programs at the Departments of Justice and Secretary of State to help kick start a bit of research and promotional efforts; and publicity and promotional activities by our Human Rights Commission to bring the message of equality and fairness down to the grass roots.
Admittedly, we have a long way to go to deal effectively with the apparent benign but socially insidious influence of discrimination and intolerance. Modest resources are tightly stretched with limited prospects for expansion. We are doing a lot with what we have, but we still need a lot more to do to make the impact that is needed. The legal rights to equality and the statutory
February 2, 1990

protection against discrimination are needed for the hard cases that cannot be settled.
But it lies in our hands to lead by example, to support our community groups, to promote the educational efforts that will make tomorrow's society one that is tolerant, not merely tolerable.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the issue before us today in this opposition day motion is one that I think every member of Parliament takes seriously, and one that I hope all Canadians take seriously.
Racism is a scourge upon our society. It is easy for me to say that as somebody who is white and Anglo-Saxon in a country that is primarily white and Anglo-Saxon. But if you sit back and listen to the cries and the stories of individuals in Canadian society who have been stung by the burr of racism, you will know that there is probably not one single other issue that we as parliamentarians face whereby with a combined effort we can have a more positive effect on the lives of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who find themselves members of minority groups.
In the last few years as our society has developed and we have become much more sophisticated-at least we think we have-a disturbing trend has emerged. That disturbing trend is the increasing intolerance to those amongst us who are different. We hear about it linguistically and we hear about it in reports such as the Marshall inquiry from my home province of Nova Scotia. We hear it from some segments of society when it comes to the wearing of turbans in the RCMP by Canadians of Sikh origin. We see it all around us. Sometimes, because it is there but it is never quite at the surface, we neglect to take it as a very serious issue, and by our inaction we become an accomplice to the sin in our society of racism and intolerance.
In my riding in Nova Scotia there is the largest native black community in Canada, in North Preston, East Preston and the Cherry Brook area. The forefathers of the individuals who live in those communities came to Canada over 300 years ago, well before my ancestors came to this country. Yet I am lucky, because my family, my children, myself and my parents had benefited from
Supply
the wealth that is Canada. I wish I could say the same for those families that have been here a lot longer than my family that live in some of the minority communities in my home province, in my own riding.
The original peoples of Canada, the indigenous peoples have suffered for hundreds of years from racist attitudes and at times the complete ignorance and lack of concern for the contribution that they make and want to make to Canadian society. Many times we deny them the right to participate.
Last night while trying to put some notes together for today I thought about racism. Unfortunately, many of our views about racism come from watching television from south of the border. We look at what is happening in the United States. Most of what I knew before I became the member of Parliament for the riding of Dartmouth unfortunately was influenced by the American experience with minority groups.
Many Canadians do not understand that there was overt racism practised in Canada, in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Indeed, there was a case in Nova Scotia in the 1940s where a lady by the name of Viola Desmond was charged in court because she did not sit in the black only section of a theatre in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. That was in the 1940s.
Then some of us wonder why members of minority communities talk about the discrimination that has been inflicted upon them by society. We must understand that the history of the treatment of minority groups is nothing we should be proud of.
In my community in Nova Scotia there have been a number of recent reports. The Marshall inquiry issued a scathing indictment of the justice system in the province of Nova Scotia. I am hoping that parliamentarians in this place and in other legislatures across Canada and Nova Scotia particularly will take that report seriously and look at the flaws that have been identified to ensure that our justice system is open and equal to every Canadian.
In September Dalhousie University issued a task force report on the responsiveness of the post-education system in Nova Scotia to the needs of native and black Canadians, and again issued a scathing indictment.

Supply
One of the problems is that the racism is no longer as overt. When we do see it as overt we try to change it. Unfortunately, over the last 15 to 20 years racism has gone underground. It has become systemic, and it is systemic racism that challenges each one of us as Canadians to root out and to kill.
In my community in Dartmouth we did a study called "Education Income in the Watershed Area". This black community is only six miles from the city of Dartmouth, a city that suffers only 6 per cent unemployment. In that black community of thousands of individuals that has been there for over 300 years, we found that on average a young black male could expect to earn 42 per cent less than the average non-black male in the Halifax-Dart-mouth area.
We found that the levels of high school completion in academic programs was much lower for black students, not because they did not want to succeed, but because the school system was not responding to the different needs of various minority communities in Nova Scotia.
We also found some disturbing trends in types of employment. If you looked at the black community as opposed to the larger community in Nova Scotia, 39 per cent of the residents of the Watershed community, the black community, and 61 per cent of county residents work in white collar operations, while 61 per cent of Watershed residents and 31 per cent of county residents work in blue collar occupations.
We are dealing with something very deep and very systemic, but nevertheless something that is very dangerous. What we are doing by allowing systemic racism to exist in our society is creating a situation whereby we are robbing young people in minority communities of the right and the ability to dream, to dream about what they can be and what they want to do. When they look around and see people who have graduated from Grade 12 or have gone to university, they see that they are not getting the same jobs as their white counterparts. When they look around and see the types of jobs they are getting and the treatment that they get, it robs them of their ability to dream of where they can go and what they can be in this country.
This government and successive governments has tried over and over again to deal with this problem. I think that by and large we have failed and we failed for a number of reasons. One is that the provincial governments and the federal government has refused to put the necessary resources forward, especially in times of restraint, to do the job that has to be done. Canada Employment and the programs that come down from the CEC should target specifically the black, minority, and native communities in Canada. If a community suffers 40 per cent of the unemployment in an area then my view is that it should receive 40 per cent of the dollars that are available through government programs to alleviate the unemployment problems.
I would like to close my comments with a poem which I think is appropriate when we talk about Canadians trying to understand the role of minority communities in this great fabric that is our country. Many times we try to force minority communities to be more like the non-minority communities, to be more like me or to be more like us. This is a poem from Rita Joe, a native Micmac Indian, entitled Song of Eskasoni:
I lost my talk
The talk you took away.
When I was a little girl At Shubenacadie school,
You snatched it away:
I speak like you I think like you I create like you
The scrambled ballad, about my word,
Two ways I talk Both ways I say,
Your way is more powerful.
So gently I offer my hand and ask,
Let me find my talk
So I can teach you about me.
That is a lesson to which every Canadian should listen. If they practice it, I know that the scourge of racism in our society is something that can be eliminated.


David Bjornson: I would like to compliment the member for Dartmouth on a fine presentation this afternoon. I think it was well received in all parts of the House.
February 2, 1990

One of the comments I made earlier and the hon. member referred to was legislation. For quite some time now we have had very significant legislation dealing with these issues and legislation seems to have failed us. He is making recommendations that perhaps we should bring in further legislation. I am of the opinion that maybe education is the way to go. I feel far more friendly, I do not know if that is the right word, to people with whom I have become associated because I have come to know them personally. No law of the land would make me like that person more, but the association with any person, whether it be a visible or invisible minority, is important.
Perhaps the member could comment on whether or not he feels this government is going in the correct direction in its educational programs.


Ronald MacDonald: The hon. member has raised some very valid points. Governments cannot do it by themselves, but at the same time government and members of legislatures, members who hold public office and are community leaders have an absolute responsibility to set the parameters of acceptable behaviour in our society and to reflect what Canadians believe to be acceptable behaviour.
This is the place to which we have been elected. I look to this place and to governments to ensure that the programs they put in place do not further contribute to the problem. Specifically, the member asked about education. I do not think the education system in our country, which is a provincial jurisdiction, has done its job. I simply think that if you look at the education system in any province where there are large or small numbers of visible minorities, for example, the history of the native community is not taught in the perspective as seen by natives. It is taught through a white perspective. The history of the black community in Nova Scotia, which is an important history and an important part of Canadian culture and heritage, is taught, when it is taught, through white eyes and in a period of time and by authors of 100 or 200 years ago who lived in a society where racial discrimination, bias and bigotry were acceptable.
I wonder why a black or native student in Nova Scotia is less likely to graduate from high school with an academic diploma. Why is it that they are streamlined
Supply
into general programs? Why is it when you talk to some of the people who are in charge of the system, and I am not talking about the educators in the schools, they state that "We are educating more blacks and more native people for things that they can do, like clerk in stores."
So the attitudes are still there and they must be tackled with the resources necessary to change the curricula in schools, the resources necessary to ensure that programs are responsive and give equality of opportunity to quality education to every student in Canada no matter what their race, what their colour, what their religious belief. That is something that governments have to do. They will set the example.
In my community, we had a very difficult situation last year at Cole Harbour High in which there was what the media said was a race riot but which in fact was a fight in the school yard between two groups, one primarily white and one black. I want to put on the record what the community did because it is something that everybody in Canada should know about that situation. The community did not divide when that happened. The community came together.
Two weeks ago I attended a dinner. It was on the first anniversary of the situation at Cole Harbour High. It was not a dinner for blacks, it was not a dinner for whites. It was a dinner for people from both communities involved who were concerned about what had happened at that school and who were concerned about the root problem that caused that confrontation.
After that situation happened, instead of taking the anger and using it in a divisive way, leaders from the black community and leaders from the white community, from the Cole Harbour area and from the Eastern Passage area, came together as a parent organization to try to understand each other, so that they could understand the problems that caused this fight between their children. As a result of that type of positive community action, we have come a long way.
I thank God that there are people in my community and in communities across Canada who do not just sit back and wallow in negativism and who just do not accept racism as something that is going to be among us, but who go out and put the effort necessary into understanding at the community level, at a personal level, to tear down those barriers of ignorance that have for all too

February 2, 1990
Supply
long a period of time caused racism to be perpetuated in this country.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I must admit I do not find the subject we are discussing today very congenial, and I am referring to intolerance and prejudice.
A Quebecer by birth and a Franco-Ontarian by choice, I had the great privilege of learning both official languages of our country at a very young age: French of course, since both my parents were Francophones, and English because of the environment in which I grew up.
Madam Speaker, discrimination, prejudice and intolerance are like so many diseases that plague our society, and if no remedies are forthcoming, the consequences may be not only unpleasant and distressing but even devastating for our country. I am thinking, for instance, of Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland, where we see how intolerance can destroy every vestige of human dignity.
Earlier this week, Madam Speaker, municipal authorities in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, passed a resolution declaring their municipality officially unilingual English, of course.
The city council took this step on the basis of a petition signed by several thousand residents of Sault Ste. Marie. Why? Are the vast majority of Sault Ste. Marie residents bigots? Probably not. Are their elected municipal representatives racists? I hope not. I would rather think they were misled, that they made a serious mistake. Inexcusable, if you wish, but still a mistake.
Last fall, Ontario's Bill 8 came into force. Under this legislation, the province guaranteed Franco-Ontarians living in certain designated areas access to services in French. I am of course referring to provincial services. A municipality may offer services in French and even declare itself bilingual, but it certainly has no legal obligation to do so. So why should it declare itself officially unilingual?

Madam Speaker, a small group of individuals, with their own agenda, are trying to have these resolutions adopted by certain municipal councils in Ontario, stating that bilingualism is something that municipalities cannot
afford, and in alleged retaliation for Quebec's Bill 178, which forbids English outdoor signs.
As I said previously, no municipality is forced or in any way compelled to offer French language services in Ontario, even though, in my view, many of them should.
In regard to Bill 178, two wrongs, of course, do not make a right. But it should be noted that the services offered to English speaking residents of Quebec are by and large far superior to those offered to franco Ontarians.
What is most disturbing to me is the message that this kind of declaration sends. Let me try and draw a parallel or two for you, Madam Speaker, and for our colleagues in this House.
If a municipality did not participate in programs to promote racial equality, could it then, using the same logic, declare itself uni-racial? Hopefully not. If a corporation, or a municipality, or anyone else, failed to provide facilities for the disabled, or failed to hire disabled individuals, could it then advertise itself as a disabled-free zone, or any other such name? Again, the answer is no, of course.
Similarly, a municipality or corporation that does not offer French language services certainly need not call itself officially unilingual. The fact that it does not offer these services to its minority, particularly when the minority is composed of a large group of individuals, is unfortunate enough in itself.
To advertise it, in my opinion, constitutes an insult, not only to that minority, even though that is true as well, but to all members of minority groups right across this great country.
The linguistic duality of Canada has been recognized consistently from the Quebec Act of 1774. The fact that Canadians in significant numbers possess an ability to speak one or even both of our official languages represents an immense wealth to our citizens and to our country as a whole. It is a richness worth preserving and worth cherishing.
I call upon all my colleagues in the federal, provincial and municipal office to resist falling into any trap such as this one that divides Canada. Let our country be a land of tolerance where Canadians will feel free and will feel
February 2, 1990

at home everywhere, be they French, English, native, or part of the multicultural community of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on the motion he presented before the House today.
I believe that all Canadians, especially those who hold public office, have a duty to speak to this issue. I hope all parliamentarians will do so.

It has been said before, of course, that all that needs to happen for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. It is our duty to do something to ensure that evil does not triumph, particularly not on this issue.
I want to ask all my colleagues to join me to ensure that we all speak out for Canadian unity and for Canadian tolerance. Our country was built on that so let us make sure that it is not destroyed by these kinds of unfortunate actions.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the eloquent speech by my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I cannot help but stand up and truly convey to him my sincerest appreciation.
As he spoke of human dignity, I was reminded of what has been written. Do we speak of the dignity and the beauty of a star? Do we speak of the beauty of a mountain? No, when we speak of human dignity we do not speak in terms of the glory of a mountain, in the glory of an object but in the glory of the individual. That individual must affirm oneself, and that is the essentiality of life itself.
I am also struck by his comment that those of us in government, the persons who are in power, must treat those other individuals with care. Those are the two concepts that are crucial when we speak of human dignity.
I congratulate my colleague, the member for York Centre, in introducing this motion in which he tells us that intolerance and prejudice exists in Canada and then challenges us to condemn that because intolerance and prejudice definitely will destroy the fabric of our nation.
Supply
We ought to be reminded that the threads that constitute the fabric of our nation are the cultural, social, economic and political factors.
As we address these many issues as alluded to by my colleague, then one day truly we will say that bigotry, intolerance and injustice will be history in the history of our country.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will take only a few moments to thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. I am happy to see, Madam Speaker, that there are many in this House who take this question very seriously. I hope we all do so and that in the days and weeks to come, we will be able to fight the latest unfortunate development we are seeing in this country, and that we will all work together to ensure that Canadians acquire a better knowledge and understanding of each other. I hope that unfortunate events such as those we have seen in the past few days will never happen again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Ihr-dif).


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Before I begin, Madam Speaker, I wish you to know that I will share the time allocated to us with one of my colleagues.
Madam Speaker, it is with deep emotion that I rise to deal with the motion which is before the House today and which, as the previous speaker reminded us, not only condemns intolerance and prejudice in our Canadian society, but urges-that's the part I wish to emphasize- the governement and all members of Parliament to play a role in strenghtening understanding and respect among Canadians.
Madam Speaker, it is indeed important to encourage mutual respect and understanding between Canadian men and women, especially in an area as basic as our linguistic duality, the recognition and promotion of both our official languages.
As next week will mark the 25th anniversary of the tabling of the Royal Commission on Bilinguism and Biculturalism Preliminary Report, I suggest it is important to see that this issue is still part of the current events, that there are new challenges and that we must strive to meet them.

February 2, 1990
Supply

Why? Because it is directly related to a fundamental component of our country's identity. Linguistic duality is part and parcel of our history and our evolution and I am proud of the renewal of our government's commitments in this regard.

After 20 years, Madam Speaker, this government decided to rejuvenate the Official Languages Act and included a new and extremely important promotion role for the Secretary of State.
By so doing, it gave a new impetus to a whole series of support and operation which we do not always take the time to identify and emphasize. Whether in the federal-provincial context, through exchanges with non governmental agencies or initiatives within linguistic minorities throughout this country, we should bear witness to these efforts and accomplishments, great or small.

Such efforts are visible, tangible signs of our country's openness and generosity. They show how together our linguistic duality and cultural diversity provides exciting opportunities for personal and social enrichment.

Many of these initiatives are major projects and collective realizations. They include the establishment for Francophones, together with the Ontario Government, of a College for Applied Sciences and Technology, agreements with the Saskatchewan Government providing for a variety of means to support the recognition of the French language, the promotion of teaching and the enlightenment of the French minority. Other agreements provide for the promotion of the official languages in Nova Scotia and various services to minority communities in Prince Edward Island and Quebec. Other agreements provide for the creation of new Francophone community school centers in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, like in New Brunswick.
We also signed a new memorandum of understanding on official-language instruction with the Council of Ministers of Education. These are landmark events.
Francophone parents outside Quebec are brought together and strengthened by the National Commission of Francophone Parents, and Canadian Parents for French is working in many communities for the teaching of French as a second language. Organizations to represent English-speaking Quebecers in the Abitibi and on the North Shore are coming into existence.
In June 1988, the programs of the Department of the Secretary of State were renewed and strengthened.

This type of activity reflects fundamental democratic values held by Canadians: promoting community spirit and dialogue; encouraging discussion and the exchange of views; relying on the consultative process; co-operation and good will; and seeking partnership on various levels. The language issue still produces and will continue to produce tensions. These we cannot and must not ignore but I am profoundly convinced we must address them not in a spirit of recrimination and confrontation but rather, in the spirit of openness and tolerance that has long constituted the best measure of progress in this country.
This will enhance Canadian identity, which is based on our diversity. Our country recognizes two official languages, used by two great language communities, and enjoys a rich cultural diversity, evidenced by the presence of many other languages and communities, namely our country's first inhabitants, our native people, and the communities formed by many people and groups who have come from all over the world to take part in the development of our country.
In speaking of these things, I do not refer to an abstract notion but to a set of closely related policies which seek to guarantee justice and fairness for all our fellow citizens, anglophone and francophone, with special attention to those who are in a minority.
I am also talking about policies based on the promotion of better understanding and greater harmony between our two language communities. The success of these policies depends in large part on each one of us, on our openmindedness, on our willingness to see the
February 2, 1990

other's point of view, in short, on our attitude to our fellow citizens.
By being fearful, unimaginative or simply intolerant towards our neighbours, we contribute to tensions, problems and agitation. In short, we lay the foundations for a society that is a prey to dissatisfaction and anger. If on the other hand we display the necessary imagination and skill, if we have sufficient self-esteem and self-confidence to respect our neighbours, our country may still have problems-what country does not?-but it will not have to fear for its unity!

There is only one way to meet these fears and misconceptions. That is to explain, and explain again, just what we are doing and why. We have to explain why we believe our policies are reasonable, just, and above all, fair. We have to make sure they are all those things. If we do that we will continue to have the great majority of Canadians on our side.

Equality, justice, fairness-these are the basis of this government's policies, these are the fundamental commitments enshrined in the revised Official Languages Act passed by this House. These are also the principles that we must promote and have understood throughout our society.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Charlesbourg on her excellent address, particularly on her call to Canadians for openness and understanding in our approach to the practice of our official languages legislation and the reality of our two official languages as the linguistic foundation of our country.
I believe I share with all hon. members the concern that was felt this week when one of our most prominent cities, the city of Sault Ste. Marie with its proud heritage and tradition in the history of our country, decided to make a formal assertion of its unilingual status. It was an assertion that did not seem to be required and that would obviously be cause for offence to some of its citizens and citizens everywhere in this country. I would hope that the mayor and councillors of Sault Ste. Marie
Supply
would see fit to reconsider their positions, to review their references and assumptions and the act of leadership in the wrong direction which their decision, in my opinion, constitutes.
I would like to mention to the hon. member for Charlesbourg, to the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie and to this House that in the city of Fredericton, which I represent, we have also had linguistic tensions over the years. We are the capital city of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province, but the tensions of language still exist. We continue to work at them.
About a year ago we were able to establish a citizens committee on language and culture with individual citizens from both French and English backgrounds and from ethnic backgrounds. We have, for example, as a member of this committee, a church minister who is an Estonian. They meet every second week on Monday afternoon for three hours. While the discussions are not public yet, eventually they hope to be able to express their views in a manner that will lead the community to greater understanding. They sit and talk about what the anglophones of New Brunswick and of Fredericton want in a society and what the francophones of Fredericton and New Brunswick want in a society.
I have had the pleasure to witness real communication, understanding and tolerance developing. I urge the mayor and councillors of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, perhaps the MLAs from Sault Ste. Marie, and even perhaps the member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie to use their good offices to establish such citizens committees for the discussion of these difficult issues. As the member for Charlesbourg has said, that kind of an open, tolerant and understanding approach does lead to the creation of a civilized society, the kind for which Canada is held in great esteem throughout the world.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), for allowing me to add a few words to this afternoon's debate which I consider a commitment by each individual member to do everything in his or her power to make Canadian society a better place where all nationalities and races which make up our fabric can live in harmony.

February 2, 1990
Supply
Madam Speaker, intolerance and prejudice in any society, including ours, must be condemned. In addition, we must ensure that they are not allowed to feed on our society. Intolerance and prejudice are only the result of our ignorance. For us, as Canadian people, these are some of the reasons why this government has put so much emphasis on programs supporting our creative talents and promoting our cultural heritage, thus helping to enhance our Canadian identity.

Madam Speaker, the government's total cultural envelope is in the area of $2.4 billion this year, covering several departments and ministries, including the Department of Communications, and, among others, the Secretary of State and the several relevant programs, notably, multiculturalism and the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The Minister of Communications has stated many times in this House that a nation without artists is one without identity. The minister has long recognized the important role that writers, painters, mimes, actors and actresses, comedians, singers, journalists and broadcasters, among others, have played to help us to communicate with each other.
Through these talented mediums, we understand our common bonds, our history, our shared passions, secrets, likes and dislikes, our ambitions for ourselves and for our families, now and tomorrow.
Innovative and well funded programs coming under the aegis of the Department of Communications and the cultural agencies have provided encouragement and support to these artists and to the cultural industries they depend on to disseminate their messages, the publishing industry, the sound recording industry, the performing arts, cultural centres and museums, ballet and theatre companies, and probably the most potent educational force of this century, broadcasting.
Indeed, this House has before it now a wide-ranging bill respecting broadcasting. This bill, tabled in the House by the minister last October 12, has since progressed through second reading and is now before a legislative committee of this House.
Fundamental to the new bill is the notion that the Canadian broadcasting system is important to Canada and to all Canadians for the very reason that it has served and will continue to serve even more effectively to introduce Canadians of all backgrounds, creeds and customs to each other in what is now legally a bilingual and multicultural society.
There is no greater tool than the power of broadcasting to influence public opinion on any subject. The new broadcasting bill now before this House is an instrument which my hon. friend should support in our common goal of eradicating intolerance and ignorance. In its declaration of a broadcasting policy for Canada, the bill stipulates under part four of subclause (c) of clause 3:
The Canadian Broadcasting System should, through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society.
There are other parts of this declaration which are particularly relevant to our debate today. They include comments on the publicly-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its new mandate. I would like to cite some notable exhortations: The programming provided by the Corporation should:
Reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions;
Contribute to shared national consciousness and identity;
Reflect the multicultural nature of Canada.
The broadcasting system is told it must provide programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada, as resources become available for this purpose.
Distribution undertakings are instructed among several subsections dealing with them, that they should:
Provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities.
In summation, this land which already is strong will be reinforced yet further by our maintenance and improvement of those vehicles already at our disposal to educate the general public.
February 2, 1990

While the hon. member has called for a debate on intolerance and prejudice and while isolated incidents do remind us deplorably of bitterness, distrust and jealousy, Canada on the whole has been blessed with a positive and welcoming atmosphere for all people.
A reinforcement of our traditional pioneering values of hospitality, of compassion and tolerance for other other people is required. Through peer group discussion, through our educational systems and through the powerful popular media, it is in Canada's best interest that these values be allowed to prosper again.
Whether we date our history by the Julian or Gregorian calendar, or by the Chinese or Jewish calendars, today is shared by each and everyone of us and tomorrow will come just as routinely as ever.
Canada's painters, poets, dancers, actors, musicians and the many other talented individuals who make up our cultural wealth have played a useful role in the past and continue to be important to us as our interpreters, placing these differences into perspective and reminding us how much we have in common.
There are other languages than the spoken ones and all must be brought to bear to communicate the message that Canada is a multicultural society and all the richer for it.


Mr. Harb:: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his wonderful statement. It was very impressive.
He spoke about the issue of education through the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One would suggest that is a veiy novel suggestion. I share his views and I am sure all members on this side of the House share his views on this issue. It is important to do that, but it is also important to provide the money to go along, to put our money where our mouth is.
I was a bit saddened when I saw the government cutting some of the funding to the CBC. I wondered, how can the CBC meet its objectives and its mandate in light of those cuts. That is one question.
I also agree that there is a need for education. We as a society have to keep our eyes open on issues, whether they affect a linguistic group or individuals in general. When it comes to individual rights, we have human
Supply
rights commissions and agencies across the country that deal with abuses. The problem is that it takes forever for cases to be heard by those commissions or agencies. I also feel that there are no teeth in the decisions that these agencies make. A decision will be made and it seems forever before we see any action.
How does he propose CBC can meet its mandate in light of the recent cuts and the potential future cuts? How would he see commissions and agencies meeting their mandate under the same circumstances?
[!Translation\


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for putting to me a few questions on how the government intends to deal with multiculturalism. As I said in my speech, if he listened closely, we have $2.5 billion invested in multiculturalism and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation legislation.
He referred to cuts. While he put his question I wrote a word down: "Quality" rather than "quantity". Do we need so many people to do the work? Three people are doing the work of one. You certainly realized this, since you live in the Ottawa area, where an unbelievable number of people are working but are not giving their best performance, either at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or even in other departments. So we made cuts and I am convinced that the CBC's new president certainly will get from those who are left the same results as when there were three times the number of people needed.
The last question I did not understand altogether. I am sorry I was taking notes. But following the discussions we had this afternoon, following the way the government has been working for multiculturalism under the new act, I must say Canada is the only country in the world with a new act to treat everyone on an equal footing, whatever his or her colour, race or country of origin. We also have excellent immigration policies that do not exist in other countries, and certainly the hon. member is following closely what is going on globally. What we see in other countries is that refugees especially and even immigrants are not accepted unless they can bring four times what people are bringing to Canada. We are open, we accept immigrants, and we continue accepting them. All I am asking is that all Canadians treat those people

February 2, 1990
Supply
on an equal footing, that they treat them the same way as they themselves want to be treated.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a sobering debate today. There is no value more fundamental to our society and our existence as human beings on this earth than our value for life, the potential and the worth of every human being. We often come closer to that in our rhetoric than in our practice, unfortunately. A member on the other side of the House said earlier this afternoon that it lies in our hands to lead by example.
I want to examine one particular aspect of equality in Canada. There is no more fundamental right of equality than the right to work, to earn a living and to earn a salary that reflects fully the value of the work one does. Yet in this field alone people of different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds are not treated equally in this country. They are not given the full opportunity to develop and demonstrate their potential and to be adequately compensated for it.
By allowing this to continue, we not only demean, belittle and diminish the lives of those people but we diminish the life of our nation. The most valuable resource we have is the capacity and the ability of our people to contribute to the future development of Canada and to the richness of Canadian life.
There is no better way for the Government of Canada to lead than to exercise the tremendous influence it has as the largest employer in Canada and to demonstrate that full equality in hiring, that eliminating biases and prejudices of which we may not even be aware, is so fundamental to acting as a good employer and, above all, to acting as a good government that it deserves the highest priority that this government and this House can give.
I have raised this issue a number of times in the House and have been subjected to rhetorical answers about our employment equity practices and employment equity program and what a wonderful job we are doing. The facts are quite otherwise. I think it is important for the House to be aware of those facts.
Indeed, the Public Service Commission has done a good job of encouraging people to apply for employment within the federal government. I want to talk about the category identified as visible minorities. The federal government between 1987 and 1988 encouraged a 250 per cent increase in applications by people of visible minorities. Of a total 56,000 applicants to public service fully 9,500 were from visible minorities. But how did they fare when it came to being hired? While the number of applicants increased by 250 per cent, the number hired increased by less than 100 per cent.
If your skin was a different colour than that of the Canadian majority, your chance of being hired was only one-quarter as good. Let me just give the figures. Of all applicants, 17 per cent were hired. Of visible minority applicants, only 3 per cent were hired. That means that there is a six to one discrimination factor in our hiring practices in government.
I turn to the report of the Human Rights Commission for 1988 where it states:
Although the official Treasury Board report published at the end of the year puts its best foot forward, analysis of the latest public service figures reveals that matters are not all that much better in federal departments and agencies, despite their having been subject to a policy on employment equity for several years.
It states further:
Visible minorities fair reasonably well in the professional group but their numbers are negligible in blue-collar categories and well below national workforce figures in other areas.
In fact in hiring people into management the federal government has a worse record than the private sector; 6.4 per cent of our workforce are identified as being visible minorities. Yet, in our management category, only 1.6 per cent are. We find visible minorities in the public service clustered in the professional categories, virtually excluded from blue-collar positions, and clustered again in the low-paying clerical worker jobs. On the other hand, the management category in the private sector is well over 2 per cent, more than double that of the federal government. This is nowhere near the ratio of visible minorities in the Canadian population or the Canadian workforce, but is double the record of the federal government.
The same situation applies to promotions. People do get into the Public Service of Canada but they stay where they are. They do not move up. They do not move into that management category where policies are being
February 2, 1990

made, where decisions are being made, where the very culturing ethos of the public service is being influenced and directed.
It is one of the reasons for my concern about Public Service 2000, the Canadian Centre for Management Development and various other initiatives of this government which would decentralize and delegate decision making. The Public Service Commission is responsible for hiring on the basis of the merit. But we have been unable to ensure that hiring is on this basis and not on extraneous factors such as the colour of the skin or the accent. I fear that by creating an elite management cadre we reinforce the little glass bubble lived in by our top 4,000 managers. We encourage and perpetuate the exclusion from that little glass bubble of those who do not quite fit.
There are pro-active ways to increase employment equity but they are not being carried out in the Public Service of Canada. There is no systematic sensitization of managers to the unconscious ways in which they may make choices of who to hire or who to promote. Essentially we all like to think of people who are most like ourselves as being competent. There is a desperate need for a pro-active program among managers in the public service to free up their thinking, to let them see and understand how they perhaps discriminate without intending to. There is also need for a pro-active program at the hiring level to work with people whose cultural differences, language barriers, and different backgrounds may be a negative factor in their being hired. We must get rid of those negative factors. There is a need to follow up when persons are not hired or interviewed to find out why and to what extent discrimination, however unconscious again, may have been a factor in that non-hiring.
There are a variety of areas in which Canadians look to the government for justice, fairness and equality. I was appalled earlier this year when this government refused to accept an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill that would have guaranteed equitable access for all discriminated groups to training and employment opportunities under the unemployment insurance scheme. I cannot understand or justify how our government, including the minister responsible for the Status of Women and the Secretary of State including people whose
Supply
responsibility is equality in Canadian society could have voted against that amendment. But they did.
I cannot understand why I get a letter from the Assembly of First Nations of Canada saying the Secretary of State has refused them literacy funding unless the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs approves. Are they not able to apply for a national program on the same basis as any other group of citizens in this country? Are they being told they do not qualify because they are native Canadians? These are the kinds of things that happen routinely in government that we must obliterate.
It is fine to speak nice words but we have to look at reality. We have to look at enumerators who go around during election time and see if they react differently to somebody with a different skin and ask them where they were bom. They do not ask that of people with white skin.
As the world opens up, people from different nations, different cultural and language backgrounds are invaluable assets to this country. They should be at the upper levels of policy-making, designing government programs, and they are not. I urge the members opposite to have an honest and open look at our own hiring and promotion practices and to fix them.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke spent some time speaking about the public service and in reference to a very recent decision that was handed down concerning equal pay for work of equal value.
I would just like to read the decision on that particular issue brought forth by our government because we were concerned about the public service policy concerning the value of the jobs, and the pay. In January 1990, just last week, the President of the Treasury Board announced a $317 million retroactive equal pay adjustment covering four female dominated groups in the public service.
That retroactive adjustment will average about $4,800 per employee. Another $76 million will go to the annual adjustment taking effect in April of 1990. This is the result of work done since 1985 by the joint union management initiatives on implementation of the equal pay in the public service under which an employee study was undertaken and the value of 3,200 representative

February 2, 1990
Supply
jobs were assessed. Some 68 public servants will be affected by this adjustment.
That has been a veiy positive aspect of our government's initiative in terms of evaluating those jobs in the Public Service.
The other point I would like to bring to the attention of the member is the number of Order in Council appointments by this government of women who have been appointed to boards and commissions. When we took over in 1984, only 13 per cent of those positions were held by women; now it is 30 per cent. It should be 50 per cent, but women are being recommended for positions as they become available, as are visible minorities.
We recognize that there is more work to be done, but we have made giant strides in terms of what was needed.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, the member can believe all the propaganda the minister wants to put out if she wishes to, but the Canadian Eluman Rights Commissioner has other things to say about that. He slams government over pay equity. He has attacked the government for not co-operating with the commission. He warns that the issue of pay equity in the federal public service is far from resolved. There are still 60,000 outstanding complaints before the Human Rights Commission. They have not been resolved. Forty-eight hundred dollars over five years is not pay equity. In fact, the latest settlement by the Human Rights Commission was four or five times that.
The member is obviously not aware that people do not get their salaries or classification increased when they win a pay equity settlement. They just get this little token payment on top. They are denied their benefits. They are denied benefits lost over the last five years or more.
I would ask the member to read the message from the Human Rights Commissioner who had offered his cooperation but was not consulted. He said that what Mr. de Cotret announced was, in fact, one-half of what these people deserve. However, all of this has nothing to do with equality in hiring practices. I urge you to look at the number of women, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities who are being hired on short-term, temporary contracts, and a part-time basis. They are not
getting into permanent jobs which would give them the financial security that people need and deserve.
I know people who have been in the public service for four or five years on repeating six months' terms, without any stability, security, promotion, or benefits.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I am wondering how comfortable the member feels representing a party that had close to 20 consecutive years governing this country and left us with those pay equity problems? Is it comfortable to support a party that had 20 years to fix them but did nothing? Or is it more comfortable to support a party that has at least done something?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Five years and counting, Jim.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I think the member needs to be reminded that it is this party that introduced the Canadian Charter of Human Rights to ensure that not only in government, but throughout society, those problems would be addressed. It is his government which has had that charter for a number of years now and has been stalling and balking on implementing it.
I am not here to revisit history when attitudes were certainly different in government as they were throughout society. We know that the value of people and our commitment to respect the equality of people are something precious in our society. We incorporated equality in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in our Constitution.
Values are changing in society. Needs are changing in society. I think it is time the government took its responsibilities right now, stopped stalling and got on with the job.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is now over. On debate, the hon. member for Halifax.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of this motion. I certainly advise the government Whip to listen; it might do him some good.
I rise to speak, as I said, in strong support of this motion and in a great deal of seriousness in relation to what has gone on today and what has gone on for far too long in this country: intolerance, bigotry and discrimination. These are synonyms for ignorance. They are syn-
February 2, 1990

onyms for fear. There is no place in the Canada of 1990 for words such as these nor for the sentiments that they portray.
Bigotry, prejudice and intolerance are not natural to the human species. They are learned responses, learned through odious example and passed on as an insidious legacy, eating away the fabric of decency in Canadian society. Anti-French, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-native, and so on: what we have is a perfidious, sickening litany of hate.
Unfortunately my riding of Halifax in my province of Nova Scotia now has a reputation that has been much tarnished over the past several years and, more unfortunately, rightly so. I refer to the report of the Marshall inquiry that has shown beyond any doubt the despicable treatment of visible minorities by the justice system and the institutionalized racism that exists in Nova Scotia.
However, the tragedy is that it exists not just in Nova Scotia. It exists in Canada as a whole. It exists in every province. Nova Scotians today bear the guilt for what has gone on in our province in the past, but as Canadians we jointly bear the responsibility for our refusal to come to terms provincially and federally with the questions of bigotry and intolerance.
The metropolitan area of Halifax and Dartmouth, as was referred to by my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, in his speech earlier today, contains the largest indigenous black population in Canada. Some 90 per cent of indigenous blacks live in Halifax and Dartmouth and the surrounding area. The black population of Nova Scotia has a long and proud history in this country.
Indeed black immigration to the east coast of Canada was in two ways. The first was a significant number of blacks who came as United Empire Loyalists after the American Revolution, who came with the idea of starting a new life loyal to the British Crown and who came under the same theories of land grants as their white counterparts. Unfortunately those theories were not realized. Although there are many blacks in Nova Scotia who can trace their roots to that same proud heritage, that proud heritage was never recognized in land grants and reactions from the British Crown. Perhaps this was the beginning of institutionalized racism in the province of Nova Scotia.
Supply
The second major wave of black immigration into Nova Scotia was the famous underground railroad from the southern states, run by such famed abolitionists as Harriett Beecher Stowe, her brother and various and sundry other brave and courageous anti-racists in the 19th century in the United States and Canada. The last stop on the underground railroad was the province of Nova Scotia. From there the communities such as Preston and Cherrybrook, the black communities in Cape Breton and Digby County and Yarmouth County, eventually arose.
Blacks in Nova Scotia have been nation builders, the same as Canadians of any other colour from coast to coast. In Nova Scotia blacks have laboured side by side with whites as coal miners and steel workers in some of the most back breaking and dangerous jobs this country has ever seen. They have been fishermen and they have been farmers. In my city of Halifax they are an integral part of the small but cosmopolitan community that is metropolitan Halifax.
Yet, despite all this contribution, we still have in the black community in my province a disproportionate unemployment rate and a disproportionate school leaving rate. Worst of all, we have a belief among the black community that its worth and its value to our society is less in the eyes of its white fellow citizens than it is in its own eyes. This a shame and a scandal and something that none of us can stand for while it still exists.
I want to talk very briefly about a particular part of my city: a particular housing project in the city of Halifax which I think is a microcosm of the problems created by racism, combined with poverty and combined with a refusal to see what is in front of us, a refusal to see the facts as they are.
Over 30 years ago this public housing project was built in the city of Halifax. It overlooks some of the most beautiful landscape in a beautiful city in a beautiful province. From this housing project one can see Bedford Basin, Halifax Harbour and the hills beyond Dartmouth. This project has a series of joined terraced houses and at least two or possibly three high-rise apartment buildings. The first thing that strikes one inside this complex is the amount of concrete and the absence of grass.

February 2, 1990
Supply
When I went there for the first time in many years this past summer, the first thing that struck me was: Who decided that people who live in public housing do not want to have grass for their children to play on just as much as people who live in expensive neighbourhoods? Who decided that concrete and rusty springs, broken cement and broken wrought iron are acceptable for the children of public housing residents when they are not acceptable for children of people in perhaps a higher economic bracket?
When we look at this particular housing project we see that discrimination is alive and well, because the vast majority of residents in this project are either black or another group vastly discriminated against in our society: single mothers probably on social assistance.
This project was built 30 years ago. In its high-rise elevators children are stopped and dealt drugs. Muggings and rampant crime against persons and against property are daily events. We all hear about the projects in Chicago and tell ourselves that our cities thus far are better off. Well, I am here to say that in my city of Halifax they are not better off. The project in Halifax may be smaller, but the harm to the humans, black and white, adults and children, who live there is no less.
I doubt that anyone in this House would ever admit to be racist. I doubt that anyone in this House would ever admit to being a bigot. Certainly I believe that all of us, no matter from where we come, no matter what views we espouse, are here because we want to do as much good as possible. When I say that I do not believe anyone in this House is truly a racist or a bigot, I hope it is true at least in the essential meaning of the word.
The problem is that while we sit here in this House of Commons and do no more about projects like Mulgrave Park, about a refusal to allow Sikhs to wear their turbans in the RCMP and about a refusal to grant pay equity as it is supposed to be granted, we plead guilty to the charges of intolerance.


Mr. Gardiner:: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief comment to make and a question to direct to the member.
I congratulate her on the comments she made reflecting circumstances in her riding in Halifax which I visited many years ago and hope to visit some time in the future. I would also like to speak briefly to the motion presented by the Liberals on intolerance in our society in Canada.
It is a duty of all members of this House and community leaders to ensure that tolerance is recognized and continued in this country.
I gather this motion was presented by the Liberal Party. I am interested in having a comment from the member on how unified the Liberal Party is on the motion and if its members will be supporting it.
I refer to comments made on November 17 by the member for Gander-Grand Falls who in reference to the member's comments about turbans and Sikhs with the RCMP suggested that that was ridiculous. I wonder if Liberals have had their own talks on this issue so that they are in fact unified and that tolerance in society is represented by all members of all parties.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am delighted with the question and comments of my colleague in the New Democratic Party. I can tell it has been a long time since he has been to Halifax, but I am sure he will remedy that. If he speaks to me, I will make sure they let him in.
With regard to a comment by my colleague for Gander-Grand Falls, if he said that the question of stopping the Sikhs from wearing their turbans in the RCMP was ridiculous, I can only say that I certainly agree. If he said something else, I suggest his remarks were misinterpreted. I am not familiar with the remarks. I only know that in the Liberal Party to which I belong I feel very strongly and I am fully aware that my views are supported by my caucus colleagues.
This is an issue that goes beyond partisan point making. If at times any one of us in any of the three parties falls from grace and makes a comment that is unacceptable to someone else, it is sad and unfortunate. We all try very hard to make sure that this does not happen, but unfortunately we too are human and we too make mistakes. When the day comes that we can stand here in this House and say that no one in any of the three parties is likely to put a foot wrong, perhaps that will be the day that this country will be in such perfect condition that we will have evolved ourselves out of the need for a job.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I was interested in what my colleague had to say about the obvious links between poverty and racism and lack of education and lack of opportunity. I just wonder if she might take a minute to reinforce her message to the House that
February 2, 1990

racism has some veiy undesirable social and economic impacts in our communities.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief comment in response. I mentioned that there was a disproportionate school leaving rate for blacks and a disproportionate unemployment rate for blacks in the province of Nova Scotia. I would just like to quote some statistics very briefly. We have 10,000 people in the Nova Scotia Civil Service. The Marshall inquiry report has told us this week that only 208 of those civil servants are visible minorities, which includes not only blacks but other visible minorities as well.
Today the Premier of Nova Scotia, John Buchanan, said there was no racism in the Nova Scotia Civil Service, and he said that he could not recall any incident of discrimination within the Civil Service or even a charge thereto in the last 10 years.
I want to say that in a city like mine where blacks are continually and daily the subject of discrimination in education and in hiring a statement such as this one shows nothing short of irresponsibility and insensitivity of a mammoth nature.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, intolerance and prejudice are attitudes that are crippling in any society, not only to individuals and families but also to society at large.
The House heard earlier today of government action on issues ranging from race relations and official languages to culture and justice, all of them fields in which this government's initiatives have made a meaningful difference in regard to improvements.
I join in the debate by discussing government initiatives in another field: the world of employment. I will focus on the issue of employment equity for there are few measures of such general significance in the fight against intolerance and prejudice.
This government recognized from the outset that Canada could no longer afford the enormous social and economic class implicit in inequitable and unjust employment barriers. We understood that for Canada to succeed in the 1990s and beyond the full participating of our human resources was essential.
Supply
Everyone in the House is aware that the competitive and skill demands on our labour market are increasing at an unprecedented rate. To meet these demands we must equitably involve all Canadians. In contrast to the government of hon. members across the floor, this government has not merely paid lip service to the issue of employment equity but we have acted decisively and responsibly.
In 1986 we took a number of major steps toward achieving equity in employment in Canada. As part of that initiative the government established two important programs: the legislative employment equity program and the federal contractors program. These major landmarks deal significantly and specifically with the four groups arbitrarily affected by stereotypes and prejudice, namely, women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities.
The Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986. It is the first legislation of its kind. The legislative employment equity program applies to Crown corporations and to federally regulated employers with 100 or more employees. These employers are primarily in the banking, transportation and communications industries.
Under this program employers must implement employment equity and submit annual reports showing how the four designated groups are represented in their organization in terms of salary ranges, occupational groups, hiring, promotions and terminations. Their reports are analysed by us and are then made available to the public through public libraries. Employers who fail to report may be fined.
In addition, these reports are handed over to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which can take action against an employer who has discriminated.
It is important to note that this legislation does not set quotas or dictate exact steps employers must take. It is not a bureaucratic albatross for employers. Instead, it is a developmental mechanism which encourages investment in a more representative, productive workforce. The goal of these programs is to achieve equal access to employment opportunities for traditionally under-represented Canadians.
The government moved quickly to pass this legislation and we have been encouraged by the response from Canadian employers. The legislative employment equity program and the federal contractors program encompass

February 2, 1990
Supply
35 per cent of the top 500 companies in Canada with more than 1.5 million employees in total.
Under the the federal contractors program failure to implement an employment equity plan will result in sanctions, meaning that there will be no more opportunity to do business with the federal government until the program criteria have been met. This has already happened in many cases but, more important, over the short-term period we are seeing some positive results based on acceptance of this program and this government objective to put a more representative and dynamic face on our workforce.
We will continue to monitor these programs. We are determined to take the steps necessaiy to ensure even greater progress. Across Canada companies are recognizing that employment equity means good business. As important as this progress is the government sincerely believes that it is even more fundamental to give Canadians the chance to find their place in an expanding labour market. After all, the road to productive, meaningful employment must be built on economic opportunity.
Over the last five and a half years this government has clearly established a framework of opportunity and growth. During that time employment has fallen significantly, while job opportunities have grown. As significant as the number of jobs is the type of jobs this government is targeting. Through the Canadian Jobs Strategy approximately 1.5 million Canadians have received meaningful training and on the job experience since 1985. By emphasizing co-operative involvement with the private sector at the local level, the Canadian Jobs Strategy has given Canadians meaningful job skills that translate into long-term employment.
There has been no riding in the country that has benefited more from this particular program than the riding of Carleton-Charlotte. We have given programs to many disadvantaged people, especially women. We have allowed women to go into the workforce who have never had the opportunity because of lack of education, marital break-ups or whatever. We have really had some great successes in New Brunswick with that particular program. We have programs coming on stream constantly to address this very real need in the workforce.
Consistent with the Canadian Jobs Strategy mandate of helping those in need, participation in the CJS program is focused on women returning to the workforce, persons with disabilities, young people and other target groups.
This commitment to a more dynamic and representative workforce was reinforced last spring through the government's Labour Force Development Strategy. This strategy includes positive changes to the UI program designed to reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as contemporary, social, family and work patterns. Again it is the co-operative, training oriented strategy involving all stakeholders in the common goal of making our labour force more responsive to emerging pressures.
Employment equity is not a thing of the past, but on a variety of legislative fronts this government has implemented measures that are already having an important impact. As the hon. member's motion states, every one of us in Parliament has a role to play in ensuring that all Canadians receive equitable hiring and salary treatment. This government has taken and is taking significant steps in that direction. The result of these initiatives and of a sustained period of economic growth has been unprecedented. The opportunity for Canadians will continue to grow.
In conclusion, the government is committed to ensuring that these opportunities continue to grow for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I guess when one is almost the last one on the list in this debate one has an opportunity to do a bit of a recap.
On behalf of my party I thank the member for York Centre and the Liberal caucus for the presentation of this motion. Given some of the events in Canada today, it is important that we commit some time in this Parliament to the discussion of what appears to be a growing wave of racism and intolerance in this country.
It is of particular concern, when we look elsewhere in the world where barriers between peoples are breaking down, where freedom seems to be on the increase, where democratic thought seems to be on the increase and where tolerance to be on the increase, that in
February 2, 1990

Canada the tide may be moving the other way. This is something that we in this Parliament and that the government have to be concerned about.
Some members even mentioned the speech in Parliament a couple of days ago by Prime Minister de Klerk of South Africa in which he announced that the barriers in South Africa are to begin to be broken down and that an approach is to be made toward more equality between the races and the establishment of more equal rights between the races in South Africa.
As those countries which have in the past been less tolerant become more tolerant, my concern is that Canada seems to be proceeding in the opposite direction and at some point along the way will end up substituting for those countries as the object of international concern and derision.
Previous speakers have mentioned the motion recently made in Sault Ste. Marie about its establishment as a unilingual city. This country is proud of its bilingual traditions and wishes to see those traditions expanded and the rights of Canadians, regardless of their mother tongue, respected all across the country. What happened in Sault Ste. Marie recently came as a shock to many Canadians who see this country as a country of freedom, a country of tolerance and a country of mutual respect.
One thing that has disturbed me over the last little while is the number of letters and petitions I have been receiving from people in my constituency and elsewhere, suggesting that devout Sikh Canadians who wear the turban should not have the right to be members of the RCMP because it will interfere with the tradition of the RCMP uniform.
I have noticed in the letters these people have written that they always feel compelled to include in these form letters that: "This is not a prejudiced statement".
Of course it is a prejudiced statement. It is designed to limit access of a specific religious group to the national police force of Canada based on specific characteristics of their religious; either that or it forces them to divest themselves of important aspects of their religion in order to conform with what the balance of the Canadian society would like to see.
Supply
In spite of a recommendation from senior officers of the RCMP and in spite of the concerns expressed in this Parliament, it is unJfortunate that the Solicitor General has taken so long to make a decision on this issue.


An hon. member:: Totally irresponsible.


Robert Evans Skelly: It is not just irresponsible. It gives people out there in society, people who are members of minority groups, the message that this delay means there is an element of racism in the Government of Canada which gives rise to the delay in making a decision with respect to the opportunity for Sikhs to serve in the RCMP.
There is concern about racism in the government itself. I think that is a legitimate concern and something about which all of us in the this Parliament and this government have to be concerned.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism said in his presentation that government alone cannot solve the problem of racism, that it has to be done with the co-operation of others. To some extent, that is true. I do not think government alone can solve the problem.
To some extent, this is a cop-out for taking strong and effective action to deal with racism when we perceive it operating in our society. I would like to go back a few years. Mention has been made about racism in the United States, especially racism directed against blacks.
In the 1940s and 1950s blacks were protected under the United States Constitution. They had equality before the law under the U.S. Constitution. In terms of education, blacks were supposed to have the same rights as every other American, and yet blacks did not have the same right to education.
All Americans were entitled to vote at that time and vote for their leaders and presidents. Yet blacks seemed to be deprived of that right to vote and to exercise power because of the way the system enforced the rights of black people in the United States. It was only when the segregation decision was taken by the courts and the United States federal government used the power of its military forces to put black kids into white schools that the changes took place in the United States with respect to equal access to education.

February 2, 1990
Supply
It was only when the federal government of the United States passed laws with respect to voter registration that they enforced the operation of those laws in favour of black citizens. By using armed Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, black people in the United States got the rights that were guaranteed to them under the Constitution and under the fundamental law of the United States.
There is a principle that operates here and that principle is before you can change attitudes, you must change behaviour. Before you change attitudes, you must change behaviour. Education cannot do it alone. Fine sentiments made and expressed in this House cannot do it alone. Before you change attitudes, you have to change behaviour.
Members brought up the issue of the employment equity legislation. I think this employment equity legislation is not anything that we can be proud of in this country. There is absolutely nothing that we can be proud of in terms of this legislation. The annual report of the Employment Equity Act documents the failure of this legislation to serve the very people that it purportedly was designed to serve.
In fact, Madam Speaker, this legislation is designed to be public relations. It is designed to be smoke and mirrors. When you look at the success of this legislation from the point of view of aboriginal people-and I will just take one page-of all the corporations listed under federal jurisdiction on page 81, only a miniscule number conform with the requirements for hiring aboriginal people.
Even the Canadian government's own Crown corporations and instruments, such as Canada Post Corporation, is a failure with respect to the hiring of aboriginal people. Yet it is under the direct control and responsibility of this Parliament and this government.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has also been an absolute failure with respect to the hiring of women, aboriginal people, people with disabilities and members of visible minorities. Yet it is under the direct control and responsibility of this government and this Parliament.
There is no effective employment equity legislation in this country. The reason is that it was designed not to be effective because if people are designing legislation to accomplish employment equity, they must design that legislation to have within it the ability to impose sanctions against those who do not obey the law. Not to include such a section in this law is not an error or an omission; it is an invitation to the corporations that come under the federal jurisdiction to practice the biases that this law purports to be eliminating. That is precisely what is happening.
This is not a document designed to decrease prejudice or intolerance in this country. This document in fact increases it because it creates expectations without the ability of the people involved, the people oppressed, to have those expectations fulfilled. If this government does not within a very short period rectify this legislation so that it is designed to eliminate intolerance and prejudice, we are going to have something to say about this government and its commitment to eliminating racism and intolerance. These kinds of things do not happen in a country where the government has a commitment to eliminating intolerance. It is as simple as that.
Until we see some changes in this legislation, we are not going to see changes in the performance of those corporations. Then we are going to have some questions to ask about this government's commitment to eliminating racism and intolerance.
Some members in this debate mentioned the Marshall inquiry that recently reported in Nova Scotia. I think we should all read the report of that Marshall inquiry. It says a great deal about Canada. It says a great deal about Canadians and about the institutions of Canada and how they are racially biased against non-whites in Canada.
I would like to quote a few short sections of the Marshall inquiry. Basically, what the Marshall inquiry says in the very first part of its findings in fact its most important findings, is this: "The fact that Marshall was a native was a factor in his wrongful conviction and imprisonment."
It is the most unbelievable finding in this report. The most important finding in the Marshall inquiry report is the fact that Marshall was a native was a factor in his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
There is a second section: "That MacIntyre without any evidence to support his conclusions and in the face of evidence to the contrary, had identified Marshall as a prime suspect. The fact that Marshall was a native was
February 2, 1990

one of the reasons why MacIntyre identified him as the prime suspect."
The judicial system in Canada discriminates against people in Canada because they are of a different colour or a different culture than those of the dominant culture. That is the true finding of the Marshall inquiry.
We really did not need the Marshall inquiry to find this out. All you have to do is read the statistics of native people in prisons in Canada to find out exactly how this country's justice system discriminates against native people.
Let me quote from an article entitled "Locking up Natives in Canada" by Michael Jackson, a professor at the University of British Columbia. He talks about the federal prison system, the system this Parliament and this government has direct responsibility for. Here is what Michael Jackson says: "Ten per cent of the federal prison population is native men; 13 per cent in the women's prison are native women, and yet native people are only 2 per cent of the population."
You cannot argue from the point of view that natives are more criminally oriented, more likely to be involved in crime and more likely to be involved with brushes with the law. The system of justice in Canada is culturally and racially biased against native people and statistics document this over and over again. You do not need the Marshall report. You do not need the justice enquiry that is going on in Manitoba. You do not need the justice inquiry that is going on in Alberta. The statistics document over and over again that Canada is a de facto racist society when it comes to the practice of administering injustice against native people. This Parliament and this government have an obligation to do something about that.
In the prairie region natives make up 5 per cent of the total population but 32 per cent of the prison population. We send natives to jail at a rate six times greater than their representation in the population. It is de facto evidence that our system of justice and our country are discriminating on a racial basis against native people. This is not a finding that comes out of things like the Marshall inquiry alone. This is a finding that is now
Supply
coming out of human rights agencies set up by the United Nations.
People are beginning to recognize throughout the world that this Canada of ours, this country that we expressed such great pride in at the opening of this debate, this country of ours has nothing to brag about when it comes to racial equality or equal treatment before the law. It is not only in the justice system where we discriminate against natives.
There is an editorial I would like to refer to called "Our Third World" in the Edmonton Journal of January 21, 1990:
Alberta's treaty Indians suffer tuberculosis at a rate 12 times higher than the provincial average. Add in Metis and non-status Indians and the TB rate in the native community doubles. These 1988 stats follow a long trend of TB rates that run 10 to 20 times higher among natives than among non-natives.
Tuberculosis is essentially a disease of poor people who live in miserable conditions of housing and nutrition and natives suffer from this disease 10 to 20 times more than the general population.
Natives suffer a higher incidence of skin disease, diabetes, high blood pressure. The death rate from respiratory diseases is two times the Canadian rate. From injury and poisoning four times the Canadian rate. From suicide three times the Canadian rate.
In fact, Indians die at a rate two to four times higher than non-natives in this country at every age up to 54. Their life expectancy is nine years shorter than non-native Canadians, shorter even than the life expectancy in some Central American countries.
This country has an institutionalized system of discrimination on the basis of race against native Indians. We cannot make eloquent statements here about how good Canada is or how good we are going to be unless we come up with some concrete measures in this Parliament to deal with the issue and do something about it. To do something about it, Madam Speaker, you must change behaviour before you change attitudes. You have to change the law, you have to provide sanctions in the law and you have to be tough in the enforcement of that law.
We want to live together in this country with all people of all walks of life of all creeds and colours. But to do it we have to afford the same protection to all that we afford to ourselves. I think out of this debate Parliament should make a strong commitment that it intends to do that very thing.

February 2, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being three o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) the proceedings of the motion have expired.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Stupich:: Madam Speaker, it has been an excellent debate with respect to content and timeliness. The interesting thing is that everyone in the House has spoken in favour of the motion, whether speaking, asking questions or commenting. May I suggest that the House unanimously agree to adopt this resolution?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion has expired. I have already announced that the time had expired.


Mr. Prud'homme:: By unanimous consent we could adopt it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis says that by unanimous consent it could be, except that there was not unanimous consent.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 5, 1990