1990-02-13

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last October, I filed a petition signed by my constituents with the Clerk of the House, as prescribed by the Standing Orders. A month later, two other ministers did the same.
In an article in La Presse, an employee of the House of Commons was quoted indirectly as saying that filing a petition directly with the Clerk instead of presenting it in the House might indicate that we disagreed with the position defended by the petitioners. The same employee also said there was nothing to compel us to act as messengers for groups with whose views we disagreed. For instance, a member opposed to abortion would probably not table a petition in favour of abortion.
Mr. Speaker, these comments are inaccurate. As you know, Canadian citizens have always had the right to petition the Crown and Parliament for redress of what might have been perceived as a grievance. I quote Beauchesne's, our authority on parliamentary procedure:
Although the House of Commons is a representative institution, it only considers questions submitted by its elected Members. Therefore the ordinary citizen has no right to appear personally before the House of Commons. If he has a grievance, he may present a written petition through a Member within the conditions laid down in the Standing Orders of the House.
The only elected representative in the House who is excluded from the responsibility to present petitions
from his constituents is the Speaker, the reason being that he might be called upon to rule on the irregularity of petitions.
Beauchesne's tells us in citation 689 that when the Speaker's constituents ask him to present a petition in the House of Commons on their behalf:
-he must avail himself of the services of another Member.
Beauchesne's indicates no other exceptions to the rule, whatever the responsibilities of the member, minister, backbencher, or Leader of the Opposition. It is his duty, as an elected representative, to present the petitions of his constituents. It is a duty, not a choice.
The personal beliefs of the member have no connection either with the principle or the practice. If a petition is duly certified by the clerk and signed by the member, it may, pursuant to the Standing Orders, be presented in the House during routine proceedings or filed directly with the clerk. In either case, the presentation is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I and other members presented these petitions to discharge our duties to our constituents, whether or not we agreed with the content and irrespective of what is said when presenting petitions under Routine Proceedings or when filing them "by the backdoor" with the clerk of the House.
Mr. Speaker, an article in this morning's La Presse quotes the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
It shows lack of courage on the part of these ministers to table
petitions in the House by the back door, without commenting
publicly.
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 36(7) allows no debate when a petition is presented. The article in La Presse continues:
Mr. Gauthier still wonders whether there are links between these
ministers and APEC.
I reject the suggestion that a member shows lack of courage by choosing to submit a petition to the clerk of the House.

February 13, 1990
Privilege
In fact, the quickest and most effective way is clearly to use a letter, instead of rising in the House. No one can question my courage on language rights. As Minister of State for Treasury Board, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House and Member of Parliament, I worked hard to pass Bill C-72. Many of my constituents criticize me for this active role. I am proud of it.
I support the linguistic duality of this country. I support it unequivocally. I do not belong to APEC. Furthermore, I deplore their opinions and everything they represent. However, as a member of Parliament, I must represent my constituents. Some members of APEC who live in my riding asked me to table their petition in the House. I did so and this gave the government an opportunity to answer them clearly and precisely.
I do not agree with APEC's opinions, but they have the right to have them presented in the House. And I have the right to decide how to do it without being accused of lacking courage.
I therefore ask my hon. friend to apologize to me and my colleagues.

Finally, in English, just in case I missed something. I want everyone to know something, and I mean this. WASPs have fought for minorities for centuries. We are going to continue that fight. We reject intolerance wherever we find it and we are always going to be there to preach tolerance and to protect the rights of minorities.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments following that statement, which I accept and feel should perhaps have been made some months ago. The whole matter raised by the minister is very important for the House and Canadians who respect not only our Constitution but also this country's official languages. I recognize that the minister has always been honest in dealing with this question and I also acknowledge his ability to rise in this House and maintain his position on official languages.
I must nevertheless tell the House that when a journalist calls us to ask, further to some items published in the press, why a minister did not comment or publicly table a petition, it is a known fact, Mr. Speaker, that in
this House-and I am not saying it, it was said long before I did-some hon. members, on fundamental issues affecting them, like official languages in my case or abortion for others-perhaps I should mention capital punishment or other similar subjects that are difficult for many members. These subjects require many of us to make painful decisions that are at times extremely difficult.
I think that the petition's authorship, even if it is signed by members of Parliament, is not the issue. We all know the Standing Orders. We know very well that petitions are usually a collective effort. In this case, the petitions had been organized by APEC, which is known as an extreme right-wing group on official languages and has long been dedicated to eliminating respect for both official languages, French and English, from this country, and making Canada unilingually English. I will fight that concept and I think that the minister will join us in that fight.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about a petition by APEC or about the goods and services tax, or a petition for or against abortion, I don't think a minister who represents a cabinet that upholds cabinet solidarity, ought to or has the right to say: I am going to file this particular petition with the clerk as provided under Standing Order 35(6). I think the minister made his point, and perhaps when I said manque de courage, I was describing what I see as one of the problems some members have with rising in the House and saying: I condemn this policy aimed at killing the concept of official languages, but I table this petition as the member for a riding that contains certain groups which promote certain principles from which I wish to dissociate myself. It takes guts to do that, Mr. Speaker. I have done it before in the House, and the minister has done it often enough on other topics; today, he did it on the official languages issue. I respect him for that because he condemned, before this House, the APEC and what it represents. I am grateful for that, and I think all Canadians owe him a debt of gratitude for this important statement.
However, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of procedure we have in the House of Commons, it is sometimes difficult to keep up with the opinions expressed in petitions that are tabled through the clerk. When a petition is tabled openly in the House, everybody knows about it. It is in Hansard the next day, and everybody knows that peti-
February 13, 1990

tions were tabled. In fact, members on all sides of the House have tabled petitions on the official languages issue, APEC and Bill 178 in Quebec. However, I feel that the minister, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, did not entirely discharge his duties as a member of cabinet when he omitted to mention, although he was acting within the Standing Orders, that he was not at all associated with this petition. I agree the minister had the right to lay the petition on the Table of the House. However, I also feel that the minister should, from time to time, rise in the House and condemn this group that wants to destroy my country. I say this very seriously, Mr. Speaker. This group should be condemned by all members of this House. This is important to me.
To get back to the question of our parliamentary democracy, it is true that our system allows any group to table petitions in this House. It is a right that Canadians have had for many years. I don't contest that. However, a petition always contains a prayer, and that prayer reads as follows: "The petition of the undersigned, residents of Canada, who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy".
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners, the people who signed the petition the minister tabled, have the certain assurance that the government or Parliament will provide a remedy for their problems. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means abolishing official languages in this country. It means proclaiming this country to be a unilingual, English-speaking country Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to do that. And I don't think the minister is either. That is why I said that this roundabout, under-the-table way was not the right way, and I condemn the APEC. In concluding, I would like to repeat that if the minister felt hurt because I said that he lacked guts, he and his colleagues, I maintain this is not unparliamentary. Guts means rising in the House like he did today, and I thank him for it. It meant rising and condemning the group on whose behalf he tabled a petition in the House.
Privilege


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a few words to the comments made by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the two articles in question have raised considerable concern for a number of us. The first appeared in La Presse on Saturday, the second appeared today.
The clear implication of those articles was that members of Parliament, in exercising their right and their responsibility to table petitions on behalf of their constituents, in the act of tabling those petitions, somehow indicate that they support the content of those petitions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I think it is appropriate that we should use the vehicle of the question of privilege to, first of all, make it clear that those of us who have tabled these petitions in no way endorse their contents. I am not a supporter of APEC; I have not been a supporter of APEC in the past; I will not be a supporter of APEC in the future.
I would think that in 17 years in Parliament one develops a record which can be consulted by anyone who wishes to do so, in terms of the votes that one takes in Parliament, in terms of the positions that one takes in one's constituency and across the country. I think that, in the course of those seventeen and a half years that I have been privileged to serve in Parliament, I have developed some reputation for a belief in the preservation of rights across Canada, the belief that we should all fight against intolerance in whatever form, and the belief, as well, that all Canadians are entitled to the right of freedom of speech.
My practice, during the years in which I have served as a member of Parliament, has been to table petitions in the House of Commons which are presented by my constituents with the request that they be passed on to Parliament. I fully concede this fact up front; nothing in the rules requires that a member of Parliament discharge that moral responsibility anymore than anything in the rules requires that a member of Parliament vote in this place, or that a member of Parliament speak in debate,

February 13, 1990
Privilege
or that a member of Parliament discharge the many other responsibilities that he or she has. One of the most basic and fundamental rights for which people have fought and died is the right of freedom of speech. And the right to petition Parliament is a direct extension of the right of freedom of speech.
I do not believe that any of us has to say that we endorse everything that is said whenever someone exercises his or her freedom of speech. But, I think everyone in this House must surely accept the principle of freedom of speech as being sacrosanct. The principle of the right of citizens of this country to petition the Parliament of Canada must also be sacrosanct.
In the article in La Presse the journalist takes a good deal of time speculating as to whether those members of Parliament who table petitions support the contents of the petitions. The reporter had lots of time for doing that. What he did not have time to do was to bother to ask any of the members of Parliament in question what their position was.
I received no telephone call from that journalist before he wrote his article. Had he called, had he asked whether I supported APEC's petition, the answer would have been unequivocally "no". But, the journalist did not take the trouble to bother to find out. Instead, he simply speculated.
In the Saturday article there was a disturbing, unattributed quotation referring to fonctionnaire de la Chambre des communes, saying that members of Parliament typically would not table petitions with which they disagree. The individual who is alleged to have made that quote is not identified and I do not think any purpose is served by our trying to search him or her out. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate for you-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt, but the hon. member referred to an apparently unidentified functionary of this place. I just want to tell the House that that person has not been identified and that person may not exist.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Finally, I would make two points with regard to the practice that is followed here. The first is that had the journalist in question bothered to check the record he would have been able to check other petitions that I have tabled during my time here in Parliament. He would have found, for example, that I have tabled petitions on abortion, an issue on which I hold very strong views and on which there is a bill before Parliament at the present time. I have tabled petitions which do not necessarily accord with my point of view on abortion.
I have attempted as well to table a petition in opposition to the goods and services tax. My support of the goods and services tax is well known. I am a minister of the Crown and my very membership in cabinet requires full support of all of the government's programs. Yet I sent to the clerk of petitions, as I believe is appropriate, a petition drawn up within my own constituency in opposition to the goods and services tax. It was rejected by the clerk of petitions because it was not drawn up in the right form. But the intention was there to allow my constituents to petition Parliament whenever they believe that they have a grievance that should be redressed.
The Minister of Justice and government House leader on behalf of the government responded, rejecting APEC's petition. That point should not be lost on anybody here-the government made a formal response to the APEC petitions rejecting the petitions. The La Presse article says that when the government House leader responded to it, he tabled the response in an equally discreet way, ostensibly one assumes to avoid anybody noticing that he had tabled a response. That is the only way in which a response can be given to petitions. It is the way in which a response is given daily to petitions. To suggest that there is something surreptitious or sneaky about tabling a response to petitions, which is the only way in which it can be done is simply a perversion of the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I detest intolerance in whatever form it comes. I have no affiliation and will have no affiliation with a movement that promotes intolerance and fear.
Privilege
That is my policy in French and it is my policy in English. It is the responsibility of every member of Parliament. As long as I am privileged to serve in this place, my policy will be to promote tolerance and understanding and not fear and intolerance. As long as I serve in this Parliament, my goal as well will be to ensure that the rights of freedom of speech of all Canadians are fully respected.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few points on the record today with respect to the issue to which my colleagues the Ministers of Justice and National Health and Welfare have referred. The point that has to be mentioned here is that one has as much credibility in this House and in the country with respect to national leadership as the integrity with which one's words are taken and respected on both sides of the House.
We have partisan differences in this House, that is what this place is all about. On the other hand, there is always a deep understanding, which I have always appreciated in the 17 plus years that I have been here, that we respect the manner in which members deal with tough and difficult public issues and also their attempts to forge national unity.
Having said that, I want to make a couple of points. I will not repeat the legal arguments that my House Leader put before the House. I think those are quite clear. We understand them also from the House rules.
Second, we all recognize that since the earliest days of Parliament, going back to King John, the people had the right to petition the King, or as our modem expression is, the Parliament, and in our case the Parliament of Canada. That is my responsibility as a member of Parliament.
Having said that, and as the Minister of National Health and Welfare also pointed out, in fact, there have been petitions presented to me on the pro-choice side of the abortion question. I do not think I have to convince anybody in this House of my position on that issue, that being pro-life. But I had a responsibility in respect of the people in my riding, who do not universally hold the view I have on that subject, to present the petition.

February 13, 1990
Privilege
I want to go back just a bit to the time, Mr. Speaker, when you and I came into this House in 1972. In 1972, we had a minority. There was a difference of two seats in 1972. There was a resolution on reaffirmation of the Official Languages Act of 1969. I know the House Leader of the Liberal Party will recall that period. Those were periods of fairly difficult tension in respect to language. I remember the then Minister of Transport, the late hon. Jean Marchand, making a very impassioned speech from his seat in regard to the need for parties from both sides of the House to always keep in mind that our single responsibility, regardless of our partisan differences, was the unity of the country. That was a speech that obviously left an impression on a very young member of Parliament over all these years.
There was a vote in this House at that time on a resolution. If memory serves correctly, there were eight members from my party, from my province in this House. It was the only province from which the majority of members from one party, from one province, voted against the resolution. I voted for that resolution in 1973.
In fact, if I can be very personal for a moment, because of the minority situation at the time there was a member of my party whom I will not name, who later became a member of the Liberal party, who came into my riding to try to find a new member to contest the nomination, because of my support for bilingualism and for minority language rights in the province of Manitoba.
I say that simply because I think it is sometimes important to have the historical record in terms of continuity in respect of this issue. This is an issue which, I believe, goes beyond partisan differences.
I think we in this House all recognize that when we have petitions to present it creates a difficulty, not only for a member of Parliament but particularly for a cabinet minister, because you are both a member of Parliament and a cabinet minister. You have to respond to both roles and both functions.
With my staff in my office I looked at this petition and discussed whether I should present it in the House and make a statement and whether, in so doing, I would give this group in my riding the very publicity it craves, publicity which I was not going to give them. That was
one issue I had to deal with and it was for that reason the petition was presented that way.
I would like to make one last point, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps two if you allow me the time, because I know you take this issue very seriously. I was first made aware of this on Sunday through an article in La Presse and there is an article today in The Sun chain by Michel Gratton. He makes the statement:
They seem to think it was their democratic duty to their constituents.
That is to file petitions. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is my democratic duty. Not only is it my duty, it is my responsibility even if I disagree with what is in the petition. More important, he says:
I fail to understand what pushing something you don't believe in has to do with a politician's duty.
My second point is that all of us have presented petitions in this House signed by constituents, with which petitions we fundamentally disagree.
As a matter of fact, there seems to be a contradiction there. We don't elect fax machines or mailmen. We like to believe we elect people who stand for something and are not mere vehicles for what any extremist pressure group wants them to do.
We also do not elect writers, we do not elect editorial writers, we do not elect people who can get on television or, for that matter, who have licences from the CRTC. We have public responsibility through that licensing process. We have another responsibility as members of Parliament to present the views of our constituents no matter how wrong we believe those views are.
I would like to take just another moment. I went to my records this morning because I wanted to see whether I had been true to the words I was going to use in the House of Commons. I have a letter dated November 24, 1989, which is signed by my special assistant in the riding that was addressed to the people who had demanded that I make a public statement in the tabling of this petition. I am willing to table these letters. I have as well the record of the House of Commons which, of course, everyone can read. More important, there is a letter dated October 5, 1989, and, because this matter has become public, I will do something that I do not do very often. I will make public a letter between a member of Parliament, a cabinet minister, and a constituent.
February 13, 1990

It is addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Tom Joyce, R. R. 1, Steinbach, Manitoba, ROA 2A0. In fact, the irony of this thing is that while that is an address in my home town the community that they live close to is a place called Giroux in the rural municipality of Ste-Anne-des-Chenes. That may gives members of this House a little glimpse of what we all face in our own constituencies.
I will not go into detail. He and she go into the matter of the CF-18 and the CF-5. I know members of the House know about that. They write about VIA Rail. I would like to read selective paragraphs only for the purpose of this debate and if people want to see this letter they can do that, even with the conditions I made earlier. I said this:
VIA Rail is a prime example of Quebec not being favoured when hard decisions must be made. There will be 227 people laid off in Manitoba because of VIA cuts. The province of Quebec will lose 1,000 jobs with 631 lay-offs in Montreal alone.
Then it goes into the Manitoba issue and the last part of the petition:
In your letter you accuse the government of not only giving lip service to the issue of minority rights but specifically in Quebec. The Prime Minister has objected to Bill 178 in terms as strong or stronger than Alberta and Saskatchewan and passed legislation affecting francophone rights in those provinces. In your letter you called for less talk and more positive action. In my view one positive step that can be taken on a personal level is learning more about the situation on minorities and the history of francophone rights in Canada. This would lead to greater understanding and reduced linguistic tensions. As you are not satisfied with the position of the Government of Canada I am asking for your suggestions as to what positive action should be taken. What would you like to see done? When answering this question keep in mind two key points: One, I do not consider a boycott of Quebec products to be positive. Traditionally the federal government does not punish provinces, fiscally, financially or legally, for passing legal legislation the government does not support. Two, the actions of Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, while regrettable, were legal. The Canadian constitution has a notwithstanding clause that allows provinces to override the Charter of Rights when deemed necessary in the provinces view.
In conclusion the federal government continues to oppose the violation of minority rights everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot put it any clearer in the House today than I did in that letter of October last.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene briefly in this matter. I want the House and all of Canada to know that this matter goes beyond the case that has caught the attention of the House and
Privilege
extends to the manner and circumstances in which petitions are presented to the House of Commons.
I want, first, to draw your attention to an incident that took place in the House last Friday, February 9, 1990, and involved the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and the member for Calgary Southwest. I am sorry, in view of the discussion today, that I did not rise on a point of order at that time. As became apparent as reported at page 8144 of the official report, Hansard, the exchange speaks for itself, but it bears repeating.
The member for Juan de Fuca said, and it was later apparent that he meant the member for Calgary Southwest:
You cannot even accept the fact that some people who wear turbans
are Canadians. I find that disgraceful. I will not even deal with that.
The member for Calgary Southwest denied emphatically that she had ever indicated that that was her view. It appeared then that the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca was relying on a petition that the member for Calgary Southwest had presented on another occasion, and an argument ensued about presenting petitions.
Once more, we are the author of our own misfortune in the House of Commons. We have enacted and passed rules that are difficult to interpret, and I can understand why the media has some difficulty.
Members of Parliament have been presented with a form emanating, I understand, from the clerk of petitions. That form states very clearly in the notations that a member of Parliament cannot be compelled to present a petition. The form further notes that the fact that a member presents a petition does not imply that he or she endorses its contents. I think any member who reads that form is entitled to rely on that statement but, notwithstanding, that statement is contained in a form issued by the clerk of petitions of this House of Commons.
The rules of the House state, and I refer to Standing Order 36(3):
Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not
contain impertinent or improper matter.

February 13, 1990
Privilege
A member is required to endorse his or her name on a petition. So, we create a confusion as to what is the status of a member when presenting a petition. On the one hand, there is no endorsement of the contents. On the other hand, it is said in the Standing Orders of the House that a member is responsible for improper matter in a petition.
I think we have created this difficulty, because the nature of a petition and the right to petition belongs to the petitioner, the Canadian subject, the citizen. The member of Parliament is only the instrument for the presentation of the petition. I do not see how any common sense can be made of requiring a member to endorse the contents of a petition. It takes away from the right of Canadians to petition the House of Commons if you make it a condition of that presentation that the member must, somehow, connect himself or herself to the contents of the petition by way of endorsement or otherwise.
I hope you will take this matter carefully under advisement, review the form that has been provided by the clerk of petitions, and review Standing Order 36 and particularly subsection (3) in the context not only of the case that is presented today but the context of the allegations made by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. And I am sure other members have made similar allegations.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, in considering the rules and the forms that have been presented to us that you will come down on the side of the citizen and say that there does exist an inherent right of all Canadians to petition Parliament and that the role of the member of Parliament should simply be that of presenting a petition without comment, endorsement or otherwise.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take only a few minutes to add a few words on the very important point that was raised this morning.
First, Mr. Speaker, I guess you will be called upon to decide whether the issue should be referred to the parliamentary committee in order to determine whether changing our Standing Orders would be necessary in order to clarify what, in fact, the duty of the member is in such instances.
Our rules at the present time are somewhat vague in that regard. Perhaps that is the strength of the rule that
exists. It allows members of Parliament to make a decision according to his or her own conscience whether or not they will present a petition with which they agree, present a petition with which they disagree and believe in their own conscience it is their duty to do so, or feel so strongly opposed to the subject matter in question as to refuse to present the petition altogether.
I suppose each and every one of us has to make those kinds of decisions all day long when we are defending constituents, be they constituents with an unemployment insurance problem or any other kind of problem that we are called upon to rectify from time to time for those who have sent us here on their behalf.
In similar manner, rules are designed, I would argue, to reflect that in regard to petitions. In other words, we can make those kinds of decisions of conscience to which I was referring a while ago.
Our petition form, Mr. Speaker, which our rules provide for us, refers to the ancient and undoubted right to petition Parliament. Clearly, what is insinuated here is if a person has a right to petition Parliament, obviously Parliament has an obligation to receive the petition, and in order for Parliament to have that obligation to receive it, I think one can safely deduce that the parliamentarian in question has the same duty to present the petition in question.
I have in the past presented petitions with which I disagreed. In the Ontario legislature, where I had the honour and privilege of serving prior to coming to this House, I have upon occasion stated publicly while presenting a petition, albeit briefly and without presenting argument, that I was presenting a petition signed by so many constituents with whom I disagreed, and so on, and described the petition. I did not make an argument as to why I disagreed with it but merely stated so in one or two words. The point is that I felt this was a happy medium between my fulfilling my duty as a member of Parliament on the one hand and, of course, making it quite clear that I did not necessarily endorse the petition that I was presenting.
That, I believe, is the issue before us today; whether or not it is our duty to present petitions. I do not suppose we will solve that situation today, but I would argue that perhaps we should not, perhaps that issue should be left to the conscience of individual members.
February 13, 1990

I would argue, though, that all members of the House should reflect upon whether or not it would be appropriate for them to state briefly, and in the manner that I have indicated before, at the time they are presenting petitions, that they do not agree with the petition if they feel that the disagreement is so profound that they must say so. Of course, they would do that without presenting argument in order not to deviate otherwise from the rules at our disposal.
The fact that Mr. Speaker himself cannot present a petition but can ask a colleague to do so, I believe, is a demonstration of the fact that if the Speaker is presented with a petition the rules indicate that it would be Mr. Speaker's role to ensure that the petition is presented. By extension, it would be, I believe, the duty of the parliamentarian who was requested by Mr. Speaker to do so himself or herself after having received that request from the Speaker. That is a further illustration of the fact that the parliamentarian does not necessarily indicate support for the petitions.
In regard to presenting petitions, perhaps our role, to a degree, is that of a messenger. It is said that we should not shoot the messenger because the messenger does not necessarily agree with the message that he or she carries. Perhaps this is an example of that.
However, because of our duty of leadership in this House, as well as our duty as representatives, I think it would be important if we were provided with some mechanism by which we could, without debate, when we disagree with an issue to such a point that we feel it is in our interests, in the interests of this House and that of our country, I would argue in the present case, make that case very briefly.
Perhaps the other lesson to be learned from all of this is that in an issue as fundamental as this one we all, collectively and individually, should use every occasion to indicate our support for the linguistic duality and the national unity of our country. It has been said that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
I am not suggesting that the three cabinet ministers in question failed to do something which they should have known to do. Rather, sometimes as parliamentarians we seem to take things for granted such as the recognition of that linguistic duality and other privileges and rights
Privilege
that we enjoy as citizens. Maybe we should never take those privileges and rights for granted.
I am not sure whether all of this constitutes a question of privilege but I want to leave you with one last remark. Perhaps I could get the attention of the three ministers in question. There may be something in the article signed by Mr. Michel Gratton that has been missed in all of this. The last line of the article reads:
Well, all I have to say to this timorous trio is: Next time, if you really
want to hide, put some hoods on.
I feel that that is a very offensive comment and if anything in this constitutes a question of privilege, that is probably the statement, more than anything else that has been said this morning.
This is not attributed to anyone else. I am saying that references which I interpret to be to the Ku Klux Klan are very offensive to all of us. Notwithstanding partisan disagreements which we may have, I invite colleagues to think about that particular statement in the article in question because I think it is more offensive than anything else that has been discussed in this debate.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on this very important issue. I have asked myself why we have taken nearly an hour of time this morning to reflect on this issue. I think it is important. I have listened with interest to all the interventions and I find myself agreeing with most of the comments made today.
I must say that one of the times that I feel best in this House is when we are discussing, either in this way or in some other way, what this country is all about, the need for all of us to work together to preserve the unity that we know can exist in our country and to speak out against forces that cause rifts regionally or between cultures and peoples and, in this case of course, linguistic minorities.
I am pleased to listen to the elevated debate taking place today on this point of privilege. I am pleased that you have allowed us to go on at some length on this most important matter. That is the reason we have gone on. I do not have much to add to the points made by my distinguished colleagues other than to say that when I read both of those articles over the last few days, I was disgusted with the tone. I reflected back, when I read the articles, on others in the House who have raised similar petitions, exact petitions in terms of the source. I suppose the fact that most people dissociated themselves

February 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
with the theme of the petitions rescued them from this particular journalist's wrath.
We all recognize that we can file petitions which indeed we have a right to do, and which the ministers referred to in the article did. Or we have the right to present petitions and most often petitioners from my constituency ask me to present their petitions in the House of Commons. Most of the time I do that enthusiastically because I agree with the thrust of the petition. However on occasion I have not. At that time I have simply dissociated myself with the point or points being raised in the petition and went on to present it. Surely, as a previous minister indicated, one of the most fundamental rights of a citizen in our country is to have his or her view presented on the floor of the House of Commons when the request is made to the member of Parliament.
Earlier some comments were made in then House by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. If we are to pursue I would certainly ask that we do it when the hon. member is in his place, to allow him to respond. I was here and I do not believe that what the hon. member indicated took place actually took place at all. However, that is for another time.
I simply would like to conclude by saying that we must uphold the right of all citizens to present petitions through their members of Parliament in the House of Commons but also to guard against using these times, when we are dealing with such sensitive issues in terms of nation building, to allow our partisan instincts to come to the fore. I have deep concerns over the points being raised by my hon. friend, the government House leader, on this case. However I suspect that you have heard enough now, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling as to whether or not this is a question of privilege.
I would simply like to add that we have taken an hour of the time of an opposition day. I would like to think that we can at least add this hour to the end of the day. This is an extraordinary question of privilege and I would ask that at some later time that point be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I am in total agreement with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), the other minister, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and other members that the subject considered today is very important. It is not only important for the procedure of this place; it is also very important for our country's unity. Again this morning, we heard statements about this House and against some attitudes that we have today and we also had in the past from some citizens in our country.
I greatly regret the situation, but it is clear that this House is unanimously against such statements and there is consensus to take the leadership positions required for our country to continue, to maintain Canadian unity, an attitude, a place where the rights of all Canadians are respected.

Having said that, I am going to take under advisement some of the issues that are raised here. I am mindful of the request of the hon. member for Kamloops that I consider carefully the matter raised by the hon. member for Halifax West. I will do that.
I want also to note, in addition to what I have said about the declarations on both sides of this House, that our colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, has today saluted the courage and the forthrightness of the ministers who were the subject of these articles.
I am concerned about the articles, and I am going to be very careful before I return to the House with some comments which will probably have to be made. I will try to do everything I can to put them in a way which will be helpful to the challenges that we face in trying to keep this country together. I thank hon. members for their interventions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 151 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
February 13, 1990


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a challenge to the effectiveness of certain land withdrawals in the Yukon which could seriously undermine the government's ability to manage Yukon lands.
Consequently I am announcing today that the government is bringing forward legislation to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. It will firmly establish the Crown's right to prohibit disposition of mineral rights on Yukon lands which are required for a purpose that the government believes to be in the public interest.
This legislation, if passed by Parliament, will be retroactive to this day. The government's action will assure that withdrawn lands, including lands identified as being of interest to Yukon Indians, will not be open for location of new mining claims.
I am making this announcement to ensure that the mining industry clearly knows which areas are open for staking and exploration.
The mining recorders in the Yukon maintain records of the areas withdrawn from disposition. Persons who intend to stake mining claims in the Yukon should first contact the mining recorders to determine the status of the lands. I am directing the mining recorders to refuse any application for claim which has been located in an area withdrawn from disposition.
These changes will deal only with withdrawal of lands. There is an urgency to make these technical changes in order to confirm the government's authority to manage Crown lands in the Yukon. This however will not preclude making other changes which have been identified by various interest groups and acknowledged in the northern mineral policy. It is certainly not my intention to introduce significant policy changes without full consultation with all interested parties.
Routine Proceedings
In addition, I wish to make clear that the statements I am making today do not affect the current action in the Federal Court of Canada, namely, Halferdahl v. M. A. Fish in his capacity as the mining recorder, et al.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as I was called upon to answer the minister's statement, I want to express on behalf of the Opposition how offended we are that the usual courtesy was not extended in this case. However, we understand that the minister has been under considerable pressure. We know that he is usually very forthcoming in advancing copies of these statements to us in the Opposition in advance of their being made.
Our critic in the mining area is unable to be here this morning, and the notice was only given to us about 15 minutes ago. All I can say is that we will withhold our comments until we see the bill that the minister will be introducing, which I gather will be in the next couple of days.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too am in a similar situation. I acknowledge the fact that the minister did not have an opportunity to extend the usual courtesy of providing opposition critics with his statement. However, I appreciate that he at least is of the opinion that he had to act expeditiously this morning before the claims offices opened in the north.
I simply want to make two or three cautionary comments. First, we appreciate the role that mining plays in the Yukon, as does the minister. In his statement he indicated that the purpose of this initiative was to recognize that the government believes there are certain lands that must be protected for the public interest. That is a principle which I and all others in this House would support.
However, not defining what the public interest is and not defining explicitly what is implied by this raise some concerns. I flag those concerns now. I was encouraged when the minister indicated that there will be full consultation with all parties, which of course would include the Government of the Yukon in terms of its reaction, as well as the major players affected by this statement, the citizens of the Yukon, particularly the native people of the Yukon, as well as those involved in the mining industry.

February 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I too would like to withhold further comment until the minister introduces the appropriate legislation, at which time I suspect we will have lots to say.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, nearly three decades have passed since the tragedy of thalidomide claimed more than 8,000 victims around the world. In Canada, a special commitment was made to thalidomide victims by the government of the day. Much was done by both federal and provincial governments to help meet their needs.
The thalidomide victims have faced a courageous struggle since birth, trying to adapt to and overcome disabling birth defects. Some cannot work or have problems finding jobs. All are reaching an age when they must establish their independence from parents who are growing older. They need extra funds to help pay for special transportation, housing or other needs not covered by provincial assistance programs.
At the time the tragedy occurred, two separate inquiries, a special parliamentary committee and a committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, provided recommendations that enabled the government to assist these people and to prevent further such tragedies. This was on the basis of compassion or understanding and not liability. The commitment made by the minister of the day was unique. No similar commitment had ever been made to other groups.

Thalidomide victims have to face great challenges and they do so very courageously. For me and my colleagues in Cabinet, there is no doubt that we must help them improve their quality of life and plan their future.

I am pleased to announce today that the Government of Canada will fulfill its commitment made to the thalidomide victims in 1963 by providing a total of $7.5 million to an estimated 75 to 100 people living in Canada who were affected.

The $7.5 million will be divided equally among those who suffered injuries due to Kevadon or TMmol, the forms of thalidomide prescribed to their mothers during
pregnancy. Payment will be made to each eligible recipient in two equal annual tax-free instalments. Those concerned will have one year starting today to prove their eligibility.

I would like to assure everyone that the funding I am announcing today is over and above the settlements the victims received from the manufacturer of thalidomide and will not be taken from federal-provincial programs which help these disabled Canadians.
Canadians are proud of our social programs. They are proud of the fact that we try to care for those who are less fortunate, and they see it as one of the elements which distinguishs us from other countries. I believe that by announcing extraordinary assistance for people who have faced a genuine hardship, this government is showing that it supports this tradition.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating Mr. Randy Warren as well as Cliff Chadderton of the War Amputations of Canada, as well as the gentlemen who headed the task force on thalidomide victims. These individuals and their organizations have exhibted over the years great enthusiasm, as well as providing hope to their members.
Today, what I think we see is a realization of that particular objective in that the Government of Canada has accepted in whole the principle of compensation for these particular victims.
I am sure that the minister would want to join with me in congratulating the organization and all those individuals who have worked with him over the years in order to arrive at this particular day in terms of accepting of the principle of compensation.
The amount of money which has been put forward, amounting to $7.5 million, has not been fully accepted by the thalidomide victims and their organization. The Minister is well aware of that. I believe, and I am sure the Minister would want to echo my sentiments, that this is certainly a good starting point in terms of further negotiations which will take place over the next number of months. I am sure if there are any ways in which things can be changed to better the victims and their plight in life that the minister would want to co-operate in

:
February 13, 1990

whatever that might be, for example, monthly payments as opposed to annual payments, or whatever.
This particular issue has been around for almost three decades. It is ironic that last February 14 a report was tabled with the minister recommending compensation for these particular victims. I am happy to see that the Government of Canada has responded, not as quickly as I had hoped, but has responded favourably in terms of recognizing the principle of compensation.
I hope that it will proceed forward and meet with those representatives and meaningfully discuss ways to ensure that the compensation goes directly to the victims in a way in which they believe to be appropriate and responsible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I respond to the minister's statement today with mixed feelings. I wish to recognize the fact that the minister has indeed made an offer after three decades of lobbying in a courageous struggle on behalf of those people who suffer the ill effects of thalidomide. The War Amputations of Canada has represented these people in their lobbying efforts.
Finally, today, we have the beginning of a resolution. I applaud the minister for taking that initiative. I want to emphasize that while we in the New Democratic Party join with the War Amps people and all those involved for so many years in welcoming the news today, we recognize that it is still an offer. We recognize that there is still lots of work to do. The minister, I am sure, will now go back to the task force to seek further refinements on how the money will be most appropriately disbursed.
I ask the minister to bargain in good faith with the thalidomide task force that is seeking these refinements. We all appreciate what people have had to experience for so many years. Now is a time to show good faith and a strong will to end this process expeditiously and to determine a final resolution to this long-standing grievance as quickly as possible.
While we welcome the news today, we recognize that we still have work to do. We join with the others in recognizing the legitimacy of the claims, which has been an important step taken by the minister. To recognize
Routine Proceedings
that appropriate redress made on behalf of the thalidomide victims, as argued by the War Amputations of Canada, is an appropriate initiative now. We join with the minister in urging an expeditious end to this long, difficult and courageous process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for London-Middlesex on a very short statement.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the government on finally addressing this issue.
I want to congratulate Randy Warren on his efforts as a thalidomide victim. Through first-hand experience Randy has fought for this and I would like to congratulate him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to make a statement.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a report on behalf of the Canada-Eu-rope Parliamentary Association.
Very recently in France a preparatory meeting was held to conclude negotiations.
[Translation}
Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the Seventh Parliamentary and Scientific Conference of the Council of Europe, to be held in Ottawa from June 11 to 14,1990, under the auspices of the Canadian Parliament.

This conference-and I urge all my colleagues to join in-will focus on the environment. Some 250 of our colleagues from 30 countries around the world will be attending. For the first time parliamentarians from Hungary, East Germany and Poland will join us as we attack global environmental problems and will show what democracies can and should do as they develop strategies to solve them in the future.
As well team Canada for the environment will include our colleagues here, as well as ministers, leading indus-

February 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
trialists, municipal leaders and our top scientists. Join the exciting environmental team Canada in June.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by a number of Canadians who want the Government of Canada to withdraw its proposed goods and services tax.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present to the House of Commons today a petition concerning the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough, part of metro Toronto. It is a beautiful 10,000 acres of land with respect to which the petitioners are calling upon Parliament and the Government of Ontario to preserve as a park.
The Save the Rouge Valley Organization, a volunteer organization, is holding its annual meeting tonight in the Civic Centre in Scarborough. I will be there, as will hundreds of others, to give the message that the Government of Canada and all members of the House of this great Parliament have endorsed the preservation of this valley. We are waiting on the Province of Ontario to come to the same conclusion.
I am pleased to present this petition today concerning the preservation of the Rouge Valley.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Pont Lafrance in New Brunswick. The signatures on this petition have been collected by my colleague, the hon. member for Gloucester, and Pont Lafrance is in his constituency.
These Canadians join millions of others who are outraged at the government's proposed goods and services tax. They have taken the trouble to sign this petition to call upon Parliament to reject the tax.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to this House. One is signed by a number of Canadians who are
opposed to the GST. They call upon the government to withdraw this unfair tax immediately.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition presented to me by a number of farmers from Saskatchewan who are very concerned over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They indicate that they are very upset and dismayed that the government did not consult with them concerning the removal of oats from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
They call upon this government to replace oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats the same protection that wheat has under the Wheat Board Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition once again, for I don't know how many times, against the government's goods and services tax.
Its signatures were collected by constituents from Heffrey Creek, Raleigh, Dallas, Barnhartvale, Rosehill and Valleyview.
The petitioners point out that the goods and services tax is grossly unfair, particularly to western Canadians where transportation costs are built into the cost of virtually every good that they purchase. They list a number of services that will now be taxed at 7 per cent which are presently untaxed.
They make the point that they simply cannot go on paying taxes at this level and ask that the Parliament of Canada try to convince the government to back off with this very punitive, cruel, mean tax.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to table in the House a petition that has been certified correct by the clerk as to form and content.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sainte-Cecile, Petite-Ri-viere-de-l'ile, Shippegan, Lameque, Inkerman, and hundreds of residents in my riding strenuously object to the goods and services tax and ask the government to withdraw this disastrous proposal that will have a negative impact on the economy of the Acadian peninsula in the riding of Gloucester.
February 13, 1990


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my understanding that there were to be arguments today with regard to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Is the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. parliamentary secretary ready for their arguments?


PRIVILEGE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, in his very ably argued question of privilege yesterday, raised a matter which has been before this Parliament before. Because of the adjournment of the discussion which was sought and obtained yesterday by the hon. parliamentary secretary, I was able to review some of the precedents that I think are relevant to assist Your Honour in reaching a decision on this important matter.
It may be that we could obtain the agreement of the House on it. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary, when I have completed my remarks, will find unanimous agreement to treat this as a breach of privileges of the House and to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business with a view to having it discussed and settled there.
The point raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre deals with the fact that a bill has been introduced in this House which purports to be retroactive in its application, but the government has proceeded
Routine Proceedings
to treat the bill as passed and has refused to pay out money it could pay out under the existing legislation, under the Railway Act, to persons who apply for this subsidy or payment for the shipment of grain to eastern ports.
A similar situation arose in 1971. Mr. Stanley Knowles, who was then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, raised a question of privilege on September 13, 1971 in relation to a government bill which dealt with the matter of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board was doing the same thing that the government is currently doing with this legislation; that is to say, a bill had been introduced in Parliament that was to be retroactive in its effect, but the Wheat Board treated the bill as passed and was refusing to make the payments.
The hon. member as he then was raised this question of privilege and said, as reported on page 7737 of Hansard:
My question of privilege relates to the non-payment of moneys which it is specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act are to be paid by the Minister of Finance to the Canadian Wheat Board; and, more particularly, the action of the government in telling this House that the reason it is not carrying out the provisions of the law is that it has a bill on the order paper.
I submit that anything which in a court would be regarded as contempt can be regarded as privilege in this House. I further suggest that when the government admits to Parliament that it is not carrying out the law and tells Parliament the reason it is not carrying out the law is that it has a bill on the order paper to rescind that law, a bill which has not yet been passed, then the rights and privileges of Parliament are being affronted.
On page 7738 he went on to state that the bill had not been passed and said:
One other point I cite in the list of facts is that Bill C-244 has not been passed and therefore authority to act on that basis has not been established by Parliament.
That is exactly the situation we are facing today in this House. He went on to state:
The point I am making is that the place for us to deal with a matter like this and what has been done to us is here on the floor of Parliament. What has been done to us is that we have been told that, although we have passed a law and although it is there and is clear, the government feels it does not have to carry it out because of this other provision, an unpassed bill which it has on the order paper.
What Mr. Knowles described was exactly the situation that we are faced with today. The Speaker on that question of privilege made a ruling. I will invite you later,

February 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, to consider that ruling. Tie ruled against Mr. Knowles' question of privilege, but I shall return to that later.
Subsequently, because of this outrageous conduct on the part of the then government, the hon. member for Calgary North sought and obtained leave to have an emergency debate on this issue.
If the Chair feels this is significant, I am quite prepared to bring an application for an emergency debate tomorrow to discuss this matter further, subject to what we hear today from the parliamentary secretary.
Clearly the complaint today is as outrageous as the complaint. I know that the Speaker would want to follow the ruling of the previous Speaker in this respect and permit an emergency debate should it be necessary. I hope it will not be.
Mr. Woolliams, the hon. member for Calgary North at the time, said, and I quote from page 7890 of Hansard for September 16, 1971:
This debate poses the rhetorical question: Is this institution of Parliament, which includes the House of Commons, the Senate and all the law-making processes, to be one that will be controlled by the executive?
That is the point of our question of privilege today.
That emergency debate revealed the most amazing speeches. I have found a veritable gold mine of assistance for Your Honour in it. Probably the most important statements were those by the now Minister of Agriculture who was then the hon. member for Vegre-ville. I gather he is still the hon. member for Vegreville, but he is now the Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister, and a very distinguished member, one whom I know on procedural matters Your Honour would take as a great authority.
I would like to read from page 7902 of Hansard because I think his words are extremely helpful in considering this point today:
Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have a very basic and fundamental issue to consider. That issue is the deliberate and calculated failure of this government to carry out its administrative responsibility pursuant to Canadian law.
He went on to state:
If a question involving the administration of laws created by parliamentary democracy cannot be properly debated, it will be a
sad day for Canada, for Parliament and for the system of parliamentary democracy.
Never have I seen, and never did I expect to see, a government so blatantly and contemptuously refusing to carry out its administrative duty, a duty which is imposed by Canadian statute passed by Parliament, a law which remains in force and will continue to remain in force until Parliament in its wisdom sees fit to rescind it.
These words apply four-square to the situation we are faced with today. I know that if the Deputy Prime Minister were here now, he would stand up and agree with everything that he said in 1971.
That fact is so elementary that one could never have conceived that this situation could occur. It is a disgrace and a shame. After all, if governments cannot conform with the law, how in heaven's name can anyone else in society be expected to do so?
Imagine, the wisdom of Solomon uttered by the Deputy Prime Minister who went on to state:
How can society be expected to abide by laws if the government will not live up to them? This fact is so elementary, basic and fundamental that it is completely beyond my comprehension to understand the government's attitude.
Surely in light of those statements, the Minister of Agriculture who is really affected by this bill because it does deal with the shipment of grain and grain products to eastern Canada and clearly falls in part under his departmental jurisdiction would not want to retract those statements made in 1971.
I know that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, has probably discussed this matter extensively with the Deputy Prime Minister. I think I know what he is going to propose, and I want to say that I quite agree with him.
The ruling of the Chair in 1971 suggested very strongly that this was not a question of privilege then. I say to Your Honour that times, I hope, have changed. Notwithstanding the very able and capable decision from, I believe it was, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, and notwithstanding the great esteem in which he is held by all members and the authority that his decisions have, perhaps he erred on this occasion.
I would invite Your Honour to so find and in fact find that there is a question of privilege here. It may not be necessary because I know that the hon. parliamentary secretary, in his discussions with the Deputy Prime
Then he went on to state:
Then he went on, and this is great:

February 13, 1990

Minister, will recognize that the New Democratic Party believes there has been a breach of the privileges of the House in this case.
We on the Official Opposition side will concede that there has been a breach of the privileges in this case. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees, from his statements that there has been a breach of the privileges of this House. He has said that this is a breach, and he knows it is a breach.
I am sure that what we are going to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary is that he in fact agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister, with us, and with the New Democratic Party. By unanimous consent perhaps the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre could propose his motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business where it could be discussed. Perhaps a little report could be prepared condemning the government for its improper abuse of the laws of this country, and its arrogant and very high-handed approach to this problem could be discussed, voted on in the committee and returned to the House for unanimous approval.
I know that the parliamentary secretary, having read the authorities and having read the arguments advanced by the Deputy Prime Minister at an earlier day, and having recognized that the government has acted in complete contempt of Parliament in this matter, will want to agree. The Deputy Prime Minister's words were: "Never have I seen and never did I expect to see a government so blatantly and contemptuously refusing to carry out its administrative duty".
This situation cannot be distinguished from the earlier case. I submit to Your Honour that the Deputy Prime Minister was right then, and I am sure if he was in his place today, he would agree that he was right. We are taking the same position, so there appears to be unanimous agreement on all sides of the House on this issue. I should say that had I been here in 1971,1 expect I would have chastised the government, as did the hon. member for Vegreville at that time.
The point is a very clear and simple one, and that is that the House could proceed unanimously on this item.
Routine Proceedings


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. friend with great care and I must say that I was almost persuaded by his rhetoric. It was very persuasive and a very well put argument. Unfortunately, once again the rhetoric is very distant and 180 degrees opposed to the facts. He did present an excellent argument. I thank him for that. It was very entertaining and very persuasive. Nevertheless, I know that the Speaker must look at the facts and not the rhetoric.
As I understand the argument of the hon. member from the NDP yesterday, he said that essentially it is unconstitutional for us to cease a subsidy before the appropriate legislation has received Royal Assent from the Governor General. In fact, what is happening in this case is that this particular bill is a direct result of budget measures. It has been done according to a very common practice used by this government and previous governments. It is nothing unusual.
In this particular case, the Minister of Finance announced the end of the at and east grain and flour subsidy when he tabled his budget paper on April 27, 1989. So it was part of the budget process. It was announced at that time. On June 16, 1989, Bill C-26 was introduced and read a first time.
What is really important here is what happened then. The House went on to approve the budget in principle. The House voted on it, made a decision on it, approved that announcement of the minister and what we have flowing out of it is the enabling legislation. That is very simple, very much a fact and not rhetoric. What we are dealing with in Bill C-26 is simply the legislation flowing out of that budgetary decision made by the House of Commons several months ago.
Once again I want to bring to the attention of the House that we have seen the demonstration we see so often in this House, that the hon. member representing the Liberal party has managed to stand on both sides of the equation, but of course at different times.
If we look back to a very good example of a similar piece of legislation, it would of course be the ruling of 1971 which the Speaker made at that time. However, even as recently as the budget debate of June 28, 1982, there was introduction of an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada. It was acted upon,

February 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
the budget was passed, and later on the legislation was passed.
Let's go back to the facts and not to the very amusing and entertaining rhetoric. The facts say very clearly that, as persuasive as the hon. member's arguments were, it is not a case of privilege. The actions taken on Bill C-26 are in keeping with the House of Commons practice and traditions, and I might say have been acted upon in the most proper fashion by this government, as is our usual standard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has taken note of the rhetoric of hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and also the rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary. The Chair will assess all arguments and return with a ruling. I believe we should end it there and move to Orders of the Day. If the member for Regina- Lumsden has something to add to the argument, I will be glad to listen.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take up the time of my own party on our opposition day. I will be brief.
I remind you, Sir, of remarks I made yesterday on Bill C-26. With reference to the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I know the Chair will examine the precedents with care.
The Chair ruled against the question of privilege raised by the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Knowles in 1971, and subsequently the issue was taken to Federal Court. I was very closely and heavily involved with that. In the preliminary hearing before the Federal Court judge in Regina, the Deputy Minister of Justice made his pitch and the lawyer for four farmers who had a direct interest in the matter made his pitch. The judge, in the process of setting a trial date said to the government representative, the lawyer for the Crown, that the government should seriously consider paying its bills. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act said that the Minister of Finance shall pay to the Canadian Wheat Board such and such moneys for grain in storage in excess of a certain amount.
The government ceased paying those moneys for 18 months. No legislation had been passed. The bill was before Parliament. It was a bill called Lower Inventories for Tomorrow, Operation Lift. Attached to the bill was the repeal of the Temporary Reserves Act.
When the court reconvened for the trial, the attorney for the Crown rose in his place and said that the government had withdrawn the legislation. I was here that night when the then minister rose and withdrew the legislation.
The Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance had to pay almost $100 million owing to the Canadian Wheat Board, which was money that belonged to the farmers of western Canada.
The courts have set a precedent in spite of the ruling of the Chair prior to that occasion. I would ask, Sir, that in arriving at a decision on this, the Railway Act provides for the payment of certain moneys under the at and east freight rate subsidy program. Those moneys have not been paid since last July. This situation, if not identical, is so close to it that it is not worth arguing about.
I would hope in light of what happened in the Federal Court that the Chair will recognize that and rule that the government can continue with its legislation which can take effect on the day set for proclamation or at the time of Royal Assent when it is signed by the Governor General, but it cannot be retroactive, and the government must pay the moneys owing under the at and east freight rate subsidies in Atlantic Canada back to last July. The government owes the money, it should pay its bills.
One correction, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from the Liberal party stated in his remarks that the Wheat Board had refused to pay over the money. That is not correct. The Wheat Board did not refuse to pay over the money. It did not have the money. The government refused to give the money to the Wheat Board so it could pay it out in a final payment to the grain producers. That is the history of that matter. I think it is a precedent.
The only exception would be a budget bill that sets a tax rate starting January 1 and passed in June. That is a precedent that has been long established in Parliament. Therefore, this situation is identical to the one in 1971 and has nothing to do with the budget.
Therefore, I submit that the Chair should rule that the government should pay its bills and that the bill is not in order although the government is acting as though it is already in force, retroactively to last July. Surely there must be something that we can do in this House, that the Chair can do, to make sure that the government obeys its own laws. If we cannot do that, we have anarchy. If we
February 13, 1990

have to go to court every damn time the government disobeys its own law, what is Parliament here for?
I put that question rhetorically and I urge you, Sir, to give this matter most serious consideration, which I know you will, and I hope rule that the government cannot act as though the bill has been in force since last July, and that it must proceed in the normal way before it can cease any payments under the at and east freight rates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden and all other members for their arguments. We will take note of all arguments and bring back a ruling as soon as possible.
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes, beginning at one o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair) moved:: That this House condemn those policies of the government which, having bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt on a point of order.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House for the time for this debate to be extended approximately one hour, relative to the question of privilege that was raised by certain members this morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are you suggesting that we go then until two o'clock for debate?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That the time be added on at the end of the day, Sir.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent? The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will have to converse with some of my colleagues concerning that topic. We had a situation that did bear some similarity a week ago and no extension of the hours was provided during an opposition day at that time. I know that what had caused it was somewhat different from the cause of the delay today. Notwithstanding that fact, there were delays which had nothing to do with those who wanted a motion discussed last week. As such, I will converse with my colleagues and report to Mr. Speaker later on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent at this time. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order. I would like to raise a concern I have with this particular motion. In reading the motion, it is not very difficult to make the assumption that it accuses this government of increasing regional tensions, increasing incidences of racism and increasing incidences of bigotry.
The point that I would like to raise is that if this particular motion referred to an hon. member the motion would be out of order because it would be making an accusation that would be considered unfair, unparliamentary and totally out of order. I feel the same way about this particular motion. I think that it is the kind of motion that is argumentative, abusive and casts aspersions on the government and therefore on members of this House. The motion should be seriously examined by the Chair because it is certainly bordering on poor taste, at the very least.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a brief word in opposition to the point of order being made by my friend across the floor. It is very clear that the intervention of the member shows a lack of understanding of what racism is about and how it works. Certainly the government is not being accused of being racist or of being bigoted. The problem is that the policies of the government are resulting in helping the cause of racism and bigotry. It does not have to be intentional and the resolution does not say it is.

February 13, 1990
Supply
I support this resolution and I am going to make the point when I rise of almost the inverse of what it is the hon. member has said. It is policies that may be well meaning, an attitude that might be defensible which is causing the unfortunate consequences that are contained in this resolution. I think that this is a resolution that contains an allegation that could be made against any member of the House, if the things that they were doing, although not in themselves racist things or acts of bigotry, lent support and comfort to others who were racists and bigots. That is the point of this resolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair and the Speaker have looked at this motion very carefully. What is coming out of the argument right now is debate. I think we should progress with debate. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair has the floor.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there are any number of approaches that could be used in a discussion of the issue contained in this motion. This motion and a previous motion recently debated in this House cover, as I will demonstrate, somewhat different ground. Perhaps at some future date we should have a resolution on the importance of ignorance in perpetuating racism and intolerance of the sort that was demonstrated by the hon. member on the other side. The motion states:
That this House condemn those policies of the government which, having bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.
There was a motion debated here on February 2. It was a motion moved by the hon. member for York Centre, a motion that our party certainly supported and one which elicited a good debate. That motion stated:
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.
That debate was of the genre which had many members condemning the increase in frequency of racist incidents and examples of intolerance in this country.
If one briefly reviews some recent articles in Canadian newspapers, the cogency of that debate is well demonstrated. For example: "Teenager charged in the beating of a black". That occurred at Nova Scotia Community College. "Sikhs warn that intolerance should worry all Canadians. The sad resolution of Sault Ste. Marie. Minister blasts Calgary pins for promoting blatant prejudice. Organized group not suspected in white power posters. Sickening handbill declares open season on native people. Students reject turbans in the RCMP", and on and on it goes.
There can be no doubt that there was a reasonable basis for the concern that occasioned the motion moved by the hon. member. What we heard there were the heartfelt views of members of this House on all sides condemning racism, discrimination and prejudice. It is that kind of leadership which has provided Canada with a fabric of legislation, a Charter of Rights, and many other measures which express the best of all Canadian desires that there should be tolerance in this country, that there should not be discrimination, and that there should be, as much as we can provide it, equal opportunity for all Canadian citizens.
The acceptance of those principles, whether in law or whatever, is only part of it. Those principles have to be accepted by the people. By and large, they have been. There used to be the argument that there was no way in which one could change minds by legislation. Well, it may very well be that you cannot change the deep-seated attitudes of people. Many of us who have been involved in the civil rights movement in this country have expressed ourselves in terms of not giving a damn whether we change their heartfelt feelings that are not expressed. What we are concerned about is how people treat other people.
It may very well be appropriate to say that the motion we have before us is a reversal, in a sense, of the wording of the motion moved and debated previously in this House which stated that intolerance and prejudice damages the fabric of the nation. I think it is an appropriate paraphrasing of my motion to say that when the fabric of a nation is damaged, then one will have an increase in expressions of racism and intolerance.
February 13, 1990

There is a very important principle associated with the issue of racism and intolerance. It is a basic principle that if a nation is a civilized nation, if a nation is to be a tolerant nation, then the people of that nation must have a sense of economic security. They must have a sense of community. They must have a sense that they are determinants, to some degree, of the direction in which the nation will go. The moment that fabric is torn, people begin to act in ways which are offensive to those of us who believe in equality among all people, no matter what their differences. The principle we are addressing really is the principle of scapegoating. When people are hurt, when they feel vulnerable, when they think that they are going to lose their jobs, when they feel a sense of powerlessness, they begin to look around for somebody to step on, to blame and to act out their hurt.
There are many examples of this. Historically, in the American south there were those who were called "poor white trash". They were impoverished and they looked around to find somebody who was worse off, somebody to whom they could be superior. As anybody who has studied the situation in the south would know, that was an example of scapegoating.
Perhaps the greatest historical example of scapegoating was in Germany after the First World War. That country was undergoing tremendous social dislocation, unemployment and inflation were rampant. There was near anarchy. A leader appeared who produced the scapegoat and we know the dreadful results of that. If one reflects on what was said in Germany at the time, we must note what is happening in our own country.
There is a book described in The Globe and Mail as the cornerstone of APEC-I like to call it APE because it is so primitive-ideology. It is written by J. V. Andrew. This book is described as detailing Mr. Andrew's reasons for his opposition to French Canadians, described as a backward race that has taken over the province of Quebec to use as a breeding pen and marshalling yard for the colonization of the rest of Canada.
We say there are those who are absolutely committed racists, that they have little influence unless circumstances are produced that create that kind of doubt and vulnerability I was talking about before.
Supply
I noticed that just this morning someone of my acquaintance seems to have pre-empted the subject of my debate. It is an article by Robert White in The Globe and Mail this morning which states: "Current climate fosters intolerance." His description of the situation is as follows:
Increasing job losses combined with a shrinking social safety net leave people feeling less secure and more vulnerable to events over which they have no control. It becomes easier to attack the most vulnerable: women, children, people who differ from the mainstream by their race, colour, language or religion.
He also goes on to state, as described on February 2 in debate here, that the history of Canada has not provided us a solid record of tolerance and equality. However, increasingly over the years, in my lifetime, this country has become more and more civilized and more and more humane. What has distinguished us from our neighbours to the south is a sense of community responsibility, which is expressed in a variety of ways. It is expressed in the civilized way in which we have treated the question of basic language differences between the two colonizing peoples. It is expressed in an increasing concern about the status of aboriginal peoples in this country. It is expressed in the official policy of bilingualism. It also has been expressed in terms of such measures as unemployment insurance, medicare, and in so many other ways. This country has been based on the notion that there should be a mutual caring and that is fundamental in our society.
I submit to you that it is the erosion of that character of this country by the measures and policies implemented by this government which is largely responsible for what we are seeing in terms of scapegoating. One only need look at the examples in Ontario of those many municipalities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves unilingual. We know that this is in its expression racist, but what is the cause? The cause is that increasingly municipal councils are being asked to deal with problems with which they cannot fairly deal. It is part of the increasing unfairness in the distribution of responsibility for paying the cost of government. It is part of the unfairness in the tax system that the federal government fails to meet its obligations with respect to financing certain programs which evolved at the provincial level. In turn it goes down to the municipal level where the most regressive of all tax, the property tax, has to pay for it. People on the front line have to deal with these decisions for which no financial position was made.

February 13, 1990
Supply
What happens? A group of bigots give them the excuse to go around looking for a scapegoat. That is what is happening and that is what is going to happen to an increasing degree if we do not re-establish our commitment to the kind of society we want to pursue.
Increasingly, our country is a social democratic country. The reason I am a social democrat is that minority groups, linguistic groups, women, and all of those in our society who are so excluded are going to be the victims unless there is equality for all and unless there is a stake for all in the future of this country.
When we have the implementation of a free trade deal with which the majority disagree; when we have the niggardly attack on the unemployed with changes to UI; when we have a GST that perpetuates the notion that the rich should be relieved of the burden in favour of increasing the burden on the poor and the middle class; when we have increasing food lines all over the country; when we have people who are losing their jobs left and right; when we have regional disparity; when the fishermen know that their livelihood is at risk; and when farmers see their livelihood at risk, they look for scapegoats. People, having lost a notion of having any influence on the future, look around for others to blame. They are more immediate because they have a government that passes policies that are at odds with the views of the people and at odds with the view of what should be the destiny of Canada.
If one wants to look for the reason for increased racism, discrimination and violence then look for the increase in the sense of powerlessness that has been caused by a government that has ignored the people. It is committed to the powerful at the expense of the powerless.


Mr. Karpoff:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very closely to my colleague's statements and feel very close to this subject.
I would like him to look back on some of the more serious incidents of racial problems we have had in this country. There has been the internment of the Japanese, which I am close to since my wife was interned, the Chinese who had been singled out in Vancouver for such things as a head tax, and long periods where they were
refused immigration. Look at that in terms of the economic situation in the country and how people who were feeling economically disadvantaged looked to other people to find scapegoats for their own economic disadvantage.
Could the hon. member draw some insights into why people who are often poor and disadvantaged themselves look for easy scapegoats rather than looking to the system, the powerful and the people who are the real oppressors? Why do they always look to somebody else who is more defenceless than they themselves are? I think that is one of the dynamics that happens. Why do these people not insist that a government like this bring in equitable economic programs, programs that will guarantee employment, housing and all of these things, rather than simply make scapegoats of those who are less powerful than themselves?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I thank my colleague for that question. This is what I was saying in terms of the importance of a sense of powerlessness and vulnerability in producing scapegoats.
We all want to be able, in some measure or to some degree, to control our environment. We want to be able to work and have decent housing. When we see that that is not available or that is threatened, we have two choices. We can try to convince governments, agencies or institutions in the community, impersonal all of them, to respond to our need. If there is no response or perception that there ever can be a response, then one looks around for some means by which they can, however distorted the point of view, bring about change.
If there is a lack of housing or jobs and looking around one sees a black person, a Sikh or a francophone has a job, and he or she has not, well, since government will not respond, let us go and attack those people who have the jobs we think we should have. Never mind that they may be more qualified because there is another element in all of this. There is a message in being included in the group. It is very important for everyone to be included in the group. It becomes even more important to be included in the group when one is in the situation of feeling so vulnerable. Of course, it is nice to be in the majority. It is nice to claim identification with the more powerful because, always, a majority is more powerful
February 13, 1990



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
than a minority. This feeds upon itself. If you are hurting, you will look for a scapegoat.
Marc Lepine looked around for a scapegoat under the same reasoning that women were depriving him of the opportunity for jobs in technology. We know the awful, brutal outcome of that perception of reality.
It is extremely important that governments at all levels have an awareness of the implications in what they do. In this country we had a sense that Canada represented a nation in which all of us were part of the community. So many measures were involved in this. Some of them I omitted in my speech. VIA Rail, for example, was something that tied the country together, something that meant a great deal to an awful lot of people. It was the tie that bound. Yet, it was smashed. The people had no influence. They could not change it.
We have a GST. Approximately 75 per cent of Canadians oppose it. It is no wonder that people feel frustrated, that things are out of control and look around for some means of expressing this.
In the case of Sault Ste. Marie there were decisions to be made with respect to costs that were passed down to the municipality. Collectively, the French-speaking minority of Sault Ste. Marie was attacked.
This entire package of actions by the government has in so many ways changed Canada and threatened ordinary people. These actions are a basis on which our commitment to equality in this country is called out of question because people look around for someone to blame and respond to as an easy target.
['Mr. Speaker, yesterday 250 construction workers from across southern Ontario protested in Windsor against the way this government is letting free trade take away their jobs.\nCanadian immigration officials are allowing U.S. construction workers into Canada to install equipment in Canadian factories. The Minister for International Trade has already said that free trade was not supposed to permit such hands-on installation, but immigration officials are still permitting it. This has to stop. Canadians are perfectly capable of doing equipment installation work, work which they have done for years. U.S. immigration officials stopped Canadians from doing this kind of work. Why is this government failing to stand up for\nFebruary 13, 1990', 'Canadian construction workers? It is time this government stood up for Canada.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. When the House resumes the hon. Minister of State will be heard.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since there is only two minutes before adjournment time, I would suggest that we call the adjournment now. I have a feeling that the minister's speech will be an important one and it should not be interrupted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.11 o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.11 p.m. the House took recess.
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Nelson Mandela is a free man at last. Although only for a modicum of 48 hours after 27 years of political imprisonment, the impact of his freedom on the people of South Africa and indeed on Canadians and the whole world has been profound. His freedom has evoked indescribable joy world-wide.
He has come to symbolize indomitable courage and unwavering moral conviction in the face of enormous political adversity and state imposed racial discrimination, also known as apartheid. He never ceases to inspire the hearts and minds of all freedom loving peoples to his ideals.
It was with the same ideals and courage that he first greeted his people and the world just after his release: "I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all". No doubt he will facilitate their attainment in his country for his people.
We in Canada must remain vigilant and supportive to ensure that Mr. Mandela's freedom and his struggle for his people shall not be a fleeting moment in history and that what we have seen in South Africa is the real beginning of the triumph of human dignity and the end to racial bigotry.


OPEN SKIES CONFERENCE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, 1989 was marked by spectacular events and spontaneous national movements that brought about a revolution in Eastern Europe.
A new era of liberalization, unification and openness is unfolding.
As part of this historic process, Canada is now hosting the first international "open skies" conference, attended by foreign affairs ministers of 23 NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, the purpose being to negotiate a treaty autho-

February 13, 1990
rizing both blocks to conduct unarmed surveillance flights over each other's territory.
Other aspects of European security including the use of conventional weapons are being discussed. It was even suggested that the "open skies" concept be expanded to include surveillance of oceans and space.
This is the first major East-West meeting in the 1990s, which will help set the tone for the new decade and new East-West relations on security matters.
Mr. Speaker, once again Canada plays a leading role in ending the cold war, once and for all, and promoting more peaceful relations between countries throughout the world.


LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today the Innu nation announced that if the Government of Canada does not halt its low level destruction of their homeland in eastern Quebec in Canada, they will ask the Federal Court to stop the flights, as in the Rafferty dam case.
The government is destroying the Innu land and their hunting. It is claiming that no one lives there permanently. That is a lie. The Innu have lived there for 9,000 years, much more permanently than recent European visitors.
The government claims its environmental impact study proves no serious damage. That is a lie. Two groups of international experts have condemned the government's study as a worthless cover-up.
The government says it does this training to protect us and western Europe from Russian invasion. That is a lie. No one believes the Russians will or can invade us. Therefore, Poland, Germany and other European countries are reducing their low-level flight training. However, this government expects $2 billion worth of economic benefits to Canada from low-level flying.
I call on the people of Canada to demand that this government stop this shameful and greedy destruction of the Innu nation.


TOURISM INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, tourism is an $800 million industry and growing in Nova Scotia. The industry wants support from government by way of marketing and other assistance. Most important, the industry wants a government that listens. This government listens.
Earlier this year the minister of tourism announced welcome federal support for Sea Sell '90, Nova Scotia's national award winning tourist promotion.
I wish to share with the House a letter I received this week from one of South Shore's major tourist operators referring to the minister's decision. He writes:
The decision is important for two reasons. It supports the efforts of
the private sector who are committed to the success of this project.
And, as important, the decision reflects that government is listening.
I commend the minister for his prompt, considerate action. I know our tourist industry can count on his energetic and committed leadership and this government's full support for our tourist industry.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry is twice as important to P.E.I. than it is to any other province. It represents 10.5 per cent of our gross provincial product. Nova Scotia is second at 5 per cent.
In addition, tourism is the largest employer in P.E.I. The GST will, according to the Canadian Tourist Research Institute, harm P.E.I. more than any other province. For example, if an American comes to Canada, as an individual he or she can apply for a rebate of GST paid in Canada. This in itself will be a nuisance factor and a deterrent to the industry. But if the same person comes to Canada on a package bus tour, he or she must pay the GST to the tour operator who forwards it to the government. However, neither the tourist nor the tour operator can apply for a rebate.
Jim Larkin, executive director of the Tourism Industry Association in P.E.I. says the GST will hurt in many ways but will be especially damaging for American bus tours. The tax will make destinations to P.E.I. in Canada too
February 13, 1990

expensive for Americans. These groups will look elsewhere in the U.S.
In 1989, 1,062 buses brought 41,213 American tourists to P.E.I. They contributed almost $5.5 million to the Island economy. When reductions like this are added to the reduced rail service, reduced Tourist Canada promotions and a high Canadian dollar, one can see that a major Canadian industry will be in difficulty and another major source of income to the people of P.E.I. will be jeopardized.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton -Malton):: Mr. Speaker, faster than a speeding bullet, able to fly at twice the speed of sound: "Look, it's a bird, it's a plane"-no, it is the Concorde and it's flying into Pearson International Airport this summer at an ear-splitting velocity.
The arrival of the Concorde proves that Pearson is an airport of international proportions. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the airport lies beside residential communities which are affected by airport activity. This must be considered every time a change is made at the airport.
When the Concorde begins to fly into Pearson let us ensure that this is done under strict guidelines relating to curfews and noise levels. Otherwise, we may have to follow the example of other North American airports and ban the Concorde from flying into Pearson altogether.
As in all things at Pearson International, this situation calls for compromise and the assurance from our government that a balance is maintained between the demands of the airport and those of the residents of Brampton- Malton.


OPEN SKIES CONFERENCE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yukon revealed that they are still captive of the outdated imagery, the outdated rhetoric and the petty partisanship of years past.
Canadians are hosting a landmark conference on building confidence between NATO countries and Warsaw pact countries. No less than 23 nations are here in
Ottawa seeking to reduce international tensions, all within shouting distance of the two opposition parties. Canada is taking an aggressive leading role in building peace. The opposition parties are taking narrow partisan cheap shots from the sidelines. Perhaps that is where they belong, there on the sidelines. Shame on them. This government is working for open skies, what the opposition needs is open eyes.


RIDING OF CHAMBLY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last night the people of Chambly in a historic vote chose Phil Edmonston as the first New Democrat elected in Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With 67 per cent of the vote, Phil Edmonston crushed the Conservative candidate, who got only 9 per cent. The message is clear. It is a statement against this government's Conservative policies. The message is clear. Chambly voted against the GST. Chambly spoke for all of Canada. It was a referendum on the GST and on Conservative policies and 90 per cent of the people said no!
I ask the government, Mr. Speaker, when will it listen to the voters of Chambly? When will it listen to all Canadians? When will it withdraw its GST Bill? When, Mr. Speaker?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, our neighbours to the south have again taken a slam at the Canadian farmer. The expansion of the export enhancement program by President Bush victimizes farmers in Canada by effectively pushing world grain prices down. The 60 per cent increase in the program further proves that the Canada-U.S. trade deal is a farce.
This government continues to remove all protection from Canadian farmers while American protectionist activity continues to increase, in violation of this agreement, and to the detriment of our Canadian producers.

February 13, 1990
The only give and take in this agreement is the Americans taking and the Canadians giving.
When will this government stand up for Canadian farmers?


WILDLIFE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, at the most recent meeting of Canadian ministers responsible for wildlife, held in Quebec City, the Minister of the Environment presented his provincial counterparts with a new action plan which the Environment Department is carrying out. This plan gives considerable importance to wildlife and its habitat, a subject in which all Canadians are particularly interested. The investigation which was done on this subject clearly shows that wildlife is a significant economic resource and it is interesting to note that 91 per cent of Canadians take part in wildlife-related activities, for which they spent over $5 billion in 1987.
Mr. Speaker, in Abitibi, we firmly support measures to conserve wildlife and its habitat.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to this government's lack of effort in promoting Canadian seafood markets and export markets.
In 1983-1984, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spent some $4.5 million on marketing. Since then, most of the responsibility for marketing has been transferred to the Department of External Affairs. The result has been that in 1989, $1.9 million was spent on seafood promotion under the program for export development. Not a very good record. Not only has the budget been reduced, the effort has been diffused within the much larger trade development program.
By its own account, the government has caused the current crisis by over-estimating traditional fish stocks. If the industry is going to successfully expand into the under-utilized species, the primary responsibility for market development must be returned to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Only as a result of a
focused and a well-financed program within the responsibility of that department most clearly related to fishery will this difficult transition be accomplished.


FORESTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, reforestation is an urgent issue in Atlantic Canada, both to protect the forest industry as well as to sustain our wildlife habitat and environment. The challenge is to produce more wood in less time while maintaining our way of life.
Small woodlot owners are urging governments at all levels to participate in long-range programs to guarantee a future industry. As well, major corporations such as J. D. Irving have recently called for expanded research into forest protection with long-term strategies. The industry is encouraged by the 1986 study by the province of Nova Scotia that established the goal of doubling forest production by the year 2025, while ensuring protection for the environment by new methods and good management practices.
This week, the federal Minister of Forestry stated that all sectors must co-operate to ensure the survival of our forests for future generations. The commitment by provincial and federal ministers to sustainable development at a recent national forum in Halifax is important and appreciated by the industry, and gives the problem the focus it deserves.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 250 construction workers from across southern Ontario protested in Windsor against the way this government is letting free trade take away their jobs.
Canadian immigration officials are allowing U.S. construction workers into Canada to install equipment in Canadian factories. The Minister for International Trade has already said that free trade was not supposed to permit such hands-on installation, but immigration officials are still permitting it. This has to stop. Canadians are perfectly capable of doing equipment installation work, work which they have done for years. U.S. immigration officials stopped Canadians from doing this kind of work. Why is this government failing to stand up for
February 13, 1990

Canadian construction workers? It is time this government stood up for Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, today the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, representing an industry which employs hundreds of thousands, in fact almost a million or more Canadians, is meeting in Ottawa. This government has ignored this key industry's warning about the disastrous effects on it of the proposed goods and services tax.
If this government is unwilling to take the word of people in the Canadian tourism industry, perhaps it will listen to what Americans have to say. For example, the National Tourism Association of Lexington, Kentucky, says: "The net effect of the new tax will be a decrease in U.S. travel to Canadian destinations". Circle America Tours of St. Louis, Missouri, in a letter to the Prime Minister, says that the GST "will make Canadian tours non-competitive with tours to American and other destinations".
In other words, the Americans are telling us that if the government persists with its new goods and services tax, they will not come here as tourists. How can the government insist on imposing a tax that will seriously damage the Canadian tourism industry which is responsible for more than one million jobs in this country? How can the government persist in such a foolish and senseless measure?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member would take the word of Americans before he would take the word of anybody else.


Some hon. members:: You listen.
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: The National Tourism Association did not say that the GST was going to drive tourism away. What they want to have in place is a proper rebate system. There are a number of things we can do to make more flexible and effective this rebate system which we have put in place for tourists from abroad who want to come to Canada. The National Tourism Association is going to work with me in order to help that happen.
In addition to that we have just unveiled today some brand new advertisements for the United States market, based on focus groups and research which is highly potent for increasing our appeal to the American market. These advertisements have been very well received.
We have also decided to spend more wisely. We are not going to waste our money through advertising but we are going to focus it carefully, based on strong research. That, together with a good rebate system, will keep our position strong in the American market.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, no wonder this government is in trouble. It is supposed to be business-oriented and it ignores the requirements and demands of its customers. No wonder it is in such a mess.
The government's rebate scheme is a farce. It requires detailed paper work to be submitted to the Department of National Revenue before anybody gets a nickel back. A tourist has to spend $300 before he can even make a claim, and it will not apply to meals, gasoline, and alcoholic beverages. There can be four claims a year.
This is something that will be especially damaging to border areas where tourists make many short trips, coming over for meals and entertainment. These areas have already been seriously damaged by this government's high dollar policy. The government's goods and services tax will provide another devastating blow.
When will the minister listen to the people in the Canadian tourism industry and withdraw this damaging tax?

February 13, 1990
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we have consulted the tourism industry in the most intensive way of any government in the last 10 years.
The Leader of the Opposition should know that the rebate system that has been proposed by the Minister of Finance is the most accommodating and the most expansive of any country in the OECD. It will give rebates, for example, on accommodation. That is not done by any European country or any Asian country under the GST or the VAT. It will also give a rebate on goods that are purchased by tourists in Canada. This is a system which is extremely generous, but it must be made to work simply and that is what we are consulting about.
More important, this is not a time to denigrate tourism. This is a time to boost tourism.
The Leader of the Opposition comes from Windsor. It is a border community. That community, and all communities in Canada that depend on tourism want to make sure that we spend smart and that we base our strategies on good research. This we are doing, and we are going to work with the industry to make sure that the rebate works well.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, border communities like Windsor say that the proposed goods and services tax will be disastrous for their tourist, restaurant and hotel industry.
If this minister was truly the voice of the Canadian tourism industry he would not be trying to make excuses and defend this awful tax.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister undoubtedbly knows that many Americans visit Canada every year. He must also know that the Americans revolted against because they refused to pay more taxes, but still, the government keeps on repeating that the new goods and services tax will have no negative impact on the number of American tourists in Canada. How can the Government believe that American tourists will keep on coming in droves just for the fun of paying that new 7 per cent tax? Will the government finally admit that that new tax will have disastrous consequences on the tourist industry which generates $24 billion in revenue. Mr. Speaker, when will
the Prime Minister start listening to the people from the tourist industry and give up the idea of a tax that will have disastrous consequences for our country?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading a script. He is not listening to the answers.


Ms. Clancy:: There aren't any answers.


Thomas Hockin: There will not be tax on American tourists buying accommodation in Canada. They will be able to get a rebate as well for goods they purchase. Read my lips. They will be able to get rebates.
The American market is changing. The tourism industry here in Ottawa today has made it very clear in my meetings with them that we are developing a different American market for Canada. We are developing niche markets, markets that are very different from the previous market which was, essentially, a rubber tire market.
What we have to do with this niche market is have strong research, and have advertising and marketing that fits that research. That is what we are doing.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The North American Association of Tour Organizers warns that the GST favours Canadians travelling outside the country over those who travel in Canada. The tax will make Canada too expensive for foreign visitors and for Canadians.
Canada used to get three out of five visitors to North America. Now it gets one out of five. Does the minister realize that his GST can price Canada out of the market? Is this what he means by making Canada more competitive in the world economy?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would benefit from reading the Conference Board report on tourism prospects. That related to the 9 per cent GST. Now we have a 7 per cent GST and they are revising the report.
The Conference Board said that the rate of growth for tourism, which is growing and has been growing every year for the past five or six years, will not shrink but continue to grow at a slightly slower pace over the next
February 13, 1990

two years and then, guess what. Three years from now the growth will be stronger than it would have been-


An hon. member:: Why is it slower?


Thomas Hockin: -if we did not have the GST. The GST, after three years, will be a positive factor for tourism, rather than a negative one.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Tourism. The government claims it recognizes the importance of tourism in Canada. Yet, in the last budget, cuts were made to the ERDA programs for tourism and marketing. Now the GST threatens to cause a major downturn in the tourism industry in Prince Edward Island.
What specific programs will he announce to offset the major burden the GST will place on the tourism industry?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the first fact to realize is that we are not talking about a burden when it comes to the cost of running a tourist establishment.
For example, let us take look at a tourist establishment in Prince Edward Island. I will be there on Thursday consulting with the industry. The GST, which is rebat-able, virtually instantly, will lower the cost of running a tourist establishment, be it a restaurant or hotel. It will lower it somewhere between 2 and 4 per cent. So the GST, which is an instant rebatable input credit, will lower the cost of tourism. That is the first point.
The second point deals with the 7 per cent that is being added to the customer's bill when he goes to a hotel or a tourist enterprise in Prince Edward Island or anywhere else in Canada. We are not discriminating against tourism. That tax will be applied against all services and goods in Canada. But there is a bias toward tourism because we are going to have a rebate for foreign visitors. Of all the industries that have had special treatment under the GST, tourism is at the top of the list.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As we have heard today, tourism contributes some $24 billion to the gross national product of this country and creates some 10 per cent of the workforce. Yet, last March, seven of the 12 tourism agreements between the
Oral Questions
federal-provincial-territorial governments expired and were not renewed and another five are soon to end, despite the fact that tourism is fundamental to regional development in this country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House and to the thousands of Canadians working in the tourism industry why the government has failed to make tourism a priority?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that the regional development programs in Canada have a tourist component. They are eligible under ACOA, they are eligible under western diversification. They are eligible under FEDNOR in northern Ontario.
I announced just three weeks ago an additional component for tourism under FEDNOR. I find it astonishing that the leader of the NDP could ask any questions at all on behalf of the tourism industry. I will tell you why. This leader wants to make sure there is no longer any deductions for entertainment expenses.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: That would devastate the hospitality industry. It would devastate the tourism industry and we do not believe in that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that tourism can look for funds along with everybody else from ACOA and the Western Diversification Fund. The minister says that tourism funding will be drawn from the budget of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, known as ACOA. In fact, he has offered half the money he has offered in the past. He does not see tourism as a priority.
The minister has said today that the GST will be good for tourism. Well that will be interesting because the Prime Minister received a letter on January 19 from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, which has suspended its support for the GST because of the potential it sees for more paperwork, price hikes, $1 billion a year in lost revenue and the loss of 25,000 jobs.
Canadian tourists already spend $3 billion more outside of Canada than within Canada. We have a $3 billion tourist trade deficit. Another 7 per cent is going to make

February 13, 1990
Oral Questions
it even harder to compete. What is this minister saying to the tourism industry?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the NDP reminds the House that TIAC has withdrawn its support for the GST. I would like to tell the hon. Leader of the NDP that TIAC also, I am sure, would withdraw its support for the NDP suggestion that we have a minimum tax on small businesses, most of which are tourist establishments.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister answers that he said the GST is good for seniors as well.
Last week I asked the Minister of Finance to join me at a meeting with seniors because they are concerned about the GST and the budget. The Minister of Finance rejected my request, yet he should be listening. Once again I ask the Minister of Finance if at last he will agree to meet with these elderly people? He has to hear their concerns.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member is going to be honest with herself and with this House, she will remember that when she asked the question last week she asked if I would meet with a group of seniors at a meeting in Winnipeg the next day, which was last Tuesday, and I said at that time that that was not possible to do, and she knows that.
Now she is talking about seniors. There is a brochure which I hope she is going to pass out to seniors organizations with which she meets. It contains a list of things that are exempted from the goods and services tax, things that are designed to help senior citizens. They include things like basic groceries, meals on wheels, meals served in nursing homes, dental care, health care, hospital and nursing home care, prescription drugs, eye glasses and hearing aids. No tax will be charged on residential rents, on municipal transit, on passenger ferry service, on legal aid and other financial services.
These are the things that we have exempted from this tax precisely to help senior citizens in the country to cope with the tax.
In addition to that, the GST credit ensures that 75 per cent of seniors will be better off. I see that my hon. friend is finally nodding. I am glad to see that she does agree with what I have to say and I hope that she will tell senior citizens in this country exactly that.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for tourism. In his remarks a while ago he said that they are going to do better research. Can the minister tell me if he can do better research than the studies done by the Tourist Industry Association of Canada?
Second, he said we are consulting them. Well I would ask the minister to stop the consulting and listen to them. The minister is making allegations of all kinds. If tourism is in such good shape, how does he explain that they are going to lose 25,000 jobs in the next two years in this country?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this gives me the occasion to summarize for the hon. member all the things that this government has been doing for tourism in the past year. I am sure he will want to hear every single one of them.
Let me start with the most important. We have talked about the GST rebate. It is the most expansive and most efficient system of any country with a VAT or a GST.
Second, we are listening to the tourist industry and we have put together the largest trade exposition in the history of Canada for the Pacific Rim. The Pacific Travel Association, for the first time ever, will be coming to North America, not to the United States but to Edmonton and Vancouver. That has been sponsored by Tourism Canada.
Third, we are also just finishing the biggest survey of the American market ever conducted by a Government of Canada. We have made over 9,000 contacts in order to identify these new niche markets in the American market.
We are also doing a price-value study of the American market to find out what their perception is of the value of their travels to Canada.

February 13,1990	COMMONS DEBATES	8263
Finally, and most important, we are working with the industry to make sure that we do not waste our money but spend it smarter than our competition.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not explain the loss of one job let alone 25,000.

Canada's tourist industry is deeply worried about the current situation in this country, and we have heard that it is experiencing its most severe crisis in 25 years. Is that clear? The worst crisis in 25 years! In the midst of such a crisis, how can the minister reduce the Canadian tourism marketing budget by almost half?


An hon. member:: Shame.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond to the hon. member the same way as the Conference Board did. The Conference Board indicates that after three years the tourism industry in Canada will be stronger and more jobs will be produced than if we did not have the GST.
Second, the tourist operators in this country today made a very eloquent plea to make sure that the spending for marketing in Canada is not separate all the time, with the provinces going one way, the federal government another, the hotels, restaurants and tourist operators another, but that we get together and co-ordinate and co-operate. This we are doing.


IMMIGRATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Once again an outstanding Canadian is being denied entry in the United States under the provisions of the McCarren-Walters legislation which has been in force in that country since the onset of the cold war. And, as we know, for every blacklisted outstanding Canadian, there are quite a few ordinary Canadians.
Oral Questions
In answer to my question last week the minister undertook to make representations to the Americans about this matter. I want to know what he has done since he made that commitment. If he has no significant results, would he be prepared to launch an advertising campaign to warn Canadians, particularly seniors, about the risk involved if they go to the United States and the measures they can take to clear their reputation in the eyes of the Americans?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Canadians who travel to the United States every year and they do not experience any risks in doing so.
With respect to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he is presiding over a very important conference that is being held in Ottawa, Canada, today with great success and distinction.
With reference to the case of Mr. Hunter, to which I think the hon. gentleman is referring, we are now advised by the U.S. Embassy that his case is being reviewed by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in Buffalo and it has determined that he is free to enter the U.S. without applying for a waiver.
With respect to American legislation, that, of course, is a matter of domestic business of the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is bringing to the attention of the Americans our views on the matter and our hope is that they will proceed quickly with the implementation of amendments which have been proposed so that their legislation will be less onerous and more fair.


BLACK LISTING
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. This is not a time for wishful thinking on this particular issue.
In 1981, the U.S. Government agreed to destroy its lists of the names of possible Canadian security risks, which lists had been supplied by the RCMP years earlier. But the record shows that hundreds of law-abiding Canadian citizens on those lists are still labelled as subversive by the Americans.

February 13, 1990
Oral Questions
Just what is the Solicitor General and this government doing now other than wishful thinking to rectify this injustice and require the U.S. to clean up its records in compliance with the 1981 agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know the United States is a sovereign country and has to determine itself what its legislation, rules and regulations will be.
We can pass on to the United States our views with reference to U.S. legislation or regulations that might affect our citizens, and we are doing so. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is encouraging the American government to have a generous interpretation of recent amendments so that Canadians would no longer be inadmissible on ideological grounds and so that any Canadians who appear on "look out lists" for inadmissibility on those grounds will be purged.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing all that this government or any other government, other than the U.S. government, can do. It is up to the U.S. government to act with respect to its own domestic legislation, and that would be no different if any other party in the House formed a government.


TOURISM
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Tourism. The minister has stated in the House, both today and previously, that the GST is going to lower the cost of operating a tourist establishment by 3 per cent to 4 per cent. The tourist industry representatives I have spoken to, of whom there have been quite a few, frankly do not know what the minister is talking about and they do not agree with his basic position on that.
Would the minister not agree that what he is talking about is capital expenditures only and does not involve the service component which is a major cost in the industry?
Second, does he not recognize that his statement is at least misleading and contrary to findings that the GST will cost tourism $1 billion a year and 25,000 jobs?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we can continue to cast assertions across the aisle, but I have to tell the hon. member that a very in depth study has been done by the Conference Board. It has taken a look at the very parameters that the hon. member is interested in, which is the growth of the industry.
This is the fastest growing industry in Canada with 3.7 per cent average growth in the past five years. We want to see that continue.
The hon. member would like to work with the industry to make sure this happens. So do I. One thing they do want is lower cost of operation. The reason that the GST allows a lower cost of operation for almost every tourist establishment is that the establishments immediately get back, within three weeks after they remit any of their sales tax, the money from the government, even before they have a customer walk through the door. That means they have more cash flow and lower costs of operation.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the minister has based his entire argument on the Conference Board report. I just want to point out that it is based on two false assumptions; one, that there will be no wage response to any inflationary impact on the GST and, two, that the MST will be completely removed before the GST is applied.
We have been dealing with international tourism, but what about our own Canadian tourists? Does the minister not recognize that 83 per cent of our tourists are Canadians travelling at home who cannot apply for the rebates? Does the minister not understand that the GST will discourage travel at home, that the GST will encourage Canadians to travel abroad and, last, that the GST will add to Canada's record tourism deficit which already tops $3 billion a year?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend now criticizes the Conference Board report. Two months ago he and his colleague quoted the Conference Board report when they criticized the tax when it was at 9 per cent.
More fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at an objective study that compares American tourism with Canadian tourism. The Runzheimer Index does this study of middle-level prices for hotels, accommodations, restaurant meals and air travel within the United States
February 13, 1990

and compares them to Canada. Guess what. Canada is more competitive in all three dimensions than the United States.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, but I do not want to be negative like our colleagues opposite here.
It has been noted that the goods and services tax will have a major impact upon the tourism industry. We all know that the provinces currently apply sales taxes on the industry. A good example is the 5 per cent hotel room sales tax imposed by the Government of Alberta. Can the minister tell the House, first, what other specific measures have been made in the design of the GST to safeguard those hundreds of thousands of jobs across this nation. Second, what is the impact of those provincial sales taxes on the tourism industry?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the House must be grateful that we finally have a sensible question on tourism.
The situation is that the provinces do apply sales taxes on hotel accommodation. The states in the United States apply tax on hotel accommodation. In fact, in New York City there is a city tax, a convention tax and a state tax.
We in Canada are not only setting the tax at a very low rate, but we are going to rebate it, as I have said many times in the House today, to foreign tourists. More important, the GST exemption is not only on visitors' accommodation. It will also be on exported goods that they purchase and air travel into the country.
When one compares any other country with a GST or a VAT with Canada, one sees that ours is the most expansive and the most efficient rebate system in the world. That is our way of operating. We are not going to use the approach some provinces do, such as Ontario, which is to give a rebate but to make it so difficult to get that nobody applies for it.


INTEREST RATES
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in response to a question, he stated that there was a clear misinterpretation by the market of a very limited edited version of what the Prime Minister said when the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister was referring, allegedly, to the fact that interest rates would drop after the budget was brought down on February 20.
I want to provide the opportunity to the minister today to explain exactly what the Prime Minister said. Did he say that the interest rates would go up or did he say they would go down?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was that the market responded to a one-sentence report that came out of the Prime Minister's interview some time before the full transcript was made available. When one looks at that one sentence and compares it to the transcript made available at a later time, one sees that the context and the meaning of the sentence were quite different. That was the point I was making in response to the question yesterday.
As far as the question of my colleague on what the policy of this government is, we have made it very clear. We are determined to get inflation out of the system. We feel it is very important that we avoid the problems that we got into in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Until we see some reduction in the inflationary pressures in the economy there will not be a meaningful reduction in interest rates.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I think it is very important, since yesterday the Minister of Finance was adamant in saying we should read what the Prime Minister said.
I will repeat my question for the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister certainly did make a statement about what is going to happen to interest rates after the Budget is brought down on February 20.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House today exactly what the Prime Minister said about interest rates in Canada? Will they go up? Or will they go down?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to read the full transcript of the Canadian Press report of the interview. Let me comment, if I may, on the article of Jack McArthur in The Toronto Star today. He is referring to

February 13, 1990
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister. He said: "Yet his comment was quite cautious, possibly even a bit wise."
I think it is important for my colleague to understand that these things cannot be given one-word answers. I think he does understand that and that is why I am sure he would find it quite useful if he would read the full transcript of the Canadian Press interview.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the illustrious Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I have a question for my fellow Newfoundlander in exile, the Minister for International Trade.
I have just spent a week on the southwest coast of Newfoundland talking to hundreds of inshore fishermen, hook and line people, from Harbour Breton to Port-aux-Basque. Everywhere the story is the same. These people are not catching enough fish to pay their expenses. Therefore, no net income, no money for groceries, no chance of qualifying for UI or the special response programs.
What is the Minister and the government going to do for those people who do not even have the minimum income requirements to qualify for the established programs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman knows that every year, including this year, there has been a program to look after fishermen who are in the unfortunate position that they were not able to catch sufficient fish to qualify for UI. I assume that he is now referring to the winter fishery which is taking place along the south coast.
If the fishery is so bad that fishermen are unable even to qualify for UI, every consideration will be given to a special program.
I might say, in connection with the 3PS fishery off the south coast of Newfoundland, that in 1989 the fishery was improved as compared to the year before. The catches for vessels of less than 100 feet reached 21,916 tonnes, a 25 per cent increase over 1988. That was last year in 1989, so that was a bit of good news. I hope the
trend continues and that the fishermen in the hon. gentleman's district will find that they have a better season as time goes on.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister may have statistics about 3PS. I talked as recently as Sunday with 300 fishermen who have seven, 10 or 12 tubs of gear. That should, with 5,000 or 6,000 hooks, as he knows, catch 4,000 or 5,000 pounds of fish a day. They are catching a half dozen tom cods and a sculpin on a day. They are not getting enough to pay their expenses.
I am asking the minister, not what he is going to do maybe when the winter fishery is over at the end of March sometime, but what is he going to do now for people who have been fishing for as long as 14 months and have not been able in any way during that 14-month period to get enough income to qualify for a UI stamp or buy groceries?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Tirade): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman understands that we have had the special response program this year and that, if further special response programs are required, they will be provided.
With respect to 1989, I am correcting the figures because some of the hon. gentleman's colleagues gave an unfortunately false, distorted picture of what the fishery had been.


Roger Simmons: Not I.


John Carnell Crosbie: I know the hon. gentleman would never distort anything. That is quite obvious.


LOW LEVEL FLIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Twenty-two technical experts hired by the federal government to review the Canadian military environmental impact statement of low-level flights on the Innu and the environment of Labrador and Quebec have given the study thumbs down describing it as "inadequate by all conceivable standards of assessment" and "some sort of cover-up".
Since holding public hearings on such a document would be contemptuous of these expert findings and confirm a cover-up, will the Minister of the Environment instruct the Department of National Defence to
February 13, 1990

prepare an entirely new environmental impact statement because the present one is not salvageable?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the House the assurance that my department is working closely with all government departments, including National Defence, on the environmental assessment process. We have always said, in this House and elsewhere, that the government has made commitments it intends to respect concerning the implementation of environmental assessment studies. The same applies to this particular case.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Government of Canada. Today we have learned that 25 international experts who reviewed the study for the Innu have now also given the study thumbs down. One internationally respected scientist describes it as the worst impact statement he has ever seen.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister show some courage and sincerity about the rights of the Innu and the environment of all Canadians and order an entirely new environmental impact statement?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this assessment, this project, the government has undertaken to follow exactly what is required in terms of environmental evaluation. We are aware of those comments. We know that the process is in place and the government will fulfil its obligations completely.


AIRPORT SECURITY
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In 1987, this government brought in a $60-million program to strengthen airport security. Under this program 80,000 workers at Canadian airports were subjected to background checks and fingerprinting. A judgment released yesterday by Madam Justice Barbara Reed, ruled that this program was illegal and must be discontinued.
Oral Questions
Exactly what can the minister do and what does the minister plan to do for the protection of the Canadian travelling public?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was advised of Judge Reed's decision this morning. First, I would like to give Canadians the assurance that all this does not affect the security system in our airports which is operating normally. We intend to look at various possible responses to Judge Reed's decision.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Last week the Canadian Council on Social Development fired all of the staff of the Court Challenges Program. This program has and should continue to play an indispensable role in clarifying and defending minority language and equality rights of all Canadians before the courts.
Last week in this House the minister expressed his dismay and disapproval of the firing of the Court Challenges staff.
What action has the minister taken since then to assure the staff that their positions will be reinstated and that the Court Challenges Program has the ongoing commitment of this government?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to you that after a very thorough examination of the program and some very good recommendations that were brought forward by the standing committee, my officials and I have been meeting with the Minister of Justice and his officials and we are now advancing with a process seeking further consent of our colleagues.
As far as the specific action to which the member refers, I had indicated that my under-secretary had immediately called the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development. Unfortunately, a death in his family prevented him from being available for an immediate response, but we would expect to be able to report shortly on what further action has been taken.

February 13, 1990
Privilege


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program has been in effect for 11 years. The Minister knew that on March 31, 1990, the program would end unless it was renewed. Could the minister inform the House he has at least raised the issue in cabinet? Does he have the support of members of the federal cabinet? And is he able to meet the pressing needs of language minorities and give those who want to avail themselves of section 15 of the Constitution the assurance that on April 1 of this year, there will still be a Court Challenges Program? Or can we expect the Minister of Finance, who is going to cut everything, to tell us this program will be cut as well?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I have explained that I found the program very beneficial. We have had a chance to examine the program, suggest a number of changes and improve it. We have been able to examine recommendations made by the Standing Committee of the House, and with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, we are making progress in this respect.
I have done my best to give some very positive indications that we are trying to do everything we can to make some progress, but right now, I am waiting for the approval of the government and my caucus colleague.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns smoking in the government lobby of this House. I must say, first, that I have never risen on a question of privilege before.
While privilege in the United Kingdom has always been based on common law, it has never been transferable to the colonies except by statute. The right of Parliament to establish its privileges is guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1867. The most recent time that this was done was in 1985 when Parliament passed the Parliament of Canada Act in 1985.
I raise this question simply because I believe that in this House we are trying to set an example for Canadians, particularly young Canadians, and we are trying to establish a smoke-free environment for future generations of young Canadians. I believe we are falling down in that regard.
I point out that this House passed an amendment to the Non-Smokers Health Act in 1989. That act clearly requires that the House of Commons provide a nonsmoking atmosphere for its employees. Because we are the employers of a number of individuals in this House, including clerks, young pages and the personnel of all members of Parliament, I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that the environment is maintained smoke-free.
The act defines "employer" this way:
"Employer" means a person who employs one or more persons in employment described in subsection 123(1) of the Canada Labour Code -
Under the definition of employer it states:
(c)	the Senate, House of Commons or Library of Parliament, in relation to employees thereof or employees of a committee of the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, or
(d)	a member of the Senate or House of Commons, in relation to employees on the staff of the member, including persons employed in the office of a Minister, or in relation to employees on the staff of a political party housed in accommodation provided by the Senate or House of Commons who are under the direction and control of the member;
In terms of our precincts-and I believe that I am absolutely correct in this regard-I wish to quote from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 31, Citation 93(2):
Control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Parliament Buildings (the Centre and West Blocks, the Confederation Building and other buildings occupied on behalf of the House) and its precincts occupied by the House of Commons is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House.
February 13, 1990

I also submit that the work and the performance of members of Parliament are being jeopardized because we are not adhering to that policy. Again I wish to quote from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 16, which states:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
To me, this is a very important matter. I know we are attempting to clean up the environment of this country. I do not think there is any better place to start than right in this House. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have set the example since I have been in this House by bringing to the forefront for Canadians the attention that the environment very clearly needs.
I am not doing this for vindictive purposes. I am a non-smoker. However, there are many members in this House who are attempting to give up smoking. It is very difficult for them under these circumstances. There are very many members of Parliament in this House who have respiratory problems, and they have real medical concerns. It is very difficult for them to function in the lobby which is an extension of the office of a member of Parliament.
In the government lobby there are a number of telephones and desks from one end to the other. When members are present on duty in this House, many of their hours are spent in that lobby working on behalf of their constituents. I contend that their ability to work and act on behalf of their constituents is impeded simply because of the environment in that the lobby does not allow some individuals to sit there and work on behalf of their constituents.
I take this matter very seriously. I believe that we too in this House have to set an example for all Canadians. Again I say "young" Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, you are very cognizant of this fact and have brought it to the attention of the House many times. When we members of Parliament get out of hand from time to time, you are always the first one to stand and remind Canadians from coast to coast, the people
Privilege
back home are watching us, that we are clearly under their scrutiny.
I believe that if we are going to honour the traditions of this House, then we have to do it by honouring a bill that was passed in this place by us. I believe that we have to do it in fairness to all members of Parliament. I believe that we owe it to ourselves to make sure, if we are attempting to bring in a bill all Canadians have to live by, that we as members of Parliament are willing to live by it ourselves.
Accordingly, should you find that a prima facie case of privilege does exist, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to share with the House some of the experiences in the other lobby, that is the opposition lobby.
Since the adoption of the law I must say categorically that I have received absolutely the co-operation of all members in our lobby. There has been no smoking in the opposition lobby since the end of December 1989.
I have not seen one member smoking. As a matter of fact, today I had the pleasure to hear the member for Halifax tell me that she has quit smoking because of the interdiction to smoke. I encourage her to continue in that respect.
If the member has a grievance-and I doubt very much that it is one that touches privilege-then I think he should bring it up in his own caucus as a serious matter of discussion for them to decide. What happens in that lobby is their business. If he has a grievance with them, I think he has to take it up with his own Whip or somebody else.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, maybe we could all help each other and contribute to solving this difficult situation by kindly asking the hon. member if he would, for a time, suspend his desire to have you rule on his question of privilege.
In the meantime, I would respectfully ask Your Honour to write again to all members of Parliament, as you do from time to time, to remind them of the new rules that are in place. I am of the opinion that many members are still of the opinion that they can smoke in certain places and not in others.

February 13, 1990
Privilege
I would suggest the hon. member suspend his request until Your Honour has had a chance to look into his question of privilege, as is his right. In the meantime the Chair can remind members of exactly what the law means and, if there is an exception, then you, Sir, will let us know. If after that time members do not abide by that reminder, then at that time I would imagine he would be more than anxious to rise again on the same question of privilege. At that time I am sure there will be many other members who would love to get up and participate in the debate that the hon. member may raise.
Of course I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, with respect to whether or not you find my suggestion acceptable. I am also in the hands of my hon. colleague to know if the suggestion I just put to the Chair is acceptable to him.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I sympathize with all those people on the other side who wish to smoke.
I would say that this is the first time I have ever seen any regulation come in when there has been no opportunity for people in a federal agency-and Parliament is a federal agency-who do smoke to receive any advice or counselling.
I am sure that soon the freight entrances will not even be available for some of the people to smoke in because it will be banned there too. There is absolutely no place on Parliament for a person to smoke.
I do not smoke any more, but I can certainly appreciate the plight of those who do.
I think this is a question of privilege that should be looked at from the point of view of there being nothing provided for people who do smoke.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I know that this is an opposition day and that we do not want to prolong this matter for too long.
I was surprised that my friend raised this question of privilege because I know he is such a clean liver who has never been overexposed to lung problems, I guess, through smoking.
There is a problem here. We all know people should not smoke, but I quite agree with the hon. member for South West Nova. I did not hear all the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Denis. However, I hope he was saying that the committee which he chairs ought to look into the matter. I think he is chairman of the members' services committee which quite frankly, and with all respect to my great friend, has been the most inactive cobweb committee around here for the last several months. It has not looked after the rights of members.
I quite agree. I think this is a classical situation. I used to be a practising lawyer, as I used to be a sometimes smoker. I never smoked cigarettes; I sometimes took a puff of a cigar.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Having been in both of those areas, Mr. Speaker, as you yourself once used to be a practising lawyer, you and I know that there is an old maxim which applies in this case. I will not say it in Latin because when I use Latin around here people think I am being racist. I like Nova Scotia as Nova Scotia. I do not like it as Nouvelle Ecosse or as New Scotland. But in Latin there is a good old maxim which when translated means that the law is an ass many times when it does not have basic common sense. You can say that in Latin but it sounds better in English.
I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness-and I have written to you on this matter before-that I knew this regulation was coming in on January 1, 1990.1 do not think a lot of members around here did. Frankly I do not think we appreciated the stupid law that we passed which did not give rights to both smokers and non-smokers so that those who serve us have a place to smoke somewhere in this institution. There should be a place in all other federal buildings under our jurisdiction. The blanket, unilateral approach which has been taken makes all sorts of deceit possible.
In answer to the rhetorical question from the member for South West Nova, even now you get the ridiculous situation exposed to me and experienced by me on Friday of last week when I was smoking in the freight entrance with several other good colleagues and employees of the House. Some commissioner felt duty-bound to send his lower sabaltern in to tell the hon. member and all the other employees that, "Gentlemen, I hate to do this but you are not supposed to be smoking in there. Would you

please take a step and go out into the pouring rain and keep puffing out there?"
In answer to my friend, who is relatively new to this place, lobbies used to be the place in the whole institution where members on all sides and/or your own group would sometimes lobby, sit around, converse, socialize, meditate and think about some problems of state. Sometimes if they had the odd hiccup or had some social juice and/or sometimes puffed away, that sometimes helped in the meditation process so that some problems of state would be resolved.
I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to be too facetious or too humorous: the atmosphere around this place has changed, and not just because of no smoking. It has changed because of computers and fax machines and the personality of the whole political process now.
But when you add all those things together in the mechanical world and take away some of the companionship that some of us enjoyed in meeting with our fellow members in the lobbies, we do not do that any more. I want to raise as a question of privilege some day the fact that we should have a bell or a flashing light at the entrance way of all doors so that if we are puffing back there we can find out when the bell stops so we can get back here and vote.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I really think this matter should be discussed by the members' services committee, not just by the members of Parliament and our staff, but perhaps hopefully by House leaders to show that if the regulation is in stone for all federal employees then something can be done so that there can be some smoking spot. The thing has gone too far. I understand the respiratory situation, health and all that.
But, goodness gracious, there is something else in Latin, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. Let the smoker beware. With all the advertising through the federal government and everything else, we know smoking is not healthy.
When are we going to get away from big brother always telling us what to do and let individuals start to make up their minds? Let us give an area for those who do want smoking. For those who sometimes do want to partake in a bad habit, let them continue to partake in
Privilege
the bad habit on their own without big brother telling them what to do.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to some of the comments made here today. In particular as an aside at the beginning, if I may, I want to say that it is a wonderful picture the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants paints of this place in times past-no women, lots of men, everyone sitting around drinking and smoking the day away.
However, I would like to say that if my hon. colleague from Saint-Denis and his committee go forward with some recommendations on this matter, we cannot see these recommendations go forward merely for this sacrosanct institution of the Commons. The public servants of Canada who work and live in their environments around us, both here in Ottawa and across the country, would hardly be edified if there were special places for the employees of the House of Commons to smoke in comfort and not such special places for other public servants of Canada to smoke.
Having recently joined the ranks of the converted- and this is the second time I have done this on television, so I hope it works this time-I can say that these stringent laws have made it a little bit easier for those of us who want to quit. We also have to remember that in so far as smoking in the lobbies is concerned what we are doing is infringing on other people's air space, if you will.
I think a separate place where people could go of their own accord-and I think the legal term is volenti non fit injuria-is something that could and perhaps should be done. Certainly it should not just be for the House of Commons. It should be something that is done for the Public Service generally.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I just want to spend a moment or two on this topic which has nothing to do with government legislation, as some of our viewers might feel it does, namely, Bill C-51.
I remind hon. members that the Speaker is obligated to follow the law. The law that was passed was Bill C-204, a private member's bill. Under a private member's bill, members of Parliament had to decide individually as to whether or not he or she would support that

February 13, 1990
Privilege
bill. There were no government Whips on that legislation. It was every member who decided for himself.
It was the former member for Broadview-Greenwood, Ms. Lynn McDonald, who brought in that legislation. I think viewers should be reminded and we should remind ourselves that it was not government legislation. It was the House of Commons deciding on a vote by each and every individual whether or not Bill C-204, which was a private member's bill, should be passed.
Additionally, what we should now keep in mind is that the Speaker by action of this Parliament is obligated to obey the law and to enforce the law here.
We know my good friend from Annapolis Valley- Hants well. We will not go into his personal views. He can say whatever he wants. He as a legislator as well is obligated to follow the law and expect the officers of this House to follow the law. It is for that reason I do not think the Speaker has any opportunity other than to follow the law set out in Bill C-204.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this matter. I agree with what the minister has just said.
I supported the law. I think the law has done a marvellous job in helping to discourage Canadians from smoking. However, as we pass laws in this place we have more of a responsibility than others who are affected by it to look at some of the impacts that the law is having.
For my part I prefer a smoke-free environment, and I am glad to have one provided for me. I have been trying in my own mind to come to grips with the problems of passionate smokers, committed smokers, people who seem unable-even knowing all they know about the dangers of smoking-to give it up.
I would commend to hon. members to think of committed smokers who are unable to give it up as people suffering from a form of handicap. Being addicted to tobacco is a form of physical handicap, whether or not it is significant that they are the authors of their own misfortune that they became handicapped through decisions that they made themselves.
I do not think their situation is really much different from other people who are handicapped and in a lot of cases may also be responsible for becoming handicapped.
They may have driven in a way that led them to becoming blind, paraplegic or something like that. We do not make a moral judgment about handicaps. At a certain point we have a responsibility and the Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms requires us to accommodate their problem.
As we begin to see some of the real suffering that people are feeling and the terrible inaccommodation that they are subject to, these people who cannot give up smoking, I commend hon. members to think of their plight and to try to find some other solution than to force them in a cold Canadian winter, as I saw this morning, to have to stand outside to be able to smoke.
I do not agree with smokers. I like sending a positive message and a bit of a kick in the pants to people who insist on smoking, giving them, as my colleague from Halifax noted, a real incentive to try and give it up.
But there is a limit. Now that we in this House are starting to see it among our colleagues and staff, I think we ought to try and think of a way of learning to live with what I hope is a dying handicap, one that 10 years from now will not be among us.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment. I hope we will all remember this moment as we pass other laws. It may be one of the few occasions on which all of us sitting in this House have occasion to live with the results of the laws we pass in a very real and personal way, whether it be as smokers or as people seeing our colleagues suffering through the problem of addicts deprived of their drug.
We imposed this requirement well over a year ago on every person who works for the Government of Canada. I doubt anybody in this House at that time considered the effect on those people, smokers or non-smokers, or on their productivity. This debate did not occur in this House until we ourselves were affected by it.
I hope we will remember this moment and with every law we pass think about how we would like to live with the impact of that law.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I listened with considerable interest to the interventions that have been made. I just want all hon. members to know that except when there is a tie,
February 13, 1990

the Speaker cannot vote and of course the Speaker did not vote on the bill which came before us.
Second, I should tell you that not only with the Speaker but with members of the Board of Internal Economy, the hon. member for Saint-Denis and other members of the committee on privileges, there have been considerable concerns discussed as to the applicability of the law and to the extent and whether it should be applied or not, or whether there should be any exceptions by way of special premises in order to allow smoking to take place should be provided.
The hon. member who just spoke made reference to the regulations that now bind the Public Service. Hon. members will know that it would have been a matter of severe criticism if in this place we collectively had decided to make exceptions to the law for ourselves that were not permitted by others who were members of the Public Service and serving our country and in many respects serving us.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis has made a sensible suggestion. I do not intend at the moment to rule whether this is a question of privilege. It may be and it may well not be. It is a matter of obvious concern to members.
But what I do want hon. members to realize is that the administration of this place is in the hands of the Board of Internal Economy which your Speaker chairs. I am bound by the law and so is the board. Further than that, so is every member of this place and everybody who works here. Until some change is made in that law or the application of it, and if there is a change in the application that change must be lawful, we who insist that all Canadians live by the rule of law must also live by the rule of law. The law may be, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said, an ass. Well we passed it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wasn't here.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants puts forward a plea of mitigation. That also is a legal term. I will not put in in Latin.
I will take the matter under advisement. I ask that before I have to return to the Chamber perhaps representatives of both sides of the House might consult with each other as to just how some of the complaints that have been brought forward today might be resolved.
Government Orders
I would prefer that this matter was resolved among members speedily and with a sense of responsibility and self-discipline rather than have more severe measures taken. I thank hon. members for their contributions.


PETITIONS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that during the question of privilege today in respect of language I cited a letter from a group of letters I had in respect to a constituent. I do not think there has been a formal request for the tabling of that letter, unless it has come to you directly. If it has, I have those letters. I leave it in the hands of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the hon. minister that I heard the offer this morning that the hon. minister was prepared to table it.
Under the rules the hon. minister does not have the authority to table correspondence to which he makes reference. However, the hon. minister can make it available to any member. I take it that that is the word of the minister and hon. members can obtain copies from the minister's office almost forthwith.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCurdy:
That this House condemn those policies of the government which, having bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to express to you and the House my outrage on seeing the thrust of this motion which has the gall to accuse the government of pursuing policies that have contributed to the creation of racism and bigotry in the country. This is the government which had the courage to address an incident in our history which scarred our nation. I refer to the Japanese-Cana-

February 13, 1990
Government Orders
dian Redress Agreement. This is the government that established the Deschenes commission. This is the government that enacted the world's first multiculturalism act which recognized our rich cultural diversity as a fundamental characteristic of this society. This is the government which is establishing the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship to promote a vision of full equality for every single Canadian, and this is the government which recently introduced Bill C-63, an act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
I am outraged, Mr. Speaker, and so are all those Canadians who are contributing to make this country a better place in which to live. While I do not like the motion, I am certainly pleased to be able to speak to it.
When I saw this motion, two things came to mind. One is the chance to inform Canadians of what this government has done to combat racism and bigotry in this country. The Prime Minister has made it clear that they have no place here. I could stand here for at least an hour or more and recite a list of the positive achievements in this area since 1984, but that would give this motion more credence than it deserves.
For me, this motion has no focus; it has no substance, and it has no sense. These are empty and meaningless words. The hon. Member for Windsor-St. Clair has put everything but the kitchen sink into the motion. There are statements here that must be addressed. Let me say that I welcome this chance to set the record straight today. I welcome this chance because the hon. member who put forth this motion is himself among the many hon. members who just last week sent back to my department a coupon asking for copies of all the materials about eliminating racial discrimination recently published by my department.
These materials are in the process of being distributed to our regional offices, institutions, government officials, leaders in the field of race relations, concerned citizens, individuals of all ages, backgrounds and origins throughout Canada. They know we care about this issue and they know we are doing something about it. Maybe the hon. member who proposed this motion could learn something from their example.
Since 1984, this government has worked to make this country a place where social justice, equality and national unity prevail. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which became law on July 21, 1988, responds directly to this essential challenge.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act states that, in harmony with the recognition of Canada's two official languages, the multiculturalism policy must preserve and enhance Canadians' multicultural heritage and seek to achieve equality for all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political areas of Canadian life.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the Act commits the Government of Canada to an active, energetic multiculturalism policy making our diversity and the challenges and opportunities it presents an integral part of the process of building our country.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act takes us a step beyond the establishment of equality rights. It actively promotes equality. It strengthens our sense of the distinctiveness of the Canadian identity. It contributes to our better understanding and acceptance of each other. It commits the Government of Canada to ensuring that all Canadians can participate fully and without discrimination in defining and building Canada's future.
The policy and the ideals of the act unite Canadians because they have great hope and great aspirations for this country. Those are the people who have this great hope in it. They believe that we can have an even better and fairer country. So do I. Canadians are not afraid to meet the challenges of our society today. They do not agree with the negative and destructive picture presented by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair. They have a different vision of what Canada is and can be.
I am fully aware that we do not yet have a perfect society. In spite of progress there are still danger signals when we take stock of where Canadians are right now in their relationships with each other.
We are all aware of overt incidents of racial intolerance, prejudice and bigotry in our country. We have seen the headlines about the report on the Donald Marshall Inquiry, about a racist pin and the creeping incidence of
February 13, 1990

anti-Semitism, the blatant hatred of the Jim Keegstras and others whose names are less well known.
I am not new to the issues, the concerns, the facts and the statistics and I do have a sense of urgency about what needs to be done. I have felt the stinging barbs of intolerance and ignorance myself, but at the same time I have a sense of optimism and hope that Canadians are at their core decent and caring people who want nothing less than a society of true equality. That is why my department immediately worked to build upon the equality provisions and promises of the Multiculturalism Act, by making race relations and cross-cultural understanding a priority program.
In September 1988 I first announced a framework for national action in the field of race relations, a framework for change and for progress. This national plan defined six fronts for positive action. Many of you are familiar with them already. Let me share them with you again: public education, changing our institutions, helping voluntary organizations, generating more research about racism and racial discrimination and how to fight it, setting an example at the federal level, and getting governments to work together.
Changing public awareness is a major task. There are many activities in this area, but our most significant work in public education is centred around March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I know many of you are familiar with this date and with its fundamental objective, namely to raise public awareness of equality issues and to get Canadians on side in the fight against racial discrimination.

For the first time in 1989, we had a large public awareness campaign for March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination. Many activities were held with the support of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, as well as other governments, community groups, human rights groups and various other institutions.

Approximately 52 municipalities throughout the country participated in our first major March 21 campaign. I am very optimistic about the growing profile of this
Government Orders
effort. March 21, 1990, promises to generate even greater public attention and I see it as a most effective way of circulating our message in schools and communities throughout Canada.

We have clearly stated our purpose: Promote appreciation and acceptance of the principles of equality and multiculturalism among Canadians and in federal institutions and develop the will to implement them.
We recognize that, within our social structures, institutions have tremendous power. They can share in the life and work of every one of us.
To overcome racist attitudes, we must make structural and institutional changes.
The department which I head helps Canadian institutions adapt to the cultural diversity of our country. Thus, we encourage institutions to examine their structures and policies to detect obstacles to full equality of rights; these obstacles are not always obvious to those who run these institutions.

To that end, my department supports institutional change related to education, policing, the media, health and social services, labour and municipalities. Of course we recognize that in many of these areas, provincial and municipal governments are on the front lines. No real change can take place without their active involvement and so we are working closely with them.
I would like to mention a few of the key projects we have recently undertaken in partnership with others. We have been working directly with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to promote the development and use of cross-cultural training within police forces. Our efforts in this area, and in encouraging the recruitment of visible minorities, are essential if we are to make authority figures more representative of our multicultural reality.
This past summer a pilot project was established for visible minority youth in Vancouver who are interested in careers in policing. I met with some of these young men and women and I can say with confidence that this project was a great success.

February 13, 1990
Government Orders
In October I convened a national consultation on policing in a multicultural society. Federal and provincial officials from across Canada met with police chiefs and officials, along with representatives from visible minority communities. Together, we are finalizing a national action plan to strengthen police minority relations.
There is no room for racism in our places of work. Yet, all too often, the doors of our institutions are closed to some because of discriminatory attitudes. In addition to our ongoing efforts in the area, I am working to develop a national anti-racist education program with the Canadian Labour Congress. Together we are developing a three-year plan to provide training and education materials for the thousands of union shop stewards across the country.
It has been said that if Canada is a microcosm of the world, then municipalities are our neighbourhoods. It is certainly true that municipal governments are most in tune with their own local conditions.

That is why my department is working closely with municipal administrations across the country. We support the Federation of Canadian Municipalities through its race relations program. We have helped establish a national action committee on race relations. We have also helped to develop a series of practical guides on race relations.
I believe these publications have already had a positive impact.
We have made a major contribution to the second national seminar of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on race relations at the municipal level, a seminar held in March 1989.
Another very productive federal-municipal initiative was the founding of the Hasting Institute in Vancouver. This agency will help the city adjust to the changes taking place as a result of the increasing impact of visible minorities, women, native people and the disabled.

Last year, Toronto City Council declared 1989 as the Year for Racial Harmony in an effort to sensitize the people of Toronto about issues of racial discrimination.
My department also provided support for this very worth-while municipal initiative.
We are working directly at the community level, but we are also involved with the gathering of better knowledge and information to help combat racism more effectively. Much has been done to achieve this objective, and much more will be done.
The government announced in the last Speech from the Throne that legislation would be tabled to create a Canadian Race Relations Foundation. That promise has been kept. The legislation is now tabled and we will be moving ahead as soon as possible to create a centre for research and action in this vital area; a centre which will work to help eliminate all forms of racial discrimination.
I have mentioned just some of our government's achievements. While it is clear that we have broken new ground and set new standards in certain areas, it is also clear that there is still much to do and we cannot do it alone. Government leadership is vital. But to achieve real progress, an entire society must be mobilized. A co-ordinated, co-operative approach must be put into place. We see today how the call for reform by people like Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela has had a profound effect.
This kind of broadly based social action could not have been achieved without a groundswell of support at many levels. Real change is not achieved solely through individual gestures. It is realized through partnership. Here in Canada the federal government has assumed a leadership role in the area of race relations. But the actual effects of our efforts would be limited only to our government offices if we ignored the need for partnership.
"Racism" and "bigotry" are ugly words and their reality is uglier still. They are not things we as Canadians like to accuse one another of. We do not want to think of our society as discriminatory or intolerant. The fact of the matter is, however, that racism and bigotiy are part of the fabric of Canadian society and have been for a long time.
In the past, to our shame, we have too easily and too often side-stepped or simply ignored these issues. To our credit, I believe that those days are over. At the same time, however, I believe all of us involved in the elimination of racial discrimination must be very clear about what it is we are trying to achieve. We are not trying to achieve a tolerant society. Tolerance is putting
February 13, 1990

up with something, accepting it, living with it because there is no alternative. We have to move beyond tolerance.
Racism is not going to disappear overnight just because we recognize and comprehend that it is offensive to the dignity of all human beings, but we must expose prejudice for what it is, the act of bigotry, pure and simple, and once so isolated, we can and will eliminate it with every resource available to us.
As I have said in this House on previous occasions, the issues of combating racism, prejudice and bigotry are ones in which I have a deep personal involvement. In my youth, I felt the weight of that oppression and I resolved to fight it. I have done so in my community, in my neighbourhood, and now, here in Parliament. That fight is not over. It will not be over until we have eliminated racism, bigotry, and all forms of racial discrimination in Canada. We must do this task together. We must do it now, because together we are better.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. I do not want to take anything away from his commitment to fight racism. I also do not want to take anything away from the list of measures he has put forward as achievements on behalf of his government. However, I wonder if he agrees with me, as does the member from Windsor, with the sense that we have that for everything the government says it is doing, things seem to be getting worse on the racism front and one does not have to look very far for examples.
There is a question I want to ask him. I will have an opportunity to speak, and I would like to be pointed about it, because I really think input on this subject could be valuable. More than action, there is a responsibility on people of good will and on governments to react to things when they happen. Something important happened in April 1988 as an example to which the government has failed to react to this day. A reaction by the government would have measurably supported harmony across our country, certainly in the part of Canada where it arose.
I am referring to the efforts that have been made by the Sikh community to get their religious artefacts and obligations recognized and accepted as part of the fabric of Canadian society. I am talking about Canadians here who have a right under the Charter to practise their
Government Orders
religion, a right which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They appealed to the RCMP to allow them to wear their turbans on the job and in their dress uniforms. If the answer were no, they would not be able to serve in the RCMP.
Religious obligations have to be tested in the institution against the practical requirements of that institution. The RCMP made that check and they could not come up with a practical reason why Sikh religious observers should not be allowed to wear their turbans. They looked at it and could not find a reason. They could not say safety considerations, environmental considerations. There is no reason why those individuals who profess the Sikh faith should not be entitled to wear a turban in all aspects of the performance of their duties in the RCMP. Commissioner Simmons came forward in April 1988 and said that there was no practical reason why a turban should not be allowed as part of the daily uniform, as part of the dress uniform.
The government has not responded. They have not said, as the Solicitor General is supposed to do: "We will go along with your interpretation of the law. We will make this contribution to understanding and harmony within Canadian society." They have been silent for 1988, silent for 1989, and silent until today, except that a few days ago I heard the Solicitor General saying that he was looking for a compromise. I would like to know what he meant by that.
However, more important, I would like the minister for all of the goodwill and all of the good things that have been done to recognize a substantial failure by this government, by members of the government, by the Don Mazankowskis of the world, to stand up in western Canada where they are respected, and in other parts of the countiy where they are respected as well, and stick up for a decision such as that which would have done a great deal to promote better harmony and better understanding among Canadians.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the issue is certainly one that I am very familiar with. I have had a very active and ongoing relationship with members of the Sikh community of the Sikh faith, as I do with all cultural communities. I certainly have an understanding of our rich ethnic

February 13, 1990
Government Orders
and cultural diversity, and all the benefits that are accrued to our society.
I have a sense that this type of episode, much as other types of episodes that have been occurring far too frequently across the country which my hon. friend is indicating are bothersome to him as well, are part of an over-all crisis. The crisis is one of national identity.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Exactly. That is the argument.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: There is some difficulty in Canadians understanding what our fundamental characteristic is. There is the linguistic duality of the country, of course; our protection of minority rights and how that harmonizes with our multicultural reality. I have certainly spoken to how that diversity strengthens and unites us.
There is a lot of work that we have to do in helping Canadians understand what we have become. I said that I cannot do it alone. I said that the government is committed, physically and personally, with this very strong cross-government commitment to examine how every one of its departments and institutions can better reflect our diversity. I have been building partnerships with other levels of government. Indeed, I have been reaching out for partnerships in the labour community, in the business and non-voluntary sector, in the health and social services, among others. It is quite obvious that all of our institutions do not reflect to any great degree the rich diversity of our nation, so a lot of work has to be done.
There are a lot of people of goodwill and understanding out there. It is an issue where we have to be generous and bring a lot of understanding. Last Friday I brought forward a committee of very distinguished Canadians who represent the different walks of life to help advise on how the Multiculturalism Act could be better implemented, to provide public accountability in a very open manner to Parliament and to advise me on what we are doing. All those representatives will help within the sectors they come from so that their own sectors can better reflect our diversity and allow us, once and for all, to have full equality and full participation, which is the minimum we can expect for our citizenship.
With regard to any specific incident that takes place, I have developed initiatives to address those concerns in a very proactive manner. The situation that the member has raised is one that I have certainly discussed on
numerous occasions with my colleague. I have even heard the minister respond that-maybe he said it in self-reflection-perhaps the delay has not been helpful to what he had hoped would be necessary in his resolving the issue. I did what I had to do to be helpful and now we are looking forward with anticipation to the minister making his decision, which he said he would do some time this month.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am really quite shocked at the distortion that was contained in the argument of the minister with respect to the motion before this House.
I was quite clear, but of course the minister wrote his speech before he listened to the debate, that there was no criticism contained in the motion about those specific measures and the will of the leadership of this country in respect to legislation and any number of acts that are intended to attack discrimination directly.
If the minister does not understand what was contained in the argument this morning then he ought to be ashamed of himself. The classic source on prejudice in Canada, The Vertical Mosaic, pointed out the importance of scapegoating to the question of racism and discrimination.
I should also point out to the minister that this motion has to do with something else besides racism and bigotry. It has to do with regional division. The minister may not agree with me, but he has no excuse to distort my argument. The argument is quite simple. It is the position of the New Democratic Party and of a great many thinking people in this country, and he came close earlier when he made reference to the sense of lack of control that is growing in this country, that this government, by its policies, has attacked the very fabric of a countiy that has had a sense of community out of which has come that legislation that bans discrimination, that is intended to discourage prejudice.
No amount of legislation in the world will prevent the acting out of racism, if the people acting out their racism have not got a sense that the country belongs to them, that the country cares for them, and that the government cares for the country. If there is a feeling out there that that sense of community is being lost, that there is more generosity to those who are already rich at the expense of the poor, if there is a sense that the regions are
February 13, 1990

suffering at the expense of the more prosperous regions, if there is a sense that government is acting on behalf of some at the expense of others, if those who are vulnerable are threatened with lack of housing, lack of employment, by God, my God, Mr. Minister, you bloody well ought to know by now, if you know anything about the issue, that scapegoating will result. That's the argument that we should debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments are now terminated.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex-Agriculture; the hon. member for Essex-Windsor-Fisheries; and the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina-National Defence.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today focuses on the same issue in a way that I raised on behalf of my party in a resolution on February 2. It calls on the House to condemn those policies of the government which have bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.
In the resolution I put forward a little over a week ago, I laid a responsibility on all Canadians and on Parliament to take stronger measures to combat racism. This resolution focuses particularly on the responsibility of the government and that is exactly what I would like to do in the course of the opportunity I have to make some remarks today.
We are fortunate, in looking at the problem of racism, in that Canada is not a racist society. We have racism here, but we also have a great well of decency across Canada and we have the willingness which we have expressed time after time after time as a nation to combat racism when we see it. We have passed laws. We have established commissions. We have set up the Court Challenges Program, which I hope will continue to be funded, although the government has not indicated that it will. We have people in the field, we have resources from the private sector, all devoted to trying to eliminate racism from Canadian society.
The main way in which racism can be eliminated in Canadian society, and the sense of it that I want to bring
Government Orders
to government responsibility, is the responsibility to exercise moral suasion as individuals, as decent people in the society, and for the government, on its behalf, to try to fight racism and counter it when we see it.
My contention is that for all the lists of achievements of the government, for all the programs and so on, they are not providing the kind of moral leadership that would make a difference in Canada today if they would provide it. It can sometimes be expressed in terms of race or nationality. Sexism, it seems to me, is often an expression of that same phenomena of hatred, fear, anger and contempt.
In the sense in which I have just defined it, what has been happening more and more in Canada is a small group of racists, whether it relates to language, sex, race, or whatever, has seemed to develop an evil genius, a kind of a genie du mal, de la destruction which leads them to develop the capacity to animate a large group of Canadians who do not have that characteristic and who are not racist in the sense that I just defined but who are disgruntled. There is a lot of disgruntlement in Canada now. There is a great disappointment in this government and I do not say this to members opposite in a partisan sense. It is a simple fact drawn from statistics and reactions to the programs and policies of the government. There are disgruntled people out there. There has been disgruntlement expressed with provincial policies in some parts of the country. All of that together provides a pool that the evil genius of racism has been able to animate and mobilize to lead to attitudes that are very destructive to the essential fabric of Canada.
Our country is more vulnerable to that type of attack than other countries because we are not the monolithic expression of one culture or one language. We are a mosaic, a patchwork, a quilt, to use Jesse Jackson's expression from the United States, of a lot of different groups. Cement to keep those groups together is a vital necessity in our national life. As groups that are motivated by racisms of one kind and another attack the fabric, we need to respond and react.
As I said a moment ago, when I was talking to the minister, it is not only actions. The minister piled up a large list of impressive things that the government has done to combat racism. The main thing that needs to be

February 13, 1990
Government Orders
done is to stay in touch and in tune with that fabric and movements that are going backward and forward which are threatening it in one way or another and to respond to them. It is urgent in this fabric of Canada that there be that kind of response whenever it is needed. Leadership needs to be provided.
I will digress for a moment to make the point that the government does know what leadership is. The government has shown leadership. It has shown it in the economic area. No one can say that it does not have an agenda, that it is not serving certain interests, that it does not have certain goals. I do not agree with it. My party does not agree with it. I do not think most Canadians agree with it. But the government knows what it is doing over there. It knows who it is working for and what it is trying to achieve. The government does not do it just by bringing in legislation. There are speeches, the government has programs, and it is back and forth across the country talking up economic policies which it has. But when it comes to the area of moral or social leadership, that is where the leadership that we see them capable of giving in some other areas is not given. To that extent, although I am showing some differences with my colleague from the New Democratic Party about the way I see the problem, the leadership that could be provided to help keep the fabric of Canada strong is simply not being provided.
I want to make my point by talking about the language issue. The language issue is a tough, tough issue for Canada. What is often not mentioned in debate is that our country was founded because we were able to make an agreement that accommodated French and it would not have been founded without it. We made a commitment to the survival of French in Canadian society. It is right there in the British North American Act of 1867.
Some people say, "Well, we made a deal in 1867. We will stick to that deal, but don't ask for more". That is not good enough. I think most Canadians know that, because unless there is more and we have richer programs and responses to the French fact in Canada, it will not survive. The commitment that we made in 1867 was to the survival of French and in one way and another the official languages policy-

-is a reflection of our commitment to accommodate and ensure the survival of the French fact in Canada, not just in Quebec but in Canada. And I think that is what should be the basis of our response.

I sometimes listen to the phone-in shows on the radio. You hear people saying "Well, there are more Italians in our town". Or "There are more Germans in our town than French. What are we talking about the survival of French for?" I would like to hear people reply more forthrightly that Canada exists because of the commitment we have made to French.
This is not to say that Italian is not an important and interesting language. I speak it, I enjoy it. It is a very big part of the cultural life of my city. But it is not in the same category of national commitment as our commitment to two official languages. I wish that was realized more across the country when people look at the methods that have been devised with great consensus in this House to support bilingualism across our country.
A few Ontario municipalities, too many of them, have gone unilingual, to coin a phrase. This is very disturbing because it sends a bad signal. It shows you the kind of evil genius that is behind it, although I am certainly not critical of everyone who supported it. I think a lot of them were in the category of groups animated by a cause that gave them an opportunity to express their dis-gruntlement. At the heart of it is something veiy evil.
This APEC, the Association for the Preservation of English in Canada is meant to give a kick in the head to the concept that the survival of French is a valid concern. The people who thought that up are saying, "You want French to survive. Well, we want English to survive and here is our association to do it". There is a very big difference between these two causes. One makes absolutely no sense. There is no basis on which one can argue that the survival of English is in doubt in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay or in any municipality in Canada or anywhere in Canada. English is a language which is surviving and thriving.
When you look at the issue of French survival I think it is a different story. A small island of six million on a continent which is vastly anglophone, little communities across the rest of Canada outside Quebec where in their daily life French speakers cannot operate in French only.
February 13, 1990

This is a real problem. When APEC comes along with that wonderful name, Association for the Preservation of English in Canada, it is the most terrible insult to concerned francophones who legitimately want to see their language preserved. We are talking about something valid compared to this idea that the survival of English is somehow threatened by any of the bilingual policies that one has in place in Canada or that you could think of. To me, it shows the nature of the source of that movement across Ontario.
I think we should fight it. You hear some saying that they are doing it because of what is happening in the province of Quebec and they are coming to the aid of the poor anglophones in Quebec who have had their rights limited by Bill 178.
[Translation \
I have already condemned Bill 178. The use of the notwithstanding clause was something to be deplored. I think we had to make this eminently clear, and we did so. Perhaps we should look at what Quebec Anglophones have to say.

I have a letter which was sent out. It is addressed to the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie and sent by Alliance Quebec. Do you think that Alliance Quebec is saying "Thank goodness you are finally giving those francophones in Ontario terrible treatment". That is not what they are saying in this letter. They are saying the opposite. The Alliance Quebec people, who speak English themselves, want the Association for the Preservation of English in Canada to stop.
I would like to table this letter. First, I would like to read a part of it:
I urge you, as citizens, to put pressure on your elected officials to reverse their decision. In doing so, you would be honouring the past of your community, which as its name implies, is built on the site of an old French trading post. Sault Ste. Marie is a reminder of the pioneering spirit of our French and English forebearers who built this country together.
At a time where relations between English- and French-speaking Canadians are strained, you have an opportunity to make a gesture
Government Orders
towards greater harmony. I hope you do not let this opportunity pass.
Ask your City Council to reconsider this matter now.
That is how the anglophones in Quebec, who have suffered to the extent that they have-

-with Bill 178. This is in reaction to those who seem to help by denying, at least symbolically, the rights of francophones outside Quebec.

This is a wonderful kind of Canadian gesture by Alliance Quebec. It is signed by Robert J. Keaton, President. I would like to commend them for doing that.
I want also to deplore the developments of last week in the House of Commons on this very subject. My former leader, the Right Hon. John Turner, on his last day as the Leader of the Opposition, brought forward a simple, straightforward resolution which I have here and which I would like to read.
I would have thought in the light of Sault Ste. Marie, and in the light of Alliance Quebec, with the Thunder Bay vote coming on and with the need, as I mentioned, for cement for national unity within the Canadian mosaic to be provided in a reactive way when it is needed, and not just when it is time for the Speech from the Throne.
The leader brought forward this motion:
That this House reaffirm its commitment to support, protect and
promote linguistic duality in Canada.
Now there was a resolution that should have whistled through at two o'clock. I spoke to the mayor of Thunder Bay, Jack Masters. He told me, and maybe we need to be told this in the House of Commons, that it would have made a difference across our country if the House of Commons had passed a resolution on that subject. People care what we think in this place. They are affected by the kinds of ideas, exchanges, the things we come to terms with here and the resolution that we make of them as members of Parliament.
That simple resolution did not get through because the Prime Minister of Canada chose to play politics with it a few days before the by-election in Chambly. I would be happy to discuss this further. I see members opposite thinking I am being unfair. I am not. Instead of adding to the resolution in a way which would have reinforced it, the Prime Minister of Canada added some baggage to it,

February 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
acceptable to many members of Parliament, including myself, but as he well knew, not acceptable to many others.
I talked earlier about another example where the government should have come forward. I had a chance just a moment ago to ask the minister about it. I am referring to the Sikh turban in the RCMP issue. I do not want to repeat what I said a few moments ago, but I cannot help but reflect on the quality of the hand-ringing answer that I just got from the Secretary of State on why it is that when the Commissioner of the RCMP made the statement, which was really a legal declaration in April of 1988, that there was no basis in law for denying the religious expression to the Sikh community.
There were many ways it could have been looked at. Many arguments could have been made. Do you need a turban for safety reasons, or the helmet, or whatever? He went through all that because our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not give a person the right to express every right when it is not reasonable in a free and democratic society.
So the commissioner was looking at what are the reasons that we can say; "You cannot wear your turban". He could not come up with a reason. So he said; "Okay, you can wear them". But then it fell to the Solicitor General to give a simple order and I have had the honour of having that office. If he had given the order at that time, "I approve of the use of turbans by religious Sikhs in the RCMP", I think the atmosphere in western Canada would have been very different. I do not think the button campaign would have been launched if people like the minister from Winnipeg, the minister from Calgary, ministers from Edmonton, members from every community, had stood up and said that there is no way we can or should stop the Sikhs from wearing their turbans in the RCMP. If that type of animation, leadership, and moral suasion had been exercised, Canada would be stronger today. That is why I agree with this resolution and that is why I join in condemning the government for its policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt at this point but I think it is a good time, rather than going halfway through question period or another speech.
There have been discussions among House leaders and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That this House authorize the broadcasting, by the electronic media, of the meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade, Thursday, February 15, 1990, at 10 a.m.;
That such broadcasting be at the discretion of the chairman of the committee and under the following conditions:
a)	That the camera positions be fixed;
b)	That the cameras not be permitted to enter or leave the room except during suitable breaks in the meeting;
c)	That existing room lighting be used;
d)	That the existing audio system be used;
e)	That the appropriate pooling agreements be arranged;
f)	That the format and coverage used for the House of Commons broadcast be adhered to;
g)	That the decorum of the meeting be preserved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm with my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, that we have had consultations. We have had extensive consultations, but this is a very historic moment and, for that reason, we believe that this special privilege of televising it so that the people of Canada can also see all or parts of it is more than appropriate. But again, we look forward to an expansion of the television coverage of the House of Commons as per the report and, hopefully, the government will bring that in soon. On this particular initiative, we give our enthusiastic support.
February 13, 1990


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, we concur and on behalf of our party agree with the motion as proposed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCurdy:
That this House condemn those policies of the government which, having bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend brought up the issue of Sikhs in the RCMP wearing turbans. I would like to pose a question to him because a lot of people in Alberta are struggling with this very concept.
One hears a number of arguments. Some of the arguments are that it is heritage, custom and so on. I do not agree with that personally. Another which is also put forward is that the reason police officers wear uniforms is to distinguish them and in no way should uniforms show or point out a religious position of the individual wearing the uniform. There would be situations where an officer of the law could be arresting an individual of a different faith and there could be real animosity on religious grounds between the individuals. If a change in dress of any officer points to the fact that he follows a certain faith, whether it be Sikh or Muslim or whatever, this could cause problems for the officer and also problems for the individual.
If the police officers in Ireland were identified by religious differences that could cause a lot more turmoil than really exists. I would ask my hon. friend, through the Speaker, if he would consider this a valid argument.
Supply


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider it a valid argument, although I know a lot of people feel that way. To me there is enough uniformity left with the rest of the dress when the headgear is changed. A person with the uniform would be clearly identified as a Mountie. The Mounties have very high standards. They do not pick just anybody to join their force. I believe that the public would know when approached by a turbaned Sikh wearing a Mountie uniform that they were dealing with an individual who met the high standards of the RCMP and not someone who was inclined to be prejudiced in any way.
I make a counter-argument to the member. That argument could be used for arguing that blacks or Indians should not be allowed to be in the RCMP. Although their distinctiveness is not expressed by clothing, it is expressed by characteristics and colour of their skin. All of the arguments you made about what kind of prejudice might be assumed could be tied to the colour of their skin as well. So, let us not have it one way and let us not have it the other way. The Mounties have high standards. They are not going to hire people who do not share their high standards. I think the public will accept a member of the RCMP with black skin, with Indian racial characteristics, or with a turban on, and they will accept him up to the high standards of the force.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member speak in many areas of the country on the issue of human rights. He is, without a doubt, one of the leading exponents of this issue. Given that, I wonder if he would comment on the Marshall report within the context of his earlier remarks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I know he has shown in all of his public career a great concern for issues relating to native justice and aboriginal rights. He raised the question of this report with me when it came out. I want to tell him I feel I could have used that as an example just as strongly as the other matters I mentioned.
When the Marshall report came out, I got up in this place to ask him for action, the Minister of Justice said: "We are waiting for the Province of Nova Scotia to take action". I would have liked to have heard a different answer from the Minister of Justice. In the context of social activism and leadership, the right response would have been: "This is a devastating report and here is what

February 13, 1990
Supply
the federal government is going to do on its side of it". The Marshall recommendations were there and there were a number of them that the federal government could have implemented.
We have had the reaction of the Government of Nova Scotia for one week, and one could say a week later: "You said you were waiting for the Province of Nova Scotia to respond. Now can we hear from you?" Another week has gone by and we have not heard.
Leadership and reaction are extremely important ingredients to fighting this war on racism which every society has to fight but even more in a multicultural society. I rate the government very lowly on reacting to these issues and I think observant Canadians do also.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comment? Debate. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre. It is my understanding that the hon. member will speak for ten minutes, plus five minutes, splitting the time.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, has the time for questions and comments expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are still two minutes more for questions and comments. The hon. member for Athabasca on a question or comment.


Jack Wendele Shields: I would just ask my hon. friend about his response to the hypothetical situation I posed to him. He indicated that it could be colour, or along the same line. I would answer that by saying that colour does not determine a man's religion. Religion, as you know, can become very emotional.
There is a case in Edmonton of the city fathers wanting to put a cross at intersections, a painted cross on the pavement where someone had been killed in a traffic accident. Because this had religious significance, other religious groups became very emotional about this and said: "No, we will not allow this. It is not right, because it is a religious symbol." The city of Edmonton had to change and not put a cross, but now paint a coffin. I am putting it in that context.
These are the arguments that many of my constituents and many of the people of western Canada are making.
It is not just changing the headgear. The headgear in itself becomes a religious symbol. That is where the problem arises, not because of heritage. I personally do not care if they change the headgear. But the headgear itself is a religious symbol in the same way as a cross would be a religious symbol. This is the problem that people are discussing and one that I think we should address.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think the city is wise to use another symbol than the cross to signify where people have been injured in traffic accidents. I know this was the policy in Belgium and in Europe. What they had was just an outline of a person on the sidewalk. This, to me, is an area where there is no religious requirement, that you use a cross to make that symbol on the road. You can do anything. But with observant Sikhs they cannot, consistent with their religious principles, go out without the turban on.
The question is, are we going to accommodate their clear and demonstrated religious observance or not? We have a law on the subject. The law says that we recognize it unless, in a free and democratic society, there is some reasonable basis on which we should not. And there is not, so far as wearing the Sikh turban is concerned.
I was on some hotline shows in Alberta and I know the kind of concerns people have who are not racist. I hope the member noted in my remarks that most of the people who are behind these causes are motivated by others. I feel that at the centre of it, there are people who are animating others because of fear, hatred or contempt which leads them to animate others to take positions on some issues that are veiy divisive of a multiracial, multicultural society like Canada.
I ask the member, when thinking about the issue, to distinguish what is essential to religious observance and what is not, because the essentials are protected by our laws.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate today. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Burlington.
February 13, 1990

I am pleased we are discussing this issue today because it gives me an opportunity to set forth the actions our government is taking to promote freedom, opportunity and tolerance in Canada.
The motion put forward today by the New Democratic Party does nothing to enhance that cause. In fact, it is a motion designed to promote discord and dissension. I find it disturbing because I believe, and this government believes, that it is up to all members of Parliament and all Canadians to do whatever we can to bring Canadians together. Indeed, it was the former member of Parliament and Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker, who introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights nearly 30 years ago.
The Bill of Rights begins with five simple yet powerful words: "I am a free Canadian". It is those words that must and do guide the actions of this government. Our programs and our policies reflect the fact that all Canadians share the same rights, the same freedoms and the same opportunities. That is what makes this country so different from so many other countries around the world.
We have all watched incredible changes in the world over the past year. But the underlying feature in nearly every event in eastern Europe and in many other countries is the triumph of freedom. People from around the world are experiencing for the first time freedoms that Canadians have enjoyed for over 120 years.
When our government came into office in 1984, we committed ourselves to putting an end to the bitterness and pain all too many of our fellow citizens endure. We have dedicated ourselves to finding new ways to stop the process of polarization among our own people and to end the senseless divisions that are perpetuated every day based on the arbitrary notions of superiority and inferiority, replacing them with the healing wisdom of compassion and understanding.
Since this government has assumed office we have come to appreciate the dimensions of the problem, and I can say with great confidence that the personal effort on the part of the Prime Minister and all of his cabinet colleagues is testimony to our efforts to end the vicious cycle of racism.
Supply
We have provided not only a leadership of ideas, we have backed them up with concrete programs and federal initiatives. I can also say with pride that our government has done more to fight racism than any other in our history. All hon. members should be joining with us, working with us, in that great struggle. Racism is inexcusable. It is the policy of our government to work constructively with all Canadians to eliminate these evils.
Our record is one to be proud of. The Minister has pointed with justifiable pride to initiative after initiative of the anti-racism front. I would be glad to file with the House of Commons the press releases of those initiatives that have taken place in the last few months.
I underline the importance of those initiatives. Of course, we all have to be resourceful and tireless. In the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multicultur-alism, we have a tireless champion for equality and fairness for all Canadians. His personal record is clear and his commitment to combat racism and prejudice is solid.
The fight against racism is part of our government's policy of multiculturalism. In 1988, Parliament unanimously passed the world's first Multiculturalism Act. This act clearly states that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and that cultural diversity will be considered in all aspects of the decision making of government. It points the way to a Canada of equality, a Canada where understanding and acceptance is the basis of our relations as a people, in which the government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians can participate fully and without discrimination in defining and building our country's future.
Multiculturalism, for our government, is a policy that has solid programs and services. It is pro-active, antiracist and is in keeping with the objectives of the act.
But our government has moved beyond simply enacting the legislation. We have been actively working to ensure that the principles of multiculturalism are applied to the policies, programs and practices of all federal institutions. The elimination of intolerance and discrimination is today one of the highest priorities of Canada's multiculturalism policy and, indeed, will remain so.
The government and the members of Parliament cannot do it alone. It can, however, help bring together individuals, organizations and institutions to create a

February 13, 1990
Supply
positive partnership to build understanding and equality. Through those partnerships we can meet the participation and service needs of ethnocultural and visible minority community Canadians in special need of assistance. When they have to deal with institutions and practices they do not know or understand or when they have to communicate in a new language, we will be there.
At heart multiculturalism is about recognition that this society is for all the people who live here, all Canadians. That participation and opportunity must be equal in this pluralistic society.
The Multiculturalism Act itself is a central element in our striving for equality. Its fundamental aim is building co-operation and developing support for the equality objectives which are set out in our Constitution and human rights laws.
Multiculturalism seeks to preserve, enhance and share rich cultural diversity. We have established chairs of ethnic studies, and encourage various artistic and literary expressions as well as programs of fostering cross-cultural understanding. We are working to integrate Canadians of all background into the common life of our country, its institutions, its cultural vitality, its media, its political groups and its movements. This government has had the courage to tackle the sensitive, complex issues of Canadian identity and partnership and tried to lead all Canadians of goodwill to a better understanding of each other and their aspirations.
Our Multiculturalism Act is a symbol of that commitment to bringing Canadians together on a basis of justice and fairness. Canadians recognize that our diversity of traditions and insights brought together in our neighbourhoods, our schools, our businesses and in our civic forums is the rock solid basis of our strength. I am pleased that the Scarborough Chamber of Commerce has recently set up a multiculturalism committee in this respect.
Of course we still have much to do, and safeguarding equality for all will be with us for a long time into the future, and that of the generations to come, but we are indeed making progress and it is this government that has led in facing up to the problems and pointing the way to overcome them.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate. The hon. member for Burlington.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to the rather serious accusations by the hon. member from the New Democratic Party. I regret that I have only a short time to argue against his vague criticisms.
I would like to refute the hon. member's motion with particular reference to the immigration program by arguing that the government is innocent of the charges we face today. Our immigration program engenders fairness from its very foundations.
When we talk about bringing people to our country and helping them settle, this government is guilty only of promoting equality of opportunity, justice and racial harmony. Entrenched in Canada's immigration law is the complete ban of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sex. Section 3 of the Immigration Act requires immigration rules and regulations for admission to reflect standards consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From the beginning, those people who wished to come to Canada are granted the same treatment throughout and fairness is guaranteed from the moment that anyone puts his or her foot in the door of the immigration program. At the same time, this government realizes that many of the new immigrants are personally disadvantaged when they first arrive in our country. They may not speak the language or understand their rights. New skills and understanding must be conveyed so that they have the same opportunities as all Canadians. They need assistance in adjusting to this new and foreign society so they can begin to contribute what they have to offer.
Most important in fitting in to a new community is the ability to communicate. That is why Employment and Immigration is spending $77 million this year for language training for new immigrants destined for the labour market. Furthermore, the minister has committed $2.5 million for language training for women who do not intend to enter the labour force. It is precisely these language skills which will pave the way for successful integration by these immigrants.
February 13, 1990

Besides language training, Employment and Immigration Canada assists some 130 volunteer organizations to counsel and support immigrants in adjusting to Canadian society. This can include anything from learning how to fill out a job application to understanding our laws and our government.
This year some 13,000 immigrants will benefit from the $56 million in funds for these programs. We should note that such programs often teach Canadians as much as they teach new immigrants. By working with people of different cultures, Canadians gain increased understanding and tolerance. Our host program is one such example where Canadians give of their time and understanding to help refugees settle.
Accepting people from vastly different backgrounds is indeed something to which Canadians have become accustomed. In recent years we have seen more and more people coming from countries in eastern Asia and Africa. Furthermore, in this year's immigration plan the minister has allowed for the resettlement of 26,000 refugees in line with our international obligations.
Canadians will continue to welcome the world's disadvantaged. While their backgrounds are foreign to those of many Canadians, their presence provides us with an appreciation of our life as well as an insight into the plight of the refugees abroad. Indeed, as the composition of our society changes Canadians have had to adjust their picture of what Canada looks like. As they tune into reality they discover that, as always, immigrants offer much to the quality of life and the culture of this country.
Everyone in Canada has the right to equal treatment and the opportunity to contribute. Through our programs and laws immigrants to Canada are assured those same rights that we have. By the same token, Canadians themselves are guaranteed equality of opportunity through our immigration policies. They are guaranteed equality of opportunity to work and opportunity to receive proper health care, education and countless other benefits.
One need only think of the scientists and the physicians and business people whose choice of Canada as a home has provided so much in view of the background from which they came. In view of the fact that we want
Supply
immigration to continue to meet the needs of Canadians, the minister is now engaged in an extensive cross-country consultation on immigration levels. Through discussion with sectors such as business, labour, health and social services and education, the minister will be assisted in setting the country's immigration levels for the years 1991 through 1995.
The House should note that these consultations serve a great educational purpose in themselves. Many Canadians who have never discussed the issue are now actively engaged in the dialogue. It is our hope that a more understanding public will emerge through these consultations.
Canada has earned a global reputation as a country that treats its new citizens fairly and justly. That reputation was recognized when the people of Canada were awarded the prestigious Nansen Medal. Our immigration program has a unique give and take nature. While immigrants are granted equal rights and opportunities, Canadians benefit from their presence in countless ways. It is the openness and generosity of the program and people that have allowed a vast mixture of cultures and races to exist peacefully in one country. We are the envy of the world in that regard. Levelling ambiguous charges towards the government's efforts as the hon. member has done today is entirely unproductive. The hon. member himself has done a great deal to foster racial understanding and better equality of opportunity.
Canada's immigration policies have been scrupulously careful about the need to promote racial harmony, equity and justice for everyone. I would ask the hon. member to recognize that fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East, I would just like to indicate that because it is the NDP's opposition day the rotation of the order is NDP, P.C., Liberal. There were two 10 minute speeches by the P.C., then the NDP, then the Liberals and it goes back to P.C. so that we can get as many speakers in as possible.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, by law Canada is a multicultural society with a charter that guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms. The present government which was supported by all parties in the House reaffirmed multiculturalism policy in a Multicultural Act a couple of years ago. This act, of

February 13, 1990
Supply
course, promotes multiculturalism and equality for all Canadians particularly in regard to federal institutions.
In light of this unanimous support within the House for multiculturalism it is rather sad to read a recent article by Maclean's magazine which shows that the popularity of this policy is declining. We hope this will be temporary. I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs:
- Prime Minister Mulroney - reaffirmed Ottawa's commitment to the multicultural mosaic-in a 1987 pamphlet that Canadians should have the freedom 'to retain their respective identities while joining one another as equal partners in a united country.' But the Canadian reality has clearly fallen short of the ideal. In fact, recent opinion polls show that, far from living up to the principle of ethnic harmony, a growing number of Canadians express intolerance not only of identifiable minorities, but toward the idea of ethnic diversity itself. The mosaic is under siege.
They mention also that polls show that when Canadians are asked specifically whether they support official multiculturalism most, about 63 per cent, still answer in the affirmative. However a Maclean's Decima poll shows that fully 61 per cent of Canadian respondents, including a majority of every income and education level, says that immigrants should change their culture in order to blend with the larger society.
Clearly this means that we must have a fairly aggressive program to develop equal opportunities in the real meaning of multiculturalism that will be accepted by and for all Canadians.
Not only is enthusiasm for ethnic diversity waning, but racism continues to be a disease of our society, as many people have pointed out today. Studies show that racism indeed is on the increase. In 1988, 70 per cent of people who were surveyed said they thought immigrants bring discrimination on themselves.
Although we have legal protections under the Charter and employment equity laws, systemic discrimination continues even in our own public service. It is appalling to think back to the past year when we witnessed the controversial killing of two blacks in Toronto, the racist theories of Philip Rushton, the 15-year cover-up of the murder of Helen Betty Osborne in Manitoba. We know that injustices against Donald Marshall cannot be wiped away with an apology.
In Vancouver feelings were inflamed against immigrants from Hong Kong, and skinheads have reappeared. Two years ago backlash was strong against boat people who sought refuge in eastern Canada, and I must say that some of the government policies did not alleviate that.
Here in the House of Commons we have had many petitions presented opposing the wearing of turbans by Sikhs in the RCMP. Our party believes that the Solicitor General has exacerbated this problem by delaying a decision which in very simple terms should be in favour of a policy which must conform to the religious freedoms which are guaranteed under our Charter of Rights. There should be no debate about that.
Racist pins in Alberta have promoted opposition to visible minorities, immigration and multiculturalism. Now we find this is spreading to anti-turban T-shirts and calendars which are being sold. Why can the Minister of Multiculturalism and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who lives in the city of Calgary, not have some influence and give some leadership to discourage this kind of trend? I think it is incredible that even the Chair of the justice committee has taken a stand against our Charter of Rights on this matter.
. (1650)
A more subtle form of systemic discrimination is evident within the government itself. The Canadian Human Rights commissioner a while ago strongly criticized the low proportion of visible minority workers that are employed in our own federal Public Service. Only 1.58 per cent of civil servants are visible minority people, compared to 6.3 per cent in the general workforce.
The government targets have not been reached at all. Government policies which established low targets and budget cuts certainly will curtail new hiring opportunities. We can predict that this kind of systemic discrimination within the Public Service against people of colour will continue.
It is absolutely essential that the government take leadership to establish a fair target for employment and promotion, not only of visible minorities but of natives, disabled persons and women. The Treasury Board should be setting the example within our own Public Service.
February 13, 1990

I want to give two examples of public servants who have had experiences of racial discrimination. They are Canadians whom we as members of Parliament have hired. I am ashamed to have to give these examples. Mary Pitawanakwak, an Ojibway Indian woman, worked for the Secretary of State. A human rights investigator confirmed that a public official had called her a "God damn Indian''. She was fired in 1986, two years after filing complaints of racial discrimination and sexual harassment on the job. This matter is still being contested.
A second example is the Canadian Alliance for Visible Minorities claim that Mr. Idris Ben-Tahir, a career public servant since 1963, has been a victim of racial discrimination. Although he is highly qualified, he was relegated to a position requiring Grade XII education, and was dismissed from his job as a senior technical editor with the Canadian Forces. After being exonerated by the military and Pubic Service investigators, he returned to employment and has continued to face harassment, and has become ill as a result.
The Canadian Alliance for Visible Minorities has recommended several points that they asked us to raise very strongly in the House of Commons. I do this on their behalf today. They have recommended that Ben-Tahir be appointed to a position in the Public Military Service of Canada befitting his qualifications and experience. Second, they recommend that Ben-Tahir be financially compensated for mental anguish, humiliation and harassment. Third, they recommend that an impartial inquiry be initiated to investigate the discriminatory practices directed against public servants from visible minorities, such that it may result in the development of an integrated strategy that would effectively identify and eliminate racial and cultural discrimination within the Public Service.
I repeat that this is our own Public Service and our own government which is condoning this kind of discrimination. The Alliance also states that this case is in direct contravention of statements made by the Prime Minister in a speech called "Racism is a Moral Enemy of Justice", in which he professes stringent actions are needed against racism in Canada. He stated:
If we fail to accept our individual responsibilities as citizens of
Canada, we fail democracy itself.
Supply
I could not agree more.
I ask the Prime Minister and the government, why he does not insist that action be taken to remove systemic discrimination in the Public Service of Canada.
What is the cause of these increasing tensions and the increasing incidents of racism and bigotry which are symptomatic of a sick society, as well as of sick people? We believe it is government policies to a large degree, as stated in this motion, that contribute either directly or indirectly. The cumulation of regressive, harsh policies has placed an increasing burden on individuals and families in various groups and regions in our society.
This is the kind of atmosphere that sets the stage for hostility, intolerance and for scapegoating of powerless people, as my colleague has said. We have layers of regressive and stressful policies which this government has imposed. We have yet to suffer the goods and services tax and an even tougher new budget. We are developing a society that favours the powerful and exploits the powerless. This is the natural breeding ground for racism and scapegoating and intolerance.
Free trade threatens our sovereignty, our Canadian way of life and our jobs. Interest rates are rising. Our dollar is fluctuating and business and consumers are suffering. Lack of affordable housing and high rents are a problem in many areas, certainly in my region of Canada, and people tend to blame and resent newcomers as a result rather than resenting the lack policies that should be solving that problem. Cuts to unemployment insurance and the erosion of social programs, family allowance, pensions and our health care system are government policies that are creating insecurity about the future.
Families need child care, and single parents and children are suffering from poverty. Many people in Canada feel that their children will not have a future as the costs of education rise and employment prospects are diminished. As a result, they often resent newcomers.
Privatization, deregulation and anti-union policies also are negative forces. Regional tensions are growing. The west feels isolated and left out. Eastern Canadians are struggling for survival. Northerners have been denied a say in our Constitution. Quebec wants acceptance as a distinct society. Growing reaction to the Meech Lake

February 13, 1990
Supply
Accord and minority language rights is largely a result of an insensitive government approach.
Yes, Canadians feel a lack of confidence in this government, a lack of stability and a worry about the future. This can be translated into anger and resentment that is projected in many directions. When people's security and livelihoods are threatened, when they face increasing debts and financial burdens, when they worry about their kids, and cannot find a decent job or affordable housing, the frustration and bitterness can turn to rejection and intolerance of those round them. I see it in my riding of Vancouver East every day.
Increasing waves of immigrants from Third World countries become an easy scapegoat, particularly in our large cities. Instead of blaming the government for high interest rates and inadequate housing programs, people often scapegoat the new immigrants, some of whom seem to be able to afford expensive homes.Inadequate public education is another very real cause of misunderstanding and prejudice.
I particularly want to praise Black History Month, which I think is something we should be sponsoring with all ethnic communities so that we have the true history, in a positive sense, of the contribution from various ethnic communities in Canada. It should be part of school curriculum.
The Multiculturalism Act requires participation of visible minorities in all federal institutions yet, unfortunately, Bill C-18 has not even mentioned this as a function of our new Multiculturalism Department.
I want to mention visible minorities on TV. There has been a positive increase in this policy, as commentators and talk show hosts and actors project a positive image which somehow infiltrates into the psyche of viewers. I think this is a very positive trend that should continue, and the CBC has a special responsibility.
Let me summarize several government policies that have a particular impact on ethnocultural communities and which are not helping the whole problem of respect for ethnic minorities.
Disadvantaged people need a voice and an advocate to speak for them in Ottawa. This is why advocacy groups like the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, NAC, NAPO and other groups are so important. Yet, last year the
government cut funding to advocacy groups by 15 per cent, and over three years this will be up to 50 per cent.
Again, this is really taking a voice away from powerless and disadvantaged people. These deep cuts seem to be especially targeted to limit the power of groups who speak out for change and represent the views of those disadvantaged people. It is an attack on the powerless in society who are struggling to achieve greater equality and therefore it is a blow to democracy.
Termination of the Court Challenges Program is another very serious problem. The government must continue this program so that the Charter cases involving discrimination against ethnic minorities and disadvantaged people can be heard.
Settlement and adaptation of new Canadian programs are essential for promoting racial harmony, as well as for helping immigrants themselves. Language classes and pre-employment programs should be expanded, not cut. I want to mention particularly the cancellation of the Citizen Instruction and Training Program in April which will make it very difficult for immigrants to get language training. In B.C., 83.3 cent of immigrants have used this program.
Without these programs new immigrants are prone to isolation, ghettoization and racism because they will not have the language skills and understanding of Canadian values to help them participate fully. Backlash from Canadian born citizens is more likely to occur the more that newcomers remain isolated.
This is an example of another policy where the Government of Canada bears a direct responsibility if this trend continues, and I urge it to finance programs adequately. It is an investment that is well worth it in terms of our future.
I could mention many other programs, and I did last night in the late show. There are concerns that our immigration policy is not fair, that it establishes two classes of immigrants: those who can pay to invest money and buy their way into Canada and therefore require fewer points, and those who have to wait for a long time and often cannot get into Canada.
Economic insecurity is one of the major causes of racism and intolerance in Canada. Government policies which will impose a 7 per cent goods and services tax on all Canadians and which will introduce a tough new budget will add to the anxiety and hostility of Canadians. We can predict that regional tensions will increase and
February 13, 1990

racism and bigotry, unfortunately, may continue to grow. Of course race relation programs are important and needed, but the government also must look at the basic cause and its role in creating an economy and a society that contributes to it.
We call on the government to consider very seriously the lack of confidence that Canadians have in this government in all regions and the negative trends that are growing in Canadian society. We urge the government to ease the burden on Canadians and to bring in a budget that is adapted to the needs of ordinary Canadians and disadvantaged people.
We particularly demand that citizenship and settlement programs, programs that promote multiculturalism and advocacy and those that eliminate racism and inequality, be adequately funded.


Mr. White:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a brief comment to which the member may want to respond.
I listened carefully this afternoon to the first speech from the member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair and also to the member for Vancouver East. There are some things being said that I take great offence to being a member of the government, and I want to mention a few of them because I think it is very important that they be brought forward.
First, it would have been much more beneficial had the original motion been phrased in a much more positive tone. I think the very fact that the motion is worded the way it is turns it into a very partisan matter, and the issue is far too important to be dealt with in a partisan manner.
The member for Vancouver East, as well as the member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair in his speech, talked about the free trade agreement threatening our sovereignty. That is a subject of debate. I do not feel that way.
Members opposite perhaps feel that way. I do not. I do not think it threatens our sovereignty, and I think it is outrageous to say that the free trade agreement somehow breeds racism and bigotry. It is absolutely outrageous. I certainly do not feel that way. I will not take a back seat to any member of this House in supporting
Supply
minority rights and visible minorities. I just will not accept the suggestion that since I strongly support the free trade agreement I am somehow a racist and a bigot.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was mentioned by both of the NDP speakers as well. One thing I did not hear them mention was that the Constitution currently has an override clause. Neither one of them mentioned the notwithstanding clause which threatens the rights of Canadians to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and freedom of equality. Those rights are all threatened by the notwithstanding clause in our current Constitution. In my opinion that is a much greater cause of concern.
To conclude, the member mentions the funding cuts to different advocacy groups. Of course, for every dollar that the government has to spend there is probably $20 or $30 in demands from different groups that want funding. There are difficult decisions that have to be made. It is easy as an opposition member to say: "Yes, we will fund every single organization that wants money from the government", but there simply is not money there.
To criticize the goods and services tax in the next breath does not make sense. We cannot have a tax on one hand to raise funds and on the other hand say that we cannot cut spending anywhere else. There is only so much money out there for the public to pay.
In conclusion, I agree totally that ignorance does breed racism and bigotry in Canada. It is there. It has perhaps gone underground because Canadians will not tolerate open bigotry and racism any more, hopefully.
Ignorance also applies to government programs. There is great ignorance out there about government programs and policies. A recent poll commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CBC concerning the Meech Lake Accord is a perfect example. Some 71 per cent of Canadians do not know what the Meech Lake Accord is or what it stands for.
It is very difficult for me, as a Meech Lake Accord supporter, to defend the accord when ignorance exists. I think it is incumbent upon myself and all members of this House to explain programs like that.

February 13, 1990
Supply
Many of the things the member for Vancouver East and her colleague, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, say are subjects of debate. I feel quite differently about these things. I do not think the free trade agreement, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Meech Lake Accord and the goods and services tax breed racism and bigotry. I would be interested in her comments. I feel one way; she feels another. I am not a racist and a bigot because I support these government programs.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very sincere because I have worked with him on committees. I would like to thank him particularly for mentioning the notwithstanding clause. That was an omission in my remarks, and I think a very important one. It is one that minority groups, certainly in British Columbia, are concerned about and have formed a coalition to rescind Section 33.
The member is absolutely right. The danger is that any province or government using this clause could in effect veto the rights under Section 15 of our Charter. I agree with the hon. member completely, and I am very glad he mentioned that point.
As to the other points, what the government members have not heard or maybe do not want to hear is that we are saying there is a whole combination of repressive measures which have put a great stress on this country and are making people feel very unsure of themselves as Canadians.
Free trade is one of them. It is not that it specifically promotes racism. I do not think I said that. It is a combination of things that is changing our country. The free trade deal is promoting in my view the kind of dog-eat-dog society where competition and profits are the main motivation. We are in danger of becoming Americanized and losing many of the things that are a part of our Canadian value system. That is really why I mentioned that.
The member mentioned the Charter of Rights. Of course I did not say that the Charter of Rights contributed to racism. I think the Charter of Rights, on which I worked very hard with a lot of groups, is a very important step forward in Canadian society. Flowever it does not mean anything as long as civil servants face discrimination as our own employees and as long as we have people
experiencing racism in other ways. It is nice to have it on paper, but that is all it is for the people who are involved in those incidents.
With regard to cuts to advocacy groups, I would like to point out that the groups I mentioned are long-established coalitions that have the support of affiliate groups right across the country. They are vital in my view and in the view of most Canadians that know about them in presenting the views of the powerless people. They have been very useful, I know, in some of our committees in helping us to understand the impact of proposed legislation. It is very important that they be sustained. It may be even more important than building new bureaucracies like the Department of Multiculturalism.
We do not have money for eveiything. Let us put it into community services so people can speak for themselves, rather than bureaucrats in increasing numbers.


Mr. Della Noce:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I see that my colleague has a lot of interest in minority groups, but I was very disappointed when she started to mention the GST and such things.
I must bring to the attention of my colleague that I was an immigrant in 1953. If she compares where we were in 1953 and where we are after the progress of the last five years, she will see that we are in paradise here in Canada.
The hon. member talks about the GST. All immigrants from around the world know about the GST because this was not invented in Canada. It exists in all these foreign countries. I feel sorry that she has to mix partisanship in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there are always exceptions as my colleague mentioned earlier, because somebody got such and such a thing. She must know that exceptions happen every day. We, in the Italian community, have just been involved in a specific case. It does not mean that the laws are bad. In the yellow pages published by Teledirect, Platon College in Montreal had substituted the word "mafia" for "Italian" in a list of 22 languages taught. If this is not discrimination, what is it? But one such case does not mean that the laws are bad.
February 13, 1990

So, even with free trade and the GST, I can testily today in this House that it is a privilege to be a Canadian or an immigrant in Canada. I would like to mention it to my colleague because I am one of them.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to live in Canada. I think we have one of the best countries in the world and we are very privileged to live here.
However, that does not mean that there are not negative things going on and that we as Canadians do not have an obligation as the Prime Minister said-and I quoted him-to do something about this, every one of us.
As far as the GST is concerned it is not only my partisan position. Millions and millions of Canadians across the country, everybody we talk to, are concerned about GST and the impact it will have on them. As I pointed out, this is one of many programs that puts great stress on people, particularly lower income people, and that really does promote negative feelings in society.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, today we debate the NDP motion:
That this House condemn those policies of the government which,
having bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among
Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions
and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.
I can certainly personally testify that I have seen a tremendous increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in this great country, Canada, of which I am so proud to be a citizen.
I do sense increased insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among many Canadians, but I question whether it is necessarily the policies of the government that have contributed to this, but rather the attitude and the lack of commitment to principles underlying many policies, not just this present government but previous governments have brought into being, which are at the source of the tensions, racism and bigotry in this country today.
In my own riding I have seen doubt rising over the English-French issue in our country. Anglophones are being talked to about a French threat and the division, the dissension, the bigotry and the tension have risen alarmingly and are of great concern to me because I see
Supply
them not only in my own riding but reflected across this country. I consider that our country is in considerable danger and its very existence is threatened because this particular tension has arisen.
Because of the international debt that we have in this country we have seen many changes to programs, the drawing back of programs that have brought security and freedom to people. As those programs are withdrawn and new taxation programs are imposed upon the people making life more difficult and more painful for Canadians, I believe we that we are seeing a lashing out by the Canadian people against this pain. It is expressed very often in xenophobia, a fear which increases tension and ultimately leads to racism and bigotry.
The bigotry, however, does not refer only to issues of racism. I am thinking, particularly, of the problem of poverty in this country. I recognize a lot of bigotry that surrounds the issue of poverty. As has been reiterated so many times we have one million children in this country living below the poverty line. We have many single parents with children. We have many working families with children who are living at or below the poverty line for whom life is very, very difficult and becomes increasingly more so every day.
As we have heard before in this House, now in the great city of Toronto, Canada, central Canada, the rich part of Canada, we have more food banks than we have McDonald's outlets. This is a disgrace for this nation. I was involved in establishing and working with a food bank program in my own riding some years ago. It was alarming to me to see the bigotry which was expressed in my community against those who were poor.
Much of that bigotry was expressed by some although not by any means by all of the volunteers who were there to serve the poor. The poor were criticized for smoking. They were criticized if they had a glass of beer. They were criticized if they took their children to a fantasy farm for some enjoyment where it cost a few dollars to enter. There was a lot of bigotry expressed against the poor.
I feel that because of a lack of commitment to principles in this country, principles of equality, freedom, understanding and tolerance, these people are experiencing increasing bigotry because of poverty.

February 13, 1990
Supply
The government has failed in speaking out on principle on many of the issues of tension within our country. I felt that the response by the government to the French-English problem was much too late. I personally addressed letters begging and imploring our Prime Minister, our Secretary of State and other members of Parliament to say something, to speak out about the benefit we have in our country through our bilingual policy. It contributes immensely to our country that we have a bilingual and a multicultural policy. We cannot let those policies sit on paper only. We must constantly safeguard those policies, speak out to defend them.
I am very concerned about what has happened to our Court Challenges Program. I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Rights that reviewed the Court Challenges Program. I was one of the authors of the report of that committee which recommended that the Court Challenges Program be continued, not curtailed as has happened so suddenly and unexpectedly during the last few weeks. Our recommendations were that this program be given sufficient funding to carry it through to the end of March 31, 1990, this year, when its mandate terminates. In addition, we recommended that more funding should be found for the program to carry it through to the year 2000.
The Court Challenges Program allows groups and individuals in this country to address minority language and equality rights issues before the courts of this country. It is a program that is essential at this point in time as our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came to this country in 1982, is addressed and implemented.
It is most alarming that the Secretary of State, when questioned about this program, said that he could not convince his government, members of cabinet or his caucus to agree to the recommendations of the standing committee. It sounds as if we are to wait for a budget. The budget for the Court Challenges Program is certainly not enormous, but the benefit of the Court Challenges Program addresses every individual in this country. It is a basic right in itself at this point in time in assuring that people in fact know what their rights and privileges are as citizens of this great country.
I was very alarmed today to read this article in The Ottawa Citizen which to me again testifies to a lack of commitment to principle. It represents an attitude of the government which I think is at fault. I believe this is the source of the problem, perhaps more than the policies of the present government. This article is entitled "Advocacy groups fear they're being muzzled". The article says:
Public servants at the National Council of Welfare were recently silenced with strong hints their $310,000 budget was in jeopardy, according to sources, after they made negative comments about government policy-staff at the National Council of Welfare were told by-deputy minister for Health and Welfare, that the council's budget could be in jeopardy if they continue to criticize publicly in a time of restraint.
This, Mr. Speaker, in a country where freedom is a basic liberty for all of us, a basic right. It continues:
Council staff director Ken Battle has frequently criticized the "clawback" of family allowances and old age pensions as the beginning of the end of universality of social programs.
Andrew Cardozo, executive director of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, believes his outspoken criticism of the government's employment equity programs may have deemed his group "unreliable" in ministerial circles.
The council, which represents 38 ethnic organizations across the country, receives $200,000 a year from the federal government. Cardozo is braced for a cut this time around and fears the government will only finance projects it approves.
"This means the government decides what issue you can speak out on and which issues you can't."
I say that this again is indicative of a non-commitment to the principles of freedom, equality and justice in this country, the freedoms that underline our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would like to challenge the government to change its attitude and to take advantage at all times of opportunities to speak out and defend our basic rights and freedoms to make this a country that all Canadians can take pride in and maintain in good order for future Canadians.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the motion that was introduced by the member for Windsor-St. Clair. It reads:
That this House condemn those policies of the government which, having bred a sense of insecurity, powerlessness and doubt among Canadians, are a cause of the recent increase in regional tensions and incidents of racism and bigotry in Canada.
February 13, 1990

Racism affects everyone, not just the new immigrants and the visible minorities. Although they are affected most directly, racism affects everyone. It leads to hatred, discrimination and tensions which in turn leads to violence whether physical or mental.
Racism is a force which destroys the very fabric of any society. It divides communities and prevents friendships. It is inimical to a democratic society like ours, yet it does exist in Canada today. It exists in our schools and in the workplace. It exists in small towns and cities.
Fortunately we can still say that equality of opportunity, social justice and tolerance and understanding are accepted as hallmarks of our Canadian multicultural society, but unfortunately injustices and intolerance still exist in the form of racism.
I recall the Betty Osborne murder in Manitoba which went unsolved for over a decade and the Donald Marshall wrongful conviction which again went undetermined for more than a decade.
Acknowledgement that racism exists in our country will enable us to work together to solve the problem. When racism is eliminated Canada will be a better place for everyone.
I would like to cite some recent examples of racism in our country. I cite the case of Mr. Idris Ben-Tahir, a visible minority who started his career as a public servant in 1963. Since his wrongful dismissal in 1978 he has been subjected to harassment. Although both military and public service investigations where he had worked have found that he was dismissed without cause, today the Department of External Affairs has not yet made any concrete efforts to move him to a position that is in keeping with his academic background and practical experience. What a waste of talents we allow to happen. Despite his impeccable credentials, Mr. Ben-Tahir is relegated to a position requiring a much lower level of education.
Turning to my second example, I am appalled at the racist reaction toward the Sikh community that has occurred as a result of the positive efforts of the RCMP to allow Canadians of Sikh origin who are members of the RCMP to wear their turbans. Canadians of Sikh origin should not have to abandon the religious tenets
Supply
that are the cornerstone of their way of life to serve the people of Canada in the role of an RCMP officer.
The RCMP and other police forces have recently recognized the need to be more responsive to the communities they are charged with policing, including our ethnocultural communities. That is why efforts are being made to recruit officers from the different groups, and for this I would like to laud the government. This is a progressive step. Without it, charges of racism and discrimination against the RCMP like those levelled against some provincial police forces could occur.
The government, by its inaction on the RCMP recommendation to allow Canadians of Sikh origin to wear their turbans in the force is in effect refusing to allow Canadians of Sikh descent to wear their turbans in the RCMP and therefore we are discriminating against their religion. We are not allowing unlikes to be unlike and yet to be equal before the law. We are forcing unlikes in terms of religion to conform to likes or else to suffer negative consequences.
Turbans and ceremonial daggers are obligatory tokens of the Sikh faith. Any baptized Sikh would not be able to join the RCMP if he is not allowed to wear the turban. The existing dress code is an infringement of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government must accept the recommendation of the RCMP, and soon.
I now come to the issue of discrimination against our aboriginal people. The 1988 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated that the situation of the aboriginal people in Canada is in many ways a national tragedy. I quote from that report:
The grand promise of equality of opportunity that forms the
central purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act stands in stark
contrast to the conditions in which many native people live.
This assessment is at once obvious when we examine our justice system and the representation of natives in the workforce. Native Canadians are over-represented in our prisons, but under-represented in the workforce. This situation is ugly at best.
A 1988 Canadian Bar Association report shows that slightly over 10 per cent of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries comes from the native community. Yet natives make up only about 2 per cent of the

February 13, 1990
Supply
population. It is therefore apparent that the general legal system is heavily weighted against the native population. The bias in the system must stop.
The almost uniformly non-native face of our police forces must be changed. Even if this is changed, there will still be non-native officers dealing with native citizens. Hence the entire police force must understand the context of native culture and the concerns of native Canadians. It is necessary to help ongoing cross-cultural training programs at the policing level. They are also necessary in the court system and in correctional institutions.
Natives do not just face discrimination with the justice system, they are also discriminated against in the field of employment. Employment equity reports confirm that native peoples are drastically under-represented in employment in almost every industrial sector and occupation. This is the case even in places such as Winnipeg where there are large native populations. Sadly, even within the federal government where programs to promote native hiring have been in effect for some time, the representation of native peoples is unacceptably low.
There are other areas of federal responsibility in which the government could do more, not less, such as has been stated. Our Court Challenges Program should ensure the pursuit of minority rights and equality for all. Language classes should ensure the participation of new immigrants and citizens in social and economic spheres. Citizenship classes should be made available so that immigrants can apply for full citizenship so that they feel fully part of our country.
The government could do more in the area of ethnocultural groups which could advocate the rights of new citizens and immigrants, as well as in the area of settlement programs, loans to small businesses and in the non-uniformity of action on the part of the government to deal with minority language rights issues from coast to coast. The government could do more, not less dismantling of social programs.
All of these factors contribute to the tensions that exist in our society. When these programs are not there, the very first to be excepted are the most vulnerable groups in our society, the new immigrants and the new citizens.
The underpinning, as has been said by my colleague, of any good programs and policies were they to succeed would be philosophy-the philosophy that we believe in individual freedom and initiative, that we believe in equality for all. But then, that principle without the concomitant principle of social conscience is not complete.
In conclusion, I would like to cite a description of discrimination given by Justice McIntyre of the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice McIntyre said:
Discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not, but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individuals or groups not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capabilities will rarely be so classed.
When we sincerely and seriously understand this message in our hearts and minds, then there will no longer be any need for this type of motion in the future. Today we remain challenged as Canadians to ensure that racial harmony prevails.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to stand in this House today to discuss the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party.
I would like to share 10 minutes with my colleague from Delta.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to share with the House my thoughts on a minority that is a very small but very significant percentage of the Canadian population and by that mean natives and the issue of native inmates.
Although natives account for 2,5 per cent of the Canadian population only their proportion is much higher in our inmate population, especially in the Prairies. They come from various language and cultural groups; some are status Indians, others are not. They include North-American Indians, Inuit and Metis. The native culture of course has its very own values and tenets. By reasons of those values and tenets, native
February 13, 1990

inmates have little understanding or interest for Correctional Services Canada's programs and services.
However, they participate fully in those activities that are organized by other natives or filled with native culture.
Native inmates account for some 10 per cent of the total inmate population. In some Prairie institutions, their proportion nears 50 per cent. They are not a homogeneous group, in the sense that they come from a variety of language and cultural nationalities within Canada's native population. As inmates, they do not participate in mainstream programs and services as much as non-native inmates, which restricts their eligibility for early parole. They are however attracted to activities in which other natives take part, that are introduced by natives or that have a native cultural content.
Generally, native inmates come from socially and economically under privileged communities. Drug and alcohol abuse often is a problem and seems to be a significant factor in offences, involving violence which are more common among natives than non-natives. Poor community conditions also make it difficult for native inmates to develop plans that would allow parole.
Native inmates have special needs and programs should respond to those needs. Although there is no national program that specifically addresses their culture, the Correctional Services have chosen the objective of providing services geared to their native inmates.
The Correctional Services' objective is to offer to native inmates programs and services that conform to their cultural and spiritual needs, in order that they may derive maximum benefit from the correctional process.
On February 15, 1989, my colleague the Solicitor General of Canada approved the Correctional Services' mandate. Strategic objective no 2.2 in the mandate includes the duty to:
Ensure that the special needs of native offenders be met -
Native spiritual programs have been developed since 1972 and are now available in most federal correctional institutions throughout the country.
Supply
The commissioner established a native advisory committee in 1974 to pave the way for discussions on correctional issues concerning native people. More specifically, the terms of reference of the committee include sharing information about native offenders and providing advice on matters related to the services available to and correctional programs for native people.
The committee is made up of Correctional Service Canada staff and representatives of major organizations which are responsible for keeping in touch with the native community and providing spiritual services to native offenders.
Correctional Service Canada officials consulted with spokesmen for the native people to set up programs and services to meet the needs of native inmates. This is why native liaison officers have been appointed in most institutions. They make sure that individual cases are handled in keeping with the cultural aspirations of native inmates so they will have ready access to treatment and social development activities tailored to their cultural background.
Native Elders also go to the institutions to offer spiritual guidance and officiate at sacred rites. Various other activities specifically intended for native people have also been planned in institutions where these people make up a high percentage of the inmate population.
Among such activities I might mention counselling by Elders, reading and writing lessons given by monitors, the temperance groups of the Sacred Circle, programs for re-integration in active life, drug addiction programs, traditional craft, and cultural events. Native fraternities or sororities organized and administered by native inmates operate in many correctional institutions. These group meet regularly, sometimes in the presence of a liaison officer and an Elder, to hold discussions, engage in cultural activities and attend ceremonies.
At the present time the wardens of institutions housing native inmates must make sure that, within the limits of institution security and order, religious programs are made available to the native people. They must see to it that such programs are consistent with native customs, including those which call for the use of traditional objects.

February 13, 1990
Supply
Correctional Service Canada provides services and programs for native offenders like Elders spiritual services. Elders perform traditional religious ceremonies, such as the pipe-smoking and fasting rituals, and act as spiritual advisors throughout the country.
In addition, the native liaison officers program has been extended. Under this program, native officers help native offenders prepare a discharge plan and establish contacts in the community. Special detoxification programs have been put in place and cultural activities have been organized in several places.
Halfway houses for natives, managed by native agencies and subsidized by Correctional Service Canada, offer post-release case management and support services in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.
Academic upgrading programs for natives have been put in place in our penitentiaries. Native instructors prepare native inmates for life on the outside and give academic upgrading classes.
Making staff more sensitive to natives allows them to become familiar with their culture and more aware of their needs.
Native private agencies have been contracted by Correctional Service Canada to supervise native parolees. In some cases, community discharge programs for native inmates have been made possible by residential and parole supervision services provided by natives.
A training program in native values is offered to Correctional Service employees throughout the country, regionally or locally. There are native friendship groups supported by native liaison officers or elders. These self-help groups stress social, recreational, cultural and spiritual activities in institutions, or most institutions.
Corrections Canada offers a training program in traditional or contemporary native arts and crafts, drummaking and native traditions.
Mr. Speaker, I would have a lot to say and I have a great deal of pleasure in talking about minorities in our Canadian prisons or penitentiaries, for, as my colleague was just saying, everything is difficult for an immigrant, but I think that this government and the minister have
done much in the last five years, making the task easier and more culturally feasible.
In conclusion, this government and Corrections Canada work continuously with community interest groups to ensure that native offenders have programs and services that meet their cultural and spiritual needs.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to make a personal statement. If we go back 30 years when we became Canadians, you and I, and compare the hell then to the heaven now, as I was just saying, it is a privilege for everyone in Canada to be known as Canadians.
[English}


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a brief question of the hon. member with respect to the immigration aspect.
As the hon. member knows, family reunification is a fundamental basis of our immigration policy. For that we can all be proud. The government announced recently that it would increase the sponsorship fee from $125 to $250. We know that this type of government service affects only a particular portion of our citizenry, new immigrants and new citizens.
How does the hon. member look upon this increase? Can he tell us why there has been such an increase? Would he recommend to the government that this increase be rescinded and removed altogether?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today in the House to deal with this issue and I am grateful to my honourable friend for providing me with the opportunity to do so.
People are aware that there are several ways to become an immigrant in Canada, but there are two I should like to describe to my honourable friend, because we are all getting applications. As a matter of fact, we are getting them not every day, but sometimes by the hour. And when they show up in our constituency offices, it is because they are in a mess. People who want to enter Canada may do so legally, illegally, or again by claiming rightly or wrongly a refugee status.
Therefore, I say to all these so-called refugees who are still abroad to stay away; yet, once they are here, I feel we should help them. As to the $125, it is true that $5 or $10 would be less of a burden, but when we realize there are people who are paying up to $5,000 to enter
February 13, 1990

Canada under false pretenses and who are coming forward once they are here, people who have to return to their own country, like some Turks or others had to do some time ago. I say that $125 is not that much, although some people may find that a lot. But if it were free, I should like my honourable friend to tell the House where the government would get the money, for Canadians know that now is income tax return time.
By the way, I saw my accountant yesterday. They must be aware that we can no longer increase the taxes, for they have reached the top. That is the reason why Canada must do as other countries are doing. Now, is $125 too much? Would $10 be the ideal amount? I do not think that we could answer this question now, but I am sure that, if there are immigrants who can afford to pay $5,000 to enter Canada illegally- At any rate, for all the files I have in my office, $125-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period is over. Debate.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon of taking part in this veiy significant debate. It is unfortunate that the debate is in such a negative tone. I think that we in Canada have made real progress in the last few years in our racial relations. I say that coming from the west coast where we have had in the past very severe problems with our native Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese and the East Indians. I think matters have improved considerably, something which has been largely due to the policies of this government. However, we recognize that in Canada we still have significant problems with prejudices against minorities, whether they be racial, religious or whatever.
I would like to spend the few minutes that I have this afternoon to comment on the relationship with our native minorities. I believe that we just need to look at the Manitoba justice inquiry and also the Marshall inquiry to recognize that natives all over the country do suffer from the effects of ignorance and misunderstanding on the part of many Canadians.
Supply
We need to recognize also that these prejudices are rooted in hundreds of years of history and that to expect legislation to remove them in very short order is unrealistic. I think that it is worth while to look at some of the things that this government is doing and has done to correct that situation. We recognize that many of the problems that natives face are as a result of poverty and other social problems which our native population has to struggle against. Much needs to be done, both for our native Indians and also the Inuit.
I recognize that both of these groups of people have real hopes and ambitions just as the rest of Canadians have. The Ministers of Indian Affairs over the years have made many changes and changes will continue to be made as policies are required.
One of the major government policies that we are working on at the present time to allow the Indian population to take its rightful place in Canadian society is the promotion of self-government. We have seen, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years, the growing responsibility of the First Nations to assume responsibility for their educational, judicial, social and economic life.
Many of the disadvantages such as poverty are diminishing. As self-reliance and independence become the norm for our native people and the Inuit of Canada, Canadians are seeing the emergence of strong, dynamic partners in our economy, our cultural diversity and prosperity. Much evidence of our efforts to assist the native people can be seen and is becoming more obvious each year.
For example, there is the native justice system. As I mentioned earlier, this is a question which preoccupies all of us in the light of recent events in Canada. There was a federal task force conducted just recently on the question of reserve policing services. It has been shown that native communities are better served by law enforcement based on an understanding of the traditions and culture of these communities.
Administering the law at any time is not easy. It is important that those who are administering the law understand the cultural background of the people they are assisting.
Traditional Indian ways and practices increasingly enhance the peace and the harmony in our native communities. It is the goal of this government to

February 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
enhance and increase the representation of native Canadians in the judicial system, as well as in the policing and legal professions. We have an example of that in our own party here in the House.
In many places in the country the number of native Indians in the prison population is entirely disproportionate to the general population. This would indicate to us very clearly that something is indeed wrong. Yet Canadians as a whole are developing a much greater awareness of the problems which our native Indians face.
Just last September there was an Angus Reid poll conducted in Canada. More than half of those polled believe native people were not treated fairly by the courts; and 70 per cent believe that native people have more difficulty getting hired for good jobs than do white Canadians. Most feel that aboriginal people deserve to be a lot better off financially than they are. It was not natives who said that but a cross-section of all Canadians.
Canadians in this same poll also said they are much more likely to support rather than to oppose aboriginal self-government. Over half of those surveyed agreed with the statement that the Canadian Constitution should specifically recognize the right of Indians to govern themselves on their own lands without interference from white society.
These are very encouraging opinions. We need to recognize that in spite of all the bad stories, there is a large reservoir of goodwill and understanding out there. These are the types of things we need to work with to culture and develop.
There have been many policies put out by Indian Affairs to do this in working with the native organizations. This bodes well for our growth as a tolerant and caring society.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Windsor- St. Clair for giving us this opportunity today to confront the fact of racism and bigotry in Canada and to consider our response as individuals, as members of Parliament and to renew our resolve as good men and women to do something about it. We know we must continue to ensure that the government carries out its duty to continue a relentless effort to eliminate racism and bigotry wherever it arises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23,1 asked the Minister of Agriculture to stand up for the Canadian farmer rather than continue to stand idly by as the United States Secretary of Agriculture fulfilled his words with additional disciplinary action being taken in the area of Canadian farm subsidies.
At that time I pointed out that the government had already allowed the United States to discipline our pork industry and our milk producers and that it appeared that the United States wanted to discipline our Canadian Durum wheat producers. Although the Durum wheat producers had not yet been disciplined at that point, they were sending shipments of Durum wheat into the United States.
I note that at the present time they are not permitted to compete with the United States in that market as permits for export are no longer being issued by the Canadian Wheat Board. When the United States threatens to discipline us, the Canadian government does it for it by refusing to issue those permits.
The minister talked tough on that day, as he did recently in Toronto, but little or no action has been taken since that day in October.
In Toronto he said he might test Article 701.4 of the free trade agreement to see if it has any teeth. Clearly, as those in the fisheries know, the free trade agreement is all bark and no bite. If the free trade agreement had any bite, surely the government would have used it long ago.
On October 23,1 asked the minister to start disciplining the United States for its use of the Export Enhancement Program. The minister told Canadians on December 20, 1989, that the Bush administration wants to ratchet down export enhancement. The budget for the
February 13, 1990

Export Enhancement Program is $566 million U.S. for the year 1990. For 1991, the budget has been ratcheted up, rather than down, to $900 million.
On October 23, the minister dismissed the Durum farmers' concerns saying: "It demonstrates to the people of Canada and the world that Canada can compete with the best of them".
How is the Canadian farmer to compete with a $900 million United States subsidy that is stealing their markets away? How is the Canadian farmer to compete against American subsidies that Mr. Yeutter admits run at a level of $21,000 U.S. per farmer, $5,000 more than Canadians receive?
The minister told the House on October 23 that United States Durum producers receive subsidies of $40 to $50 a tonne more than Canadian producers of Durum wheat.
In the week of September 21 the United States sold 22,000 tonnes of Durum wheat under the Export Enhancement Program at a subsidized rate of $6.48 a tonne.
In October the United States sold hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grain to Egypt, Algeria and the USSR under an Export Enhancement Program of $8 a tonne.
On January 8, 1990, the United States sold 300,000 tonnes of grain to China under the Export Enhancement Program; and on January 10 it followed with a sale of up to 500,000 tonnes of wheat to Russia, subsidized at a rate of $20.50 a tonne, or 56 cents a bushel.
Now the minister is having a study done to determine the level of subsidies to United States farmers. Well, we on this side of the House have called on him to do that for almost a year. Has the minister looked into those subsidies? Can the minister not see the effects of the Export Enhancement Program? Perhaps he should read the farm income levels that his office issued in December.
What is our government doing to defend our farmers? What bold initiatives has the government undertaken to secure our world markets to ensure the viability of our farmers? The government cancelled $399 million worth
Adjournment Debate
of agriculture programs in the last budget so that it can claim to be the Boy Scouts of international trade.
Mr. Yeutter told the United States Senate in April of last year that "if the Geneva negotiations are successful, we will be writing a segment of the European communities 1991 farm bill in Geneva rather than Brussels. That is obviously one of our objectives. We will also be writing a major segment of the farm bills of Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and seven other countries in Geneva and we want to do that too".
If we look at our budget in Canada in the 1989 period, and he did just that, the budget added $60 million a year to farm costs, and increased the costs of the average prairie farmer by $1,000 per year. How is the Canadian farmer is to compete with the $900 million United States export enhancement program?
The list of items cancelled in the last budget is incredible in the face of the escalating trade war. Crop insurance was cut by $200 million, the at and east grain and flour subsidy was cut by $60 million, the rail branch line rehabilitation program was cut by $48 million, grain and crop advance payments were cut by $54 million, the dairy export was cut by $12 million, commodity-based loans were cut by $15 million and the Canadian Dairy Commission was cut by $10 million. There were total cuts of $399 million.
I ask the government what it intends to do to counter the Export Enhancement Program while there still is an agricultural industry left in Canada, based on the concept of the family farm that has served us so well for so many years in this nation.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put on the floor of the House a technical and complex question, and I will attempt to respond on behalf of the minister in those terms.
American Durum growers are wrong to complain continually about our exports of Durum for pasta and noodles, and they are wrong to threaten countervail action. American millers buy Canadian Durum because of Canadian quality and Canadian reliability. The U.S. Durum wheat industry and elected officials from North Dakota have alleged that prices for U.S. Durum have declined because of these imports. These concerns are not well founded.

February 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Canadian Durum sales have developed since late 1986 to supply growing U.S. demand for high-quality Durum wheat which U.S. growers are unable to meet because of short-falls of U.S. supplies. U.S. farmers reseeded a reduced acreage to Durum in 1988 which happened to coincide with drought-reduced yields 40 per cent below
1987	levels and more than 50 per cent below yields earlier in the decade.
The result of the reduced acreage, plus the reduced yield experienced in 1988, was that U.S. production declined by more than 50 per cent from the previous year to 45 million bushels, while the total supply declined by 28 per cent to 141 million bushels.
At the same time, domestic consumption increased sharply from 50 million bushels to 61 million bushels. In other words, production was not even sufficient to cover domestic needs. Even though U.S. exports declined from 62 to 20 million bushels, U.S. stocks had to be drawn down from 80 to 60 million bushels to make up for the production shortfall. Imports increased to 13 million bushels from 7 million the previous year in response to the drought-reduced supply.
U.S. stocks have dropped steadily despite marginal imports of Durum. Also, exports including subsidized exports of U.S. Durum have on average exceeded total domestic value. It should be noted that the U.S. subsidized the export of 7.3 million bushels of Durum exports at a total cost of U.S. $4.1 million to Algeria in 1988-89. This Durum was delivered during the period November
1988	to April 1989 when it was clearly apparent that U.S. production was insufficient to cover even domestic consumption.
Apparently production in 1988 returned to predrought levels and USDA forecasts that imports will decline by almost 25 per cent to 10 million bushels. Domestic consumption is expected to decline from earlier levels but still exceed pre-drought levels. Export levels are also expected to be near pre-drought levels. Our exports of Durum to the United States are normal commercial sales by the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no intention to artificially limit these sales, particularly when there is continuing demand for high-quality Durum.
Therefore, there is this explanation of the existing import-export. The suggestion the minister wants to make is that before U.S. authorities continue to make unsubstantiated claims that our exports are the cause of price declines in Durum that they take another look at what is going on within their own borders, and more specifically at their Export Enhancement Program. There is action today in the United States and our government welcomes the investigations which we are confident will show that any problem faced by U.S. Durum wheat producers are not caused by Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, when I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence on November 28, my question to him concerned the low-level flight training in Nitassinan. I asked if the minister would consider responding to these confidence building measures and peace moves by the Warsaw bloc to the Canadian women's groups, native groups, church and other groups which today were present in his office by restricting the low level flights and other training over Goose Bay and Nitassinan instead of increasing them from 7,000 to 40,000 according to the outdated NATO plan. Those are excerpts from my question.
His answer was:
The hon. member puts forward a suggestion that would mean that Canada would act unilaterally as a member of NATO.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it would not be unilateral. Poland and other members of the Warsaw Pact had already been reducing their low level flights, and for Canada to respond would have been a bilateral response. So the minister's response was patently false. Therefore, there is a need to look at what is the basis of his answer. That is to say the basis of his answer is clearly suggested in the news release of October 31 which states:
The environmental impact statement concludes that increased low-level flight training and a NATO Centre hold the potential to secure the future of CFB Goose Bay and bring up to two billion dollars in economic and employment opportunities to Labrador, Newfoundland, and the rest of Canada.
In other words, the falsity of the minister's answer was clearly related to the claim of $2 billion potential benefit made in the environmental impact statement put out on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
February 13, 1990

This statement has been attacked by several dozen experienced and expert researchers on the environment, one of whom, a Dr. Bargen stated that he had examined about 150 pounds of such statements and this was the worst one that he has seen.
One thing they have done is to ignore the human problems that are now being caused by these flights. I refer to the study done by the experts hired by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office from which I quote some of their remarks as reflected in today's The Globe and Mail:
High rates of alcoholism, suicides and teen-age pregnancies in the Goose Bay area of Labrador were ignored in an environmental impact study of the low-level flying done for the Department of National Defence, groups, representing doctors, lawyers and women say.
These are based on the study itself and on their critique of the study.
Marion Reran, spokesman for the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, said the study has failed to examine the effect on native women of the proposed influx of 60,000 military personnel, most of them young men, if a North Atlantic Treaty Organization base for tactical low-level flying is established at Goose Bay.
She is quoted as saying:
There is no mention of the increase in alcoholism, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate babies, the housing crisis, social disruption and other issues pertinent to women and communities.
Another commentator, Marion Mathieson, spokesman for the National Action Committee of the Status of Women, said there is evidence of women living near military bases in Cold Lake, Alberta, West Germany and the Philippines being victims of sexual assault and suffering sexually transmitted diseases after contact with military men.
She went on to say that the consultants who drew up the impact-and this is quite serious, Mr. Speaker-study also ignored federal regulations requiring them to examine any impacts of a project because of the age or sex of the people affected. In other words, they did not look at the special effects of noise on children, and they did not look at the special effects of those military men, 60,000 of them, on the women of the neighbourhood.
The study was also attacked by Health Professionals for the Prevention of Nuclear War who stated that "the over-all scientific quality of the information presented is
Adjournment Debate
poor and the amount of information relating to health issues insufficient to support meaningful discussion."
The government hired three reviewers to look at this statement and one of them, Sheila Zurbrigg, said that it is unconscionable that the review did not examine predictions of increases in sexually transmitted diseases because of the increase in military personnel at the base.
Another matter that was improperly done was the study of the noise effects that the low-level flights would have. The study claimed that they would be negligible, but Doctor Zurbrigg said that the study did not examine the West German studies and the one done by the Canadian Public Health Association in 1987 which suggested that loud unexpected noise could cause physical and psychological problems, particularly for young people.
It is also pointed out by the Halifax chapter of the Lawyers for Social Responsibility that the study made a fundamental error in ignoring the land claims of both the native Innu and Inuit groups in Labrador. Both of these groups oppose the low-level flying because it disturbs the game on which they depend for hunting.
There are a number of other faults as well which are pointed out by an independent group of experts that reported yesterday. For example, they point out that the EIS from the Department of National Defence fails to properly assess the economic and social costs of the project. In fact, they say it is grossly inadequate in its assessment of the economic benefits. In other words, the $2 billion, according to these experts, ain't there. The $2 billion, which is obviously the motivation, is an exaggeration, not to mention the social costs.
They also point out that there is failure to include a specific plan. They talk about monitoring. They say that monitoring will fix it all up. They will monitor where the flights go and make sure there is nobody there, but they do not give any monitoring plan. The Innu have told us that in fact even when they have given them the co-ordinates and say they are going to be camping next week in such and such an area, the flights continue to over-fly them.

February 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Finally, there is inadequate assessment of past, present and future impacts of fuel dumping. Fuel is dumped in the rivers and lakes and has a poisonous effect on the fish.
All in all, the study has about 100 major flaws according to these experts. Yet today the government refused to give any serious response to the questions of the hon. member for Skeena as to whether that faulty, entirely inadequate study is going to be used as the excuse to go ahead, notwithstanding the severe environmental impacts.
I call on the Government to reconsider the whole environmental study, to start a new one and in the meantime, as the Innu had asked, to stop the low-level flight training until that new study has been completed.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make a preliminary remark to my colleague. In my answer, I will deal mostly with the first part of the question raised by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), in which he had asked supplementary questions. After that, I will be pleased to come back to the question of low-level flights, like he just mentioned, to give a more complete answer.

Even with the normalization of political and military relations in Europe, Canada will continue to require a modern, capable armed forces for air defence, for the defence of Canadian territory, for the defence of Canadian maritime interests and for participation in peacekeeping operations.
The hon. member will recognize that the changes that are taking place in Europe have the potential for changing not only the military threat in Europe, but the whole spectrum in east/west military balance.
As the Prime Minister has already stated to the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, progress has been made in the last number of years and it has been remarkable in the last few months. Indeed, this progress has been brought about in large measure by the solidarity of NATO, and we propose to keep it that way.
Given the enormous changes that are taking place in eastern Europe on an almost daily basis, any changes to the current structure of the alliances could be destabilizing with respect to the initiatives that are currently under way.
The hon. member will recognize that we have made a series of recommendations for building bridges of friendship, including programs of talks and expanded military contact which reflects the dramatic improvement in east/west relations and contributes to the process of confidence-building in military affairs.
The hon. member will recall that in recent months, members of the Canadian Forces held meetings with their counterparts in the Soviet Union. Let me emphasize that their goal was that of confidence-building, of reaching understandings with one another and being able to bring about a climate of peace and security to the world. Flowever, Mr. Speaker, differences that are recognized by both sides remain and we should continue to be prudent. We consider that a cohesive and strong NATO alliance remains vital for both political and military consultation and for managing the transformation of east/west relations.


FISHERIES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the question which I raised had to do with the very serious problems which are affecting Atlantic Canada around the reduction of activities of National Sea Products. In the questions that I raised, I was particularly concerned with the results for the community of Canso and for the workers of National Sea within that community. There were essentially three questions which I raised.
The first question was to ask the government what it was planning to do for the future of those workers who would not benefit from jobs under the so-called saviour plan of National Sea. There was no answer to that question.
The second question was why the trade union involved representing those workers had been left out of the negotiations which had taken place. If those workers had been represented and able to put their point of view in the negotiation process, I would have thought that a much better result could have been expected. But they
February 13, 1990

were not represented. I raised the question, and once more no answer was given by the government.
Finally, I asked the government when it was going to protect workers in Atlantic Canada-and one could make the same point for workers across the country- from arbitrary plant shutdowns on the part of companies that do not take into account the serious detrimental impact on local communities which results. To that as well there was no answer provided.
The reality which results for the community of Canso, for the plant operations in that community, can be summarized in the following terms: the trawler fleet itself of National Sea has been taken out of the community, 120 jobs permanently lost; the marine division, 70 jobs permanently lost; the outside wharf work, 100 jobs permanently lost; the night shift, 175 jobs permanently lost; the meal plant, 50 jobs permanently lost.
Employees will not be entitled to severance pay because the company does not consider this a plant closure. When the plant reopens, a maximum of 150 jobs will be provided in a plant where 750 people once worked. It is true that these jobs will be shared so that there might be perhaps 300 people who benefit from the jobs themselves and the UI benefits which result from them, but there will only be 150 jobs left and fish will be trucked into Canso from other National Sea facilities in Lunenburg or Louisburg.
There is no guarantee of how much work per year will be available. For the community, this will be devastating with 600 people no longer earning an income. The result, as the union put it this proposed saviour plan, is nothing more than a band-aid resolve to a situation which required major surgery. The life of this community will be slowly sucked out.
I come from the community of Windsor, Ontario, in which the same kind of detrimental impact hit our major employer, Chrysler, in the early 1980s. The government of this country provided help. As a result of that help Chrysler revived and now provides tremendous employment possibilities throughout the community.
The community of Canso and the Atlantic fisheries communities in general deserve the same kind of generous response from the Government of Canada. It is with great disappointment that I see this government's failure
Adjournment Debate
to provide that kind of generosity and care for the people of the communities of Atlantic Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reminding the hon. member for Essex-Windsor it was National Sea that made the decision to close the fish plant in the town of Canso.
It was when the Government of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia prevailed upon National Sea Products to review their decision that the board of directors of the company met on February 6 to approve a plan which was intended to help safeguard the future of the town of Canso.
National Sea Products Canso plant and trawler port were scheduled to close permanently on April 2, because the company did not have enough fish to process, having lost 159 million pounds of fish quota since 1984.1 do not have to remind the member of the difficulties, the crushing problems, that have been created by the depletion of the fish resource.
After extensive discussions with the Government of Nova Scotia and the federal government, the company decided that the plant in the town of Canso would remain open and would provide 300 time shared jobs on a long-term basis. The trawler port of Canso will close as scheduled on April 2, 1990. However, subject to the collective agreements in place at other National Sea trawler ports, the company expects the 128 trawlermen employed at Canso to have employment opportunities at those other ports.
This decision is made possible by National Sea's increased processing of fish from the pool of underutilized species, as identified by the federal government in the 1990 groundfish management plan and utilization of other fish available to the company in 1991.
In addition, the company has made application under generally available programs from federal and provincial government funding to replace the plant's refrigeration system for environmental reasons. The plant is expected to close as scheduled on April 2 to begin the replacement of the refrigeration system which will allow for the projected future work. Because of the environmental sensitivity and scope of the project, the plant is expected to reopen by December 1990.

February 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
I want to assure the member that the Government of Canada, the Minister of Public Works and the ministry generally are working with ACOA, National Sea Products and the Government of Nova Scotia to provide whatever assistance can be made available so that this package will be provided to the company in order to keep the Canso plant open indefinitely.
At the same time, I want to respond to one or more other comments that the member made, because he should know that other programs will be made available to workers. The Older Workers Program will be one of those that can be applied in this case. He mentioned the involvement of the trade union and the workers of the plant. Of course, the Minister of Public Works and the government are well aware of the role played by workers. Indeed the whole purpose of the exercise is to ensure that whatever work can be made available to the workers is made available.
I hope the hon. member and the people of Canso will not take the attitude taken by Mr. Jim Sorrell of the
Canadian Auto Workers, as reported in the February 7 issue of the Halifax Chronicle Herald, because he said that "the town is history" according to that media report.
We are all trying with all the resources at our disposal to ensure that the plant is kept open and that there is as much work as possible for the plant workers and the trawlermen. In that way we hope to preserve the town of Canso.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to remind hon. members that tomorrow is February 14 and that they should remember their loved ones.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 14, 1990