1991-10-21

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to take a moment to make a brief statement.

I am sure that all hon. members would join with me in welcoming back our colleague who has successfully gone through the rigours of some medical infirmities. I think you can see that the hon. member for Edmonton North is back with us in full vigour again.
I want to say to our colleague that we are very, very pleased to see him back with us. We are so very pleased that he is back in good health.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to thank all those members who wrote such wonderful letters, particularly the Speaker, and for all the wonderful fruit I received at the Royal Ottawa Rehab. Every one of you who did all those wonderful little things for me, when I get a chance to have Question Period I will see that you are recognized, at least for a supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic) moved: that Bill C-282, an act to establish the Aboriginal Languages Foundation be now read a second time and referred to Legislative Committee A.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today in the House to speak to my private member's bill which is basically the result of all the work done by First Nations' educators and language specialists.
Before I proceed I would like to share with the members of this House, as well as the Canadian public, the true essence of what aboriginal people are all about in an educational, social and cultural sense; that is, the gift of language we were given by our ancestors from generation to generation, indeed for hundreds and even thousands of years since these are oral traditions.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Dene-North Slavey.]
Mr. Speaker, I just gave a brief introduction about aboriginal languages in one of the aboriginal languages. It is an Athabascan language. It is the Slavey language and it is North Slavey because I am of the North Slavey tribe, if you will.
I indicated to the people across this country that in Canada we have 53 aboriginal languages. The Dene language is one of those. Basically, many of those 53 languages were oral traditions, they were not written. How is it that today, in this institution, a European based institution, you can have a politician who still speaks this language, who can get up within the system of government and speak this language, in 1991?
I said it is a gift from one generation to the other. I learned my language from my elders. I indicated to the people across Canada that we have much to be grateful for, because our ancestors who came before us built this country. When my ancestors were building my part of the country and Canada as a whole, they did it speaking their own languages and living their own ways.

Private Members' Business
We are not who we are without our languages and our culture. When we talk about the inherent right to self-government and about building a government for ourselves, not to be contrary but to do something for ourselves that no one else has been able to do, the rudiments of that has to be our languages and our culture. That is the way it has to be.
We are not doing this to confront people. We are doing it to help ourselves and to establish something we are proud of and have been proud of for years. That is why I indicated to my people that for generations to come this gift of language has to be given to our children and our children's children. When you think about all of the things we have to consider that challenge us, like mass media, we have a lot of uphill climbing to do to save our languages.
We need help from everyone in Canada. Basically what I said was that we should be proud of our languages and proud of who we are. We should be grateful to our ancestors for having given us this gift. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker. I think I am a better person and I am more myself. I am proud of who I am and proud to speak out as an individual because I have the gift of language. I have the gift of knowing who I am. Before I can go anywhere else and assimilate myself into some one else's culture, I know who I am. There is a tremendous amount of strength in that. That is what my people need.
My people need to rebuild their communities, their families, their identity, their culture, and if they already have that, then we need to share that. Canada, I say to you, you have to look at the context within which Canadian history has been written. You have to understand that we have to de-mythicize the idea that this is just a linguistically dual country. That is not so. Officially, because of the laws of the white man that may be so and we respect that because that is your way. However, I can tell you that the mythology has to end. In the greatest document of this country and the supreme law of this country, aboriginal people say: You have to recognize and entrench the cultural and linguistic rights of aboriginal people.
This is not saying we do not agree with the laws that exist. This is saying it is an act of respect and dignity, an
act to recognize that the aboriginal people, the first people of this country are equal and have an inherent right to speak their languages and to protect them and to preserve them.
Hence, for years before I was a politician I was involved at the grass roots in the struggle to save our aboriginal languages. In the area of teaching, when I went as a young person to Fort Franklin all the curriculum and all the material for basically unilingual aboriginal students were in a foreign culture and foreign language. I took the initiative as a young person to let those people know that their cultures, their genealogies, their histories, were important by incorporating those myself into the curriculum.
Years later I taught non-aboriginal people aboriginal languages during the evening because I think it is important that the rest of Canada recognizes and is proud of the fact that we have a country in which we are not just linguistically dual but multilingual and that we are not afraid to be competitive as many of the European countries are.
We are stuck on the whole issue of bilingualism when other competitive countries speak basically two, three or maybe four languages, and many people who are experts in the field of interpretation speak up to six or eight languages. There is no debate about that.
Basically the point of this bill is to say to Canada: "Be proud of your First Nations citizens. Be proud of your languages and recognize that if we are to take a step forward toward a renewed Canada we have to recognize the 53 aboriginal languages". We have a lot to be proud of, but we have a lot to be concerned about.
This bill is a small step in a thousand steps in a long march to some kind of victory for linguistic justice for aboriginal people. When we think about this bill, an act to establish an aboriginal languages foundation, it has some history. It was the First Nations that proposed over the years-and I worked on a policy committee with them in 1986 before I was elected-to establish an aboriginal language policy. I have some feeling for it, but I also have some understanding of the expertise of the people who forged this particular policy.


This bill has tremendous support. I want to give members of this House some information about the purpose of this private member's bill. Its purpose is to establish a foundation to facilitate the acquisition, the retention and the use of aboriginal languages that contribute to Canada's aboriginal heritage by promoting the learning of aboriginal languages and their benefit to aboriginal people and the rest of Canadians and by developing programs to improve the quality of aboriginal language instruction. Many times I have heard non-aboriginal people say that they would really like to learn an aboriginal language but that the programs were not available.
The foundation would assist in the production and dissemination of Canadian oriented materials related to the study of aboriginal languages. We are very scarce on resources in this area. It is very difficult for aboriginal people to teach their children the cultural relevance of their societies in terms of schooling-and the amount of time spent in school is a major part of any child's day-because we are still lacking resource material.
There are many things happening across this country, and I have been to different parts of this country. The area I come from, the Northwest Territories, has schools that are developing material and a language program within the education system. As well the department of culture and communications is producing materials. It has just produced a huge Slavey dictionary. A gift I was so proud to receive was a Mohawk dictionary from Mr. Ralph Brant, regional director from the Atlantic who is a Mohawk himself.
It is astounding to know the number of words and the things they mean. If we want to relate that similarly to the Dene Slavey dictionary, it is not a one-year project. This is a project that has gone one for years and years.
There is the whole issue of curriculum material. In many of the areas in Saskatchewan there are people who are working on similar projects. In B.C. the Yinka-Dene Language Institute just hosted a huge conference last month which had 1,500 people registered. The delegates there supported the idea of this aboriginal language foundation.
The chief said that the language is the heart and the minds of our people. I think many of the elders feel that way about our languages. There are few things that can be taken away from aboriginal persons that will leave them empty and void.
If I might, I would just like to read a bit from the report of the standing committee on aboriginal literacy and empowerment. We used an appropriate title: You
Private Members' Business
took my talk. In it we have what is called the song of the Eskasoni, a poem by Rita Joe entitled I lost my talk and I quote:
I lost my talk The talk you took away,
When I was a little girl at Shubenacadie School.
You snatched it away.
I speak like you I think like you I create like you
The scrambled ballad about my word.
TVvo ways I talk Both ways I say Your way is more powerful.
So, gently I offer my hand and ask,
Let me find my talk
So I can teach you about me.
There are many other things this aboriginal language foundation will do.
It will assist in the development of standards for the learning of aboriginal languages. It will conduct research into all aspects of aboriginal language. It will establish links between the foundations, universities, colleges and persons interested in the work of the foundation. It will ensure the perpetuation, revitalization, growth and protection of aboriginal languages. It will respond to the needs of each community which is in the best position for determining what is needed to ensure the survival and functional use of its languages. It will provide the funding required to enable communities to develop and control the process and activities needed to promote their languages and will undertake any other activities in furtherance of its purpose.
When one has spoken to aboriginal peoples, especially elders, one will know that they come from oral traditions. We learn our languages not from sitting down and writing about them as subjects, but from human experience.
When I was growing up in the bush, on the land with my parents and my grandmother who was a story teller, my grandmother who was the medicine woman, a healer a traditionalist and a spiritualist, we were taught the art of our language basically through her story telling skills.
You will note that we have problems reading speeches because we were taught by speech much in the way that our great story tellers told stories. Many times it is very difficult for us to come into formal sessions and relate specifically to an issue and to get to the bottom line when we relate human experiences to our languages. The derivatives of our words, how our words are made, how are names are given, are very specific to what we experience.


Private Members' Business
Let me give a couple of examples. For years I grew up with children, adults and elders whom I only knew by their Indian names. Later on in years I learned their Christian names. I went to places like Dehdeljo where I grew up, which I never really thought about as Sucker Creek.
I went to K'etsiniline, which is Birch Lake or Birch Creek-I never really knew it by that name; I still have problems with it-and Tulit'a, which is Fort Norman, where I was born. These are the names that I grew up with. My mentality was within the context of my language. I had much difficulty as a student learning English. I am not doing too badly now. Actually it is coming along. Over the years in university I had a great deal of difficulty making that transference.
The spoken word in my language is everything. The handshake was everything in the treaties. It was an act of dignity and respect that said we have a deal and this is what we agreed to. That is our world view. When we think about our whole language issue we think about the people we revere, our heroes. I think about some of the people from my ancestry whom for years I have heard about. What about a great hunter by the name of Nihtoo? Nihtoo in my language means thunder passed. What greatness is there on the earth and the land, the crispness, the newness, the immensity of this great, powerful, bristling feeling that you feel when you say Nihtoo. That is a name for a man who is a great hunter and a great leader. This is one of the people whom I come from.
What about the baby boy born in the moose-skin boat because his mother was with child and the water was so swift they could not bring him to land? When they arrived at the town the people came from the shore to the boat and brought the baby to land. That is what his name his. His name is Tahti, which means brought to land. There is greatness in that name. There is relevance in that name.
For every society and every culture we have names that mean something to us. There are many more names. There are Cree names, Algonquin names. Today as we sit here the parallel process will be kicked off in Maniwaki. The children and the elders will be able to
speak about the importance of their languages and cultures. I think that is appropriate and that is right. I think everyone should have the opportunity to say how important it is that we make an effort to protect the first languages of this country.
I am very proud to have presented this bill. I only wish that this bill could have become a votable motion. I think we should support it becoming a votable bill.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and to Minister of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House I too would like to say welcome back, Sir.
I will start with the official language my hon. colleague spoke.
[.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Dene North-Slavey.}
We missed you and we love you.
I am pleased to be taking part in debate on the hon. member's bill calling for the establishment of an aboriginal languages foundation. Certainly every member of this House appreciates the necessity of resolving aboriginal issues, and that includes measures to preserve and enrich the aboriginal languages.
When I consider the struggle of Canada's aboriginal people I have nothing but praise for the tremendous job they have done in retaining and promoting their languages. More than at any time in our history Canadians are conscious of the need to address aboriginal concerns including the need to ensure cultural survival through indigenous languages. This concern is much more than a romantic one.
My hon. friend will recall that a year ago when fiscal restraint made cuts in native programs necessary the commitment to aboriginal languages remained. We still have the native social and cultural development program which has a funding base of $1 million. The program gives priority to projects that support the retention of aboriginal languages.
More recently, in August, the Secretary of State signed an $18 million three-year agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories to assist in preserving and protecting aboriginal languages in the territories.

At the signing the Secretary of State said, and I am quoting him here: "The survival and revitalization of aboriginal languages are integral to aboriginal people's sense of identity and continuation of their cultures. This agreement is an expression of the federal government's commitment to address issues of importance to aboriginal people and the special place they have in contemporary Canadian life".
For aboriginal languages, the agreement will give aboriginal people the kind of support they need to preserve and revive their languages as living, working languages in the home, the school and the community.
The survival and revitalization of aboriginal languages are integral to aboriginal people's sense of identity and continuation of their cultures. This agreement is an expression of the federal government's commitment to address issues of importance to aboriginal people and the special place they have in contemporary Canadian life.
Besides the agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Department of the Secretary of State has a five-year $4.25 million agreement ending in fiscal year 1992-93 with the Yukon government to ensure the revitalization and growth of eight aboriginal languages.
As well, the department provides support through initiatives of the $11.28 million Northern Native Broadcast Access Program. It serves northern aboriginal communities by producing radio and television programs in indigenous languages.
Speaking about Yukon, my colleague should listen to me because I am sure she is very interested in this issue. I was in Yukon last Saturday, two days ago, launching and promoting a book for the francophones of Yukon who live with all the native people there. This program is totally financed in co-operation with Yukon Territory and the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I attended the launch, on Saturday, of this book written by francophones who work with natives in Whitehorse, Yukon. It is entitled Garden on the Roof and, in French, Un jardin sur le toit. This shows the importance of languages for this government. Mr. Speaker, as we know, 50 per cent of the costs of official languages are met by the federal government. However,
Private Members' Business
I was a pleasantly surprised to learn that in the Yukon it is different: the government share is 80 per cent. This goes to show this government's commitment which, I would say, is exceptional!
Mr. Speaker, this book, Garden on the Roof, is about francophones in the Yukon. It was written by Rene Larouche and Cecile Girard, both of whom care greatly for languages. To preserve the French language in that area is quite a feat! Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the number of people who speak French in the Yukon. One would say that, in terms of percentage, they beat any city or province outside of Quebec and I would be the first one to bet on it. I encourage everyone to read this great book about the life of White people living with American Indians in the Yukon and the preservation of languages, particularly their native language, which I believe is a priority in this bill today.

This government is sincerely committed to preserving and enriching aboriginal languages. That commitment is very much in line with our commitment to work toward self-government for aboriginal people, a recommendation essential to discussions now taking place across the country on the renewal of the Canadian federation.
There is also the very real task of improving literacy, a most serious undertaking for aboriginal people.
When the level of literacy is low not only aboriginal people suffer personal hardship, but first nations and all Canadians are deprived of their full contribution to the economic and social life of Canada.
The federal government recognized this pressing matter a number of years ago. In the late 1980s when we held consultations in several aboriginal communities we found that no single approach to improving literacy satisfied everyone. Each community had its own needs and recommendations.
One of the results of the nation-wide consultation was the establishment of a National Literacy Secretariat within the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. I think my hon. colleagues will agree that the secretariat does a commendable job to improve the over-all level of literacy for members of the aboriginal community.


Private Members' Business
To expand on that a bit, the National Literacy Secretariat supported a number of projects directed specifically to the needs of aboriginal people. For example, in Labrador the secretariat assists the Newfoundland Community College in establishing a literacy program for Labrador Inuit. The program gives basic instruction of the Inuktitut language and is a good example of an initiative addressing a local need.
The government has been supportive of other projects as well. They are programs such as the national literacy strategy for Metis and non-status Indians. With support from the Secretary of State, the project was developed by the Metis National Council and the Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research.
As well, the National Literacy Secretariat, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies have worked in partnership to develop the national literacy action plan that can be used in Indian communities right across Canada.


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


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George - Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the short time that I have on this veiy important private member's bill we are debating in the House today.
Hopefully there may be discussions. As important an issue as this is, I think we should certainly try to make some arrangements to try to extend some debate if we can and allow members to speak to Bill C-282, this private member's bill. It is a very important bill that would help establish an aboriginal languages foundation in Canada.
I want to thank the member for Kamloops, our House leader who has certainly been having discussions on this proposed legislation, and the member for Comox-Al-berni, the Indian affairs critic who has spent a considerable amount of time on this particular issue, among others.
We support the bill. It is a very important proposal, one that would help promote and protect aboriginal languages in Canada. It is very important for anyone who represents a constituency riding that has a large number of First Nations people in it, as my own constituency
does. We must recognize just how important language is to our native people and for the development of proposals for self-government during the ongoing constitutional discussions.
It is very important because it makes up their history, their role and involvement in their life, and their participation in Canada today.
Consider that in our nation there are some 53 aboriginal languages in Canada, 50 of them endangered and some which are virtually extinct. I could not think of a more important thing for us to do in the whole question of language policy than to do whatever we can to ensure that we try to promote those languages that have formed the history of Indian peoples in Canada and the development of our country.
I would just like to read into the record the comments from the Assembly of First Nations that has obviously made some policy on this matter. I think it is important to put them into the record. I am quoting here from its declaration on aboriginal languages.
Aboriginal language is an asset to one's own education, formal and informal. Aboriginal language contributes to greater pride in the history and culture of the community, greater involvement and interest of parents in the education of their children and greater respect for elders.
Language is the principal means by which culture is accumulated, shared and transmitted from generation to generation. The key to identity and retention of culture is one's ancestral language.
I congratulate the member for Western Arctic on having worked very hard on this over the past couple of years. She visited Prince George in my riding and spoke to many different groups about this proposal. I know it has a great deal of support out there, as we say, and I hope it has the same degree of support in this House.
It is not asking for a lot. It is the proverbial one step forward, a small step forward, to try to assist with the promotion of aboriginal languages.
The bill will do a number of things including, as I mentioned earlier, the promotion of aboriginal languages and the importance of promoting that same message to all Canadians. Second, the bill will improve the quality of aboriginal language information and material. That is very important because efforts have been made by many groups in my area. I will come to that in a minute, but an example is the Yinka-Dene Language Institute which is based in Vanderhoof in my riding.


Private Members' Business
Many groups have been struggling as hard as they can to put the promotional and written materials together so that they can promote aboriginal languages. That is often difficult to do, and I certainly would think that a foundation as proposed by this bill would go a long way in assisting with the development of professional standards, of printing standards, and what have you.
It is important as well to ensure that we develop Canadian material on this. It is my understanding that there is considerable work done in the United States and other countries on aboriginal languages. I think we have a great deal more to do already in Canada, and I think this foundation would go some distance in doing it.
I mentioned earlier in my comments that the Yinka-Dene Language Institute in my riding was very relevant to the debate we are having on this bill right now. I mentioned the Yinka-Dene Language Institute which was started up in 1988. My first official duty as a newly elected member of Parliament was to go to Vanderhoof and attend the graduation ceremony of some of the elders who were being taught how to teach their language. It was a wonderful way to start off my term in office as the MP for the area. It is an honour, I think for all of us, when we have an opportunity to meet the elders, in particular, to listen to them and to hear their wise words.
I would go so far as to say: "Let us clear out the other place and put some of the elders in there. We would probably get a lot more help by putting some of the elders in the Senate than we do now from the current pack of people who are in there.
The Yinka-Dene Language Institute, which has gone some distance in preparing the resource materials that are necessary, used modem technology such as laser disks and other high-tech materials to promote and get out the information and language they have.
I should mention as well the very important contributions to the Yinka-Dene Language Institute by the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council; the college in the area, the College of New Caledonia; various school districts; and the soon to be finished University of British Columbia in Prince George. I think it is very important that aboriginal languages, and the teaching and learning of those languages, will play an important role in the university courses and faculties.
In conclusion I want to say that our party supports this bill. The member for Kamloops has spent some time discussing this matter with the member who has proposed it. I know there have been discussions, and I hope that we can take a look at a couple of steps that might move this bill ahead.
We are certainly prepared to consider unanimous consent to allow this to be a votable bill. Second, I think we should give some opportunity to other members in this House who I know are very anxious to speak on this. We are limited by the rules of the House which we follow, but there are are many members who would like to speak on this matter. They would like to speak about the importance of aboriginal languages not just to Canada but, most important for many of us, what it means to the people in our ridings whom we represent.
I thank the member and congratulate her for the initiative she has taken on this very important bill. I thank all aboriginal groups outside this Chamber that I know have spent considerable time discussing this bill, writing letters and lobbying to try to move the issue forward. I hope government members in particular will hear our speeches today, hear our pleas, and support some initiatives to carry this forward.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome you back after a month and a half absence due to your operations.
With too many of the 52 languages of the aboriginal peoples of Canada eroded or lost, any serious attempt to reinvigorate their languages must be worth while. I salute the member for Western Arctic on the bill, as I believe most members in the House today do as well.
Linguistic relativity emphasizes the unique role of language in relation to culture. Language is recognized as a means far more than mere communication. It is a vehicle of cultural transmission. For some renowned scholars like Benjamin Whorf language even shapes thought and emotion, determining the perception of reality. Although not identical the concepts of language and culture are inseparable. To put it more plainly, I am told by my colleague that there are numerous official languages in the Northwest Territories. That is why I understand there is excellent language harmony in the north. They can have unilingual MLAs and unilingual jurors. This growing recognition of all languages in the north is working well.

Private Members' Business
There are nine official languages in the European community. The chief quoted by my colleague has said: "Language is the heart of our culture".
You will recall, Sir, being from Edmonton, that children sent to residential schools returned home often unable to communicate with their parents and grandparents because of the loss of their aboriginal language skills and the almost total disorientation of their cultural value system. The educational system of those days did much more than to exert strong pressure on aboriginal children. Again, Sir, I remind you that our aboriginal peoples came to Canada at least 13,000 years ago. The residential schools fostered an intergenerational culture gap in aboriginal communities. Many young people have suffered from the in between feeling of not being able to fit in either their home communities or communities elsewhere.
Aboriginal peoples resented what was being done to them and tried to resist as best they could the efforts to damage their way of life. They still do and continue to do so, in Ovide Mercredi's words, "to break the psychology of domination from the two founders of the nation".
The cultural resurgence and the defence of territory are but two overt expressions of native self-determination. Other forms of resistance have included economic and political action, the reinterpretation of historical events, the formation of intertribal and interdenominational networks, and so on.
Since 1867 and earlier, aboriginal groups have actively sought recognition of their inherent right to self-government. This right was exercised thousands of years before Europeans arrived on this continent. Many believe it has never been extinguished. Certainly my party does. Claims that political structures were unknown to native people prior to contact with Europeans ignore the fact that most First Nations had complex forms of government that go back centuries. In fact, aboriginal self-government is now supported in principle by most Canadians., happily, who believe that recognizing the role of aboriginal peoples in Confederation is very important for national pride.
Canadians have a chance to demonstrate to the world that the old notions of European dominance are gone. In our country we see federalism as a way of protecting the
identity of minorities. Federalism is practised throughout the world in large measure to provide and respect the identity of minority regions and peoples.
The encouragement of cultural development assists in preserving and strengthening aboriginal peoples integrity. A stronger sense of cultural worth would promote aboriginal self-sufficiency as one of the proclaimed goals of our country. Dependency on the other hand tends to alienate aboriginal peoples and all peoples from their traditional identity and prevents the retention of some features of traditional culture. Only with the maintenance of a distinct identity can our aboriginal peoples have the chance, as was indicated earlier by the member for the Western Arctic, of altering the wider conditions of social and economic dependency which so characterized much of their lives now.
To this end it seems to me that the importance of language retention far exceeds the magnitude of retention of other features of traditional culture. Language retention contributes to the maintenance of the boundary between the aboriginal peoples and others. As a mode of communication, it is a system of meaningful signs that represent and influence the concept of the world.
According to one critic, language retention is the cultural characteristic that best reflects current and continued cultural cohesion. It is perhaps the most distinctly ethnic activity.
I am fast running out of time and I do not want, Mr. Speaker, to be talking when this bill stands in danger of being talked out. Let me quote from the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation which asserted: "No single feature of southern culture was as profound in its effects on the Inuit way of life as television. It destroyed old habits and social behaviours. It imported new values and attitudes. It became an alternative way of life, particularly for the young".
There is an urgent need for more not less funding for native aboriginal media and aboriginal languages so that they can continue to reach aboriginal communities to provide material dealing with contemporary issues as well as traditional cultures, particularly so that they can develop children's content.


If no action is taken such as proposed here, linguists and anthropologists will mourn the passing of aboriginal languages and in consequence, aboriginal cultures. It is largely up to the aboriginal peoples themselves to decide whether it is in their interest to allow their languages to fade into disuse or to revive them. If they choose the latter, they will deserve the support of all Canadians.
I would close by again indicating my strongly felt support for the bill now before the Elouse and I hope that as was indicated by a previous member that despite what is presently likely to happen from the government side that this bill in fact will be enacted by this Parliament very soon.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, perhaps I may say how happy we are that you have recovered and are now back in the chair.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-282, an Act to establish the Aboriginal Languages Foundation.
At the hearings on national unity held by the Spicer Commission, Canadians clearly indicated their desire to see aboriginal issues given priority status.
When the government's constitutional proposals were tabled in September, Prime Minister Mulroney said the following: "Of the various communities whose rights need and deserve protection, the aboriginal peoples of Canada have, in my judgment, a very important claim on our attention".
Similarly, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs told national representatives of the First Nations that constitutional reform would be impossible without a change in status for aboriginal peoples, and that any constitutional accord would require their approval.
In the same vein, the government has proposed the entrenchment of a constitutional process to address aboriginal matters and proposes to include a general justicial right to aboriginal self-government within the Canadian federation.
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that considering the impressive contribution of aboriginal culture to the development of Canada, we have a duty to recognize in the Constitution the rights of the first people of this country.
There are 53 aboriginal languages in Canada, most of which are, to varying degrees, threatened with extinction. As a government we have a major role to play in preventing this from happening.
Last year, the Prime Minister announced Canada's commitment on four fronts: speedy settlement of land claims; improving the economic and social situation on the reserves; reform of the Indian Act; and adopting measures to respond to the concerns of aboriginal people in today's society.
Creating a royal commission on aboriginal peoples is probably one of the most promising measures in this respect. The commission will examine a broad range of issues, including economic, social and cultural aspects. In this connection, the subject of aboriginal languages is of course extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, preserving and promoting aboriginal languages is a priority for this government. At a time when we are intent on Shaping Canada's future together, we become increasingly aware of the immense contribution made by aboriginal people to the culture of this country through their art, tradition and language.
That is why in August, the Government of Canada signed-


Mr. Boyer:: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is an important one. There are many parliamentarians wishing to speak on it. I hope, with unanimous consent of the House, we could now extend the hour for Private Members' Business until one o'clock to permit a greater and a fuller debate on this important legislation.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that this is a most important matter. Recognizing the nature of the government business for later today is business I believe we can move through expeditiously, we would not be in a sense reducing the government's opportunity to move legislation.


Private Members' Business
I would like to say yes, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats would like to see it extended for an hour with the assumption that the usual rotation would occur to enable speakers for the various parties to participate.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement that we should continue the debate. This is a very important, fundamental issue, not just for us as members but for all of this country that is embroiled in many of the controversial issues that hit on languages. I really feel it is important for people in this House who have something to say about this bill, and about languages in any way that they wish to portray those ideas or those concerns they have, to be able to do so within the time that will be allotted by unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to extend the hour until one o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, we agree to extend it for one hour, but I must have some guarantee that this bill will not be votable and will not go to committee under the order of 19.96(1).


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it would be asking me to breach my ethics as a human being and as a good Canadian citizen to flap my gums for no use in this House on a bill that I think is fundamental to the well-being of 53 aboriginal linguistic groups. It is a heinous thing for this individual across the way to ask us to do. It is an insult to the Canadian public and taxpayers' moneys to waste that kind of time in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that there is not unanimous consent.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I really believe that the House is now considering two matters. We have in fact considered the first of those matters which was to extend by unanimous consent by an hour's time the debate on Bill C-282.
The second matter that has just been raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs is, in his terms, seeking a guarantee that the bill would not be votable. That is a guarantee that no one would give because that is entirely a matter for this Parliament
of Canada. If the full hour that we have now agreed should be further allocated for this bill is not consumed by speeches of members, then within that hour the question could be put, the bill could be voted on and referred to committee.
I do not think it is within the capacity of anyone to provide what the member has asked for.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It can be done only by unanimous consent.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure we observe the Standing Orders. If I am not mistaken, according to Standing Order 96(1), if a member speaks for one hour, in other words, if there is unanimous consent to speak for one hour, that's fine, but afterwards, if we want to go on to something else, we again need unanimous consent to be able to change the Standing Orders. Am I correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is right.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I used to be parliamentary secretary to the House leader on the government side.
The member cannot ask you to give an interpretation as he is asking. We will deal with the first issue which we have already decided, and if within the hour if there are no more speakers, then something might arise.
Until that occasion arises, it is a hypothetical question. I would submit that we are now into the next hour of debate for all members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will ask the House for unanimous consent to debate until one o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for tabling this motion and my colleagues for giving their approval so that I can continue this important debate.


Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, in August the Government of Canada signed an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories to ensure the survival and preservation of aboriginal languages in the North. This agreement includes funding totalling $18 million, spread over three years.
The agreement follows another agreement signed six years ago, in April 1985, which included financial assistance totalling $16 million. The first agreement signed with the Northwest Territories in April 1985 produced some very definite and noteworthy results.
A study carried out in November 1990 showed that the various projects initiated as result of this funding had greatly stimulated interest in teaching and learning native aboriginal languages. The process has also promoted research and development in this area and enhanced the availability of services in aboriginal languages.
The study also mentioned that the agreement signed by the government and the Northwest Territories was a factor in the territorial government's decision to grant official status to six aboriginal languages, on the same level as English and French. In April 1990, the territorial government amended its Official Languages Act to include legal protection for aboriginal languages.
This initiative is noteworthy, since it reflects the present government's efforts to preserve aboriginal languages and culture. The government is firmly convinced that the survival of the North's languages is essential for the future quality of life of the Territories and its inhabitants.
A similar agreement was also signed by the Government of Yukon to ensure the survival and development of eight official languages, including six aboriginal languages officially recognized by this territory. Funding totalling $4.25 million will be provided over a period of five years. Mr. Speaker, these agreements reflect the extent of the government's commitment to aboriginal issues. This is not a matter of pretty speeches or empty promises. These are concrete, ambitious projects that have a tangible impact on the lives of aboriginal people.
Native languages are thus valued and therefore more respected. This has the positive effect of encouraging their use at home, in school and in the community.
Private Members' Business
Furthermore, the Department of the Secretary of State has also given concrete support to the federal government's firm commitment to preserve aboriginal languages by giving priority to language projects as part of the Native Social and Cultural Development Program.
This program, and especially its language preservation component, were evaluated in 1988. Interviews in native communities showed that the projects put forward under this program revived their feeling of belonging and improved the relations of native people with their fellow citizens. The investigation showed that language preservation projects encouraged the development of native culture.
The Department of the Secretary of State provides additional support for initiatives in this field through the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program, which serves native communities in northern regions with broadcasts in aboriginal languages.
Other departments are also making great efforts to encourage the preservation and use of aboriginal languages. I am thinking here especially of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship which in the 1988-89 fiscal year co-sponsored 45 literacy projects to meet native people's needs specifically.
One of the projects involved Labrador Community College setting up a literacy program for the Inuit in Labrador. This program provided basic training in Inuk-titut and was an outstanding example of a local solution to a local problem.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs spends large sums so that native people can receive primary and secondary school education in their own language.
The government's intentions and actions on aboriginal languages need no longer be demonstrated. The facts speak for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the size of the deficit, or rather the debt, and the burden it imposes on the Canadian economy. Of course, each one of us must do our part and every new project must be thoroughly evaluated before receiving funds.


Private Members' Business
In Shaping Canada's Future Together, the government defines its position on this country's native people as follows: "It is unacceptable that Canada's first peoples, who were here for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, should find themselves, centuries later, among the most socially and economically disadvantaged citizens in Canada. Canada's first peoples, who were self-governing before the arrival of the settlers, want nothing more than the means to regain control of their own destiny within Canada."
It is unnecessary to point out the considerable importance of preserving aboriginal languages for the future of the First Nations.
In this spirit, we believe that the concept of the Foundation and the objectives of Bill C-282 should be supported, taking into account the restrictions to which we are all subject.
In this matter as in others, we are cooperating with the native peoples of Canada so that they can take control of their destiny, contribute to the prosperity of the country and fully benefit from it themselves as well. Diversity makes our nation rich and unity makes it strong.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House of Commons and to share ideas with my colleagues, my fellow parliamentarians.
The bill which we have under consideration now, the private member's bill of the member for Western Arctic, is an act to establish the aboriginal languages foundation. I would like to say briefly that the purpose of this bill in establishing the aboriginal languages foundation is to address a fundamentally important and historically overlooked need in this country.
Clause 4 of this bill sets out the purposes of the foundation and I think it is important just to highlight some of those. The purpose of the foundation is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of aboriginal languages that contribute to our country's aboriginal heritage. Some of the ways that this would be done would be by promoting through public education and discussion the learning of aboriginal languages and their benefit to aboriginal peoples of Canada, by providing the public with information about aboriginal language resources, and by developing programs to improve the quality of aboriginal language instruction. All of this would ensure the perpetuation, the revitalization, the growth and the protection of aboriginal languages.
The bill goes on for another 20 clauses to outline the fashion in which the foundation would work, its powers and its practices. It is very clear that Bill C-282, which was introduced here on September 20 of this year, represents a great deal of work. Clearly a lot of thought has gone into this legislation.
In noting that I would like especially to pay tribute to the MP who has introduced this bill, the member for Western Arctic. All of us who come here as MPs represent two constituencies: our own electoral district and then a broader national constituency made up of the people who share a common concern. All of us have special interests, concerns, goals or issues spreading right across the country that we try to deal with. Certainly the member for Western Arctic, the member for Wetaskiwin and other members in this House carry a very heavy responsibility in that second constituency, representing here the interests and diverse needs of Canada's aboriginal peoples.
My sister and her husband, Victoria and Douglas Billingsly, reside in the hon. member's constituency at Inuvik, and I know for a fact that even though the member is busy with this broad national issue she is also providing very constructive and positive service to her constituents. I wanted to take that moment to express from one parliamentarian to another recognition of the dual role that all of us play. In this case it has been performed in a way to give us this very interesting and timely Bill C-282.
At its core this bill is dealing with culture and with language. We do not have to think back very far in Canadian history, indeed only to the sixties, to a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. We certainly know that the notion of biculturalism was buried in the sixties as Canada came to embrace the concept of multiculturalism, a concept that is now entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.
What about multilingualism? I remember speaking one time with the member for Provencher, Manitoba, and he explained that his father, Mr. Epp, spoke five languages, none of them among the official languages of Canada.


The member for Western Arctic referred to people in Europe speaking two or perhaps three languages. My own wife Corinne, coming from the Netherlands, speaks five languages currently and has working knowledge of two others. This is in fact the whole story of our country. It is a country of many languages, all of them important, all of them deserving to be respected. While sometimes we might despair that we are living in a country that is a land of babble, we must also recognize that we are living in a country that places extraordinarily high value on freedom of expression.
We long considered free of expression to be one of our natural rights and now additionally it is one of our entrenched rights in the Canadian Constitution. I meet a lot of people who are coming here these days from eastern Europe and Ukraine. I ask them what surprises them most about Canada. There are a lot of surprising and interesting answers, but consistently one of the answer is their surprise at discovering in Canada the vibrancy of the Ukrainian culture and the living language spoken by the one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent.
Bearing that in mind, let us think back again to that same royal commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism. As a university student I remember reading that there was descent written to that royal commission report by Jaroslav Bohdan Rudnyckji. He said that at a time when the Ukrainian language was being suppressed in its own native country through Russification, it was very important in Canada that that language be given every opportunity to thrive, because this was one place in the world where it had great opportunity to grow.
If that was true-and I believe that it was-with respect to the Ukrainian language in Canada, how much truer, how much more important it is with respect to the languages that were first spoken by the people living here even before those of European extraction settled in these lands of the Indians.
Earlier languages, as the member for Western Arctic and other members from Edmonton and elsewhere have mentioned, are numerous in this country. Many of them were only passed on as an oral tradition.
Private Members' Business
Four years ago I read an article about a Canadian who had travelled throughout this country in the twenties, recording a number of these aboriginal languages and the particular dialects. I say "recording" and we wonder how someone could go around with a tape recorder in the twenties. It was not a tape recorder as we know it now. These were being recorded in meetings with native Canadians and the recording was done on wax cylinders.
The men, women and children who spoke those languages in this country in the twenties and thirties are now gone and the languages they spoke are now gone. The only record we have are these aging and deteriorating wax cylinders on which their almost ghost-like voices can be heard speaking yet another lost aboriginal language of Canada.
There is so much that could be said on this, yet for me that image says it all. That is why I am supporting this bill, why I congratulate the member for bringing it into the House of Commons, and why I express my hope with respect to procedure that we will find it within our wit here to support having this bill go to committee where it can be more fully discussed and brought into the public statutes of our country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to participate today in the debate on Bill C-282, an act to establish the aboriginal languages foundation, introduced by the hon. member for Western Arctic. I want to join with all of my colleagues in saying that we appreciate this initiative.
It is an initiative that has been under way now for some time and has the enthusiastic endorsement of First Nations peoples. I believe we ought to go even further than what we are doing to day in terms of simply extending the debate time. We should actually work to make it a votable piece of legislation. I cannot imagine anyone saying that this is not something that is of sufficient importance that should not be voted on, moved through and become law. However, we can deal with that at the appropriate moment.
I want to make it very clear that as far as we in the New Democratic Party are concerned, we would like to see this bill not only debated but voted upon and become a reality.


Private Members' Business
I suppose the reason for that is obvious. We have heard today some very eloquent speeches in support of this initiative by the hon. member for Western Arctic. I join with my colleagues in supporting those comments. This is an initiative that would promote aboriginal languages, that would improve the quality of language instruction, that would develop resource materials through research, provide additional language materials for use in various curricula and an opportunity to enhance linkages with colleges, universities and other institutes in the promotion of aboriginal languages.
Other aspects of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, obviously make the bill one we would all endorse enthusiastically. I first became knowledgeable about the need for this foundation some years ago when the Shuswap Tribal Council, on their own initiative, agreed to take the matter of cultural revitalization very seriously. Part of that building process was to save the Shuswap language and to take immediate steps so that more and more people, particularly younger people, would be introduced to the language, learn and become fluent in it.
It is interesting these days to attend various gatherings of the Shuswap people and hear the Shuswap language being used in communication, sometimes simply as a formal introduction, but more and more being used by individuals, particularly younger people, in their every day communication. Indeed, this is encouraging. I think we all appreciate that a culture without a language simply does not exist.
Language itself is the fundamental life-blood of the development of any culture. I suppose parts of our very darkest history in Canada were those periods where the aboriginal languages were almost beaten out of young people attending the various schools. They were forbidden to use their original languages in school and were made to feel as second rate or third rate citizens if they used the languages of their parents and of their ancestors.
Thank goodness that period is behind us and now we are seeing, as we have seen in the Shuswap nation, important steps being taken to develop a curriculum and new reading materials, new experience-oriented educational opportunities to once again enable, particularly young people, to feel proud of their aboriginal heritage.
Perhaps one of the aspects of this bill will also be to promote public awareness of native languages. It is a frightening prospect when you recognize that of the 53
aboriginal language groups existing in the country, only three are considered to be safe in terms of their ability to continue indefinitely into the future. Fifty languages are at risk. If those languages are at risk then it also means that those cultures are at risk. So simply the understanding of non-aboriginal people as to the importance of this particular initiative is a critical part of this particular bill.
I appreciate the hon. member's motive for doing this and the work that she and many of her colleagues, aboriginal people in this House, have made to bring this light to the public consciousness generally.
I want to acknowledge the leadership role played by a number of individuals in my own constituency, and I refer specifically to people like Chief Manny Jules, Ron Ignace, Nathan Matthew. I suppose it is not fair to name just a few when there are so many people that have been involved on a very personal level in the development of curriculum and the local native languages and the various dialects.
I think it is important that we acknowledge the work being done by so many people across the country to enhance the status of aboriginal languages generally.
I suppose it now becomes evident and obvious to everyone the need for a foundation. That is why I think it is important that we put our collective minds together to see how we can advance this particular bill simply beyond the debate stage. The comments I have heard today from literally all sides of the House would indicate strong support by all of those who have spoken, and I believe that those who have spoken on behalf of their various caucuses are doing just that; that no caucus would say there is not a need for this foundation, that we have taken large steps over the years in terms of support for bilingualism and biculturalism and more recently in recent decades multiculturalism.
But this, of course, goes far beyond that in acknowledging those people who have been in this part of the world for tens of thousands of years. I cannot think of a better year to do that, when we are hearing and reading in the media so much about the role of Christopher Columbus and the discovery of America, when in fact we acknowledge the fact that tens of thousands of people had lived here for tens of thousands of years before Christopher Columbus even thought about setting sail for some place unknown west of Europe.


Again, if there is a moment in history that would require us to act it is now. The need is evident. The bill before us is a thoughtful initiative and identifies all of the necessary steps that ought to be taken immediately. For that reason I want to say that we should all work to ensure that this becomes a votable piece of legislation and soon becomes a bill that this Parliament will pass so that we can actually see not only a debate around the necessity of such a foundation, but the initiative coming to reality and seeing the foundation itself struck as soon as possible.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-82, an act to establish the aboriginal languages foundation. I want to compliment my colleague from Western Arctic for continuing to advance the cause of this particular part of aboriginal culture in this country.
This bill, for me, is not just about language, it is about the value system in this country. Since 1971, when the Multicultural Act was proclaimed in this House, we have continued to talk about the fact that no culture is less than or greater than another culture. But it seems to me, as we have advanced that debate, we have not given the time or the focus to our founding peoples, to our first peoples, to our first nations.
I see in my own riding that in particular the Greek community has access to all of the cultural or the heritage language programs that they need and require. I see that in the Italian and the Chinese communities. We too have an urban native Indian council in our community and they do not share in that opportunity which the other cultures have. Somehow we overlook the fact that in our major urban centres we also have communities from the north. Some of our native peoples live in urban areas and in my opinion they are always sort of shunted to the side. It is only recently, as the country has begun to develop a focus on environmental issues that we as a nation have become more receptive to our native peoples. When we travel in airplanes in the north, we don't just hear French and English, we will also hear native languages on the airplanes, see it in the brochures, when we go into hotels, when we go into the north. We will see that that community naturally is sensitized to the needs
Private Members' Business
of our native peoples. We who live in the major urban areas do not seem to have that kind of sensitivity.
This bill is really a test of that fundamental issue which is before all of us as parliamentarians, and I think our colleague for Etobicoke-Lakeshore alluded to it in his remarks earlier. There are many times, and it should be all the time really, when we must have a trust factor when we talk about issues in this House. This issue is really an issue of trust. We are constantly tested in this House as to what kind of actions increase the trust factor and what kinds of actions diminish it. When we talk about an issue like this today, it is a test for all Canadians, not just our First Nations, in front of all peoples as to what the level of our trust is.
We can talk about being sensitive to the needs of our aboriginal peoples, but now we have an opportunity to put those words into action. As many speakers have said earlier, language is the heart of a culture. If we are going to preserve, promote and support our aboriginal culture then what better way than to show in this House today support for this aboriginal language foundation.
It is obvious to most Canadians today that Canada, as a nation, is being judged internationally by the way we treat our native peoples. If we believe that language is at the heart of the way we treat native peoples, and when we see how many of the various languages in the aboriginal community are on the verge of being extinct, and we have a very special opportunity to prevent those languages from going into extinction, it is incumbent on all of us, not just those members who live in the north, but those of us who live, as the member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore said earlier, in urban areas, to speak to this issue as well and make sure that our aboriginal peoples get the same treatment as all the other cultures that have been given special treatment over the years in this country.
It is plainly logical to me that if we can have radio stations, newspapers and special heritage language courses, it seems fundamental and logical that we set a national foundation for our aboriginal peoples which will look after the rights and concerns of all of aboriginal peoples when it comes to their basic language.


Private Members' Business


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the private member's legislation which is before the House this morning.
I would like to join with other members of the House, Mr. Speaker, who have welcomed you back after your brief illness and time in which you were in the hospital. You know that you carry the goodwill of every member of this House and that we are all delighted to see you back. We look forward to the joyous personality and good humour that you bring not only to the Chair but to the entire House of Commons. So we do welcome you with those few words of greeting and hope that you will be completely recovered and back on the job in the months and years ahead.
The aboriginal languages foundation bill, which is sponsored by the hon. member for Western Arctic, is a very important bill. I thought that she spoke especially eloquently and especially sensitively to the whole question of language and culture.
It is especially fragile in the case of aboriginal languages because as she said these were languages used historically and many still are. They do not always have the written component to the language. If it is lost, it is lost completely. I think that is the value of this particular piece of legislation through which we are trying not only to promote aboriginal languages and preserve them, as the foundation would have as one of its major purposes, but also to develop the languages and to develop teaching materials to ensure those languages can be preserved. There are a very few actually in a state in which they probably can be preserved.
I know there was a person working on a special commission in the Secretary of State's department just two or three years ago. She suggested to me that there are probably only 15 or 20 which can actually be maintained or have a written component to maintain themselves easily.
The hon. member for Western Arctic is really to be commended for bringing forward this bill this morning. It would establish an aboriginal languages foundation which would have as its several components the retention and promotion of aboriginal languages through public discussion, the learning of aboriginal languages, and the benefits to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. It
proposes as well providing the public with information about aboriginal languages and resources. It proposes developing programs to improve the quality of aboriginal language instruction. It suggests that this foundation would have as one of its purposes a program to assist in the production and dissemination of Canadian oriented materials related to the study of aboriginal languages and to assist in establishing standards for those languages of an aboriginal nature. It also would conduct research. If a language is not written and the language is often maintained only by the elders, it is not as if we can immediately promote it and develop it without a considerable amount of research being carried out.
It also proposes the establishing of scholarly and professional links among the foundation, universities, colleges and other organizations, and persons interested in the foundation's work. It is proposed that there be a major new aboriginal college, for instance, a national college at the Algoma University College in Sault Ste. Marie. If that college is fully developed and established, this foundation could be an important national agency which could assist it in ways of promotion, development and research or could just assist that new college at the Algoma University College.
I guess my overriding interest in this topic this morning is not only that we have some 13 Indian bands in the Algoma federal riding stretching from Batchawana on the Lake Superior shore down to Killamey near Georgian Bay and involving some half dozen Indian bands on Manitoulin Island, but as well another half dozen or so along the north shore. The North Shore Tribal Council involves all those bands along the north shore of Lake Huron.
I think we are especially fortunate in our area in that we have in Manitoulin the Ojibway Cultural Foundation which has been doing many of the things that this new national foundation would do. It promotes the use and development of educational programs and educational materials for the Ojibway language. It assists in all kinds of programs in the aboriginal community for art, culture and language.
We are very fortunate in that the bands throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area have banded together to establish the Ojibway Cultural Foundation and provided their encouragement and their support. It has been especially useful in teaching the aboriginal languages of our area and promoting the whole linguistics, art and culture.


As the hon. member for Western Arctic said, if you take away the language you almost take away the soul of the aboriginal people. If you cannot speak, if you cannot articulate, if you do not have pride in your culture, in your heritage and in the way that people express themselves or think about their elders, their ancestors or their whole culture, if you lose the ability to articulate that and speak, you really lose the whole being for those communities and those individuals.
I hope that the government will not talk out this foundation or vote it down. I hope it will allow the bill to go the to standing committee. In that way it will be able to see the value in establishing this foundation.
I would say the Ojibway Cultural Foundation has a really outstanding director, Mary-Lou Fox, who has been the director there for many years. She is a very talented, excellent person who single-handedly kept that organization going. She has kept the band councils of the area working with her and has kept them advised. She has an advisory board and a board of directors.
We are one of the few areas in the country with several hundred bands that has that kind of foundation. A national foundation would not only provide support and back-up for local regional aboriginal and cultural foundations but would assist in establishing new ones in areas where the population is too small to have the kind of organization as we have in the Ojibway Cultural Foundation and West Bay Reserve in Manitoulin Island.
The key here is that we want to see this foundation established. It is really late in the game. We should have done this some time ago, but clearly doing it now can mean that some of those objectives can be reached, the objectives of conducting research, establishing relationships with universities and colleges of higher learning, perpetuating and revitalizing growth and protection of aboriginal languages, responding to the needs of aboriginal communities, and providing the funding required to enable communities to have those aboriginal languages and cultures preserved.
I do not want to spend a lot of time but just to indicate my support. I want to compliment the hon. member for
Private Members' Business
Western Arctic in bringing forward this bill. Obviously she has done a great deal of work on Bill C-282 respecting the aboriginal languages foundation. It certainly has a great deal to offer in perpetuating, maintaining and promoting aboriginal languages and aboriginal culture in this country. It really promotes and recognizes a way for the House of Commons and Senate hopefully to express our commitment to the aboriginal peoples, the First Nations of Canada.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in congratulating you and welcoming you back in your House. We are extremely happy to see you back in such a great shape. You bring some sort of personal warmth to this place and it gives me pleasure to mention this.
Mr. Speaker, it is with both humility and great pride that I take part in this debate on Bill C-282 put forward by our colleague from Western Arctic.
Mr. Speaker, many members, in fact most of us have read this bill and it is obvious that we each want to speak in support of it.
When you look at its purpose, this bill does the Parliament of Canada, as well as this social reality of our beautiful country, great credit. It talks about promotion, providing information, developing programs, assisting in the production, with each new item reinforcing and providing new ways of making Canada what it is, different from any other country and of course from our neighbour to the south.
As President of the Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, I also have the duty and the pleasure to look at this matter and participate in the debate. Mr. Speaker, as some members pointed out, this bill deals with the very fabric of our nation. Parliament and its members are asked to consider, work on and pass a bill which ensures that every Canadian citizen has the pleasure and privilege of reverting to his or her mother tongue and thus rediscover, if they were lost or not as lively as they could be, his or her roots and integrity.


Private Members' Business
The mother tongue, Mr. Speaker, is not only a symbol. It is also a social reality, but even more so a psychological reality. The child starts learning on his mother's lap how to grow up into an adult, to develop, to grow richer with a full scale of values and these, of course, will be transmitted through language.
I think that the mother tongue is the noblest symbol and reflection of our lives in our society. Language is associated to the first cries, the first laughs and words of a child, as he or she starts to develop, to relate with their environment, their country. The loss of this language would necessarily mean the loss of part of their roots and it could take them several years of efforts to regain that sense of belonging, of wholeness fundamental to any nation.
For a number of weeks now, Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering about a couple of concepts. The first one is the concept of national unity which I relate to the concern for and the concept of national identity.
And I wonder whether we can find several national identities through this same unity. I found an article by Claude Levi-Strauss and Didier Eribon in last January's issue of L'Actualite, and I would like to tell you about it.
Levi-Strauss wrote: "It is better that cultures remain diverse or that they renew themselves through diversity. However, one must be willing to pay the price: namely, that cultures linked to a particular lifestyle or value system must protect their distinctive characteristics; such a situation is healthy, and not at all, as some would have us believe, pathological. Each culture evolves through a process of give and take with other cultures. However, each culture must offer some resistance; otherwise, it would soon have nothing of its own to give in return."
Mr. Speaker, Levi-Strauss is not just anybody- my colleague is laughing at that and that makes me relax a bit because these issues concern me very deeply. As I was saying, Levi-Strauss is not just anybody: He is certainly a first-class author.
Following what I was reading, I wrote that, for a number of years now, this question of unity, this question of identity, is a source of concern within organizations and businesses. And, without going back too far, it is interesting to note that the second industrial revolution prepared industry to have to deal with the problem. Companies were growing and expanding and the craftsman was forced more and more to fit into a larger entity
and risked losing his identity. Pretty soon after this second revolution, there came this author, Fayol, and this philosophy of the Protestant ethic, that emphasized unity of command and organizational unity. Therefore, the individual, caught in this organization's tentacles, would often wonder whether he was losing his identity.
Then came McLuhan and other authors from sociology and psychology. They examined this issue with a much more scientific approach, so that in the 1950s William White came out with a book and a theory called "The Organization Man". White told us that workers suppressed their identity. The greater the proliferation of organizations, the more important it is for the individual to find reference points and deep roots. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is through language, the mother tongue, that a culture can regain its roots and be reborn. That is why, as committee chairman, and also because our minister, who is responsible for multiculturalism, allocates money, but more importantly, implements a philosophy to protect all these cultural assets.
Mr. Speaker, I understand my time is up.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that we are running out of time. Because of the importance of this bill to all Canadians and to the country, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to refer it to committee, to make it a votable bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise in support of the bill. Coming from a city riding and being very active in the debates of last year when we proposed and passed a bill setting up a Heritage Language Foundation, it seems this bill is a logical extension of the philosophy that was expounded by a bill only last year.
In the context of a multicultural society which recognizes that only through language can culture and traditions be maintained and engendered and can a sense of history and belonging in this country come about, this bill makes much sense.


It also makes enormous sense in the context of the constitutional debates that have been generated over the course of this last month wherein all parties acknowledged the fact that we should underscore the importance of aboriginal self-determination. We can only ensure that self-determination has meaning if we acknowledge that people have a right to a sense of being that is expressed through a language medium and recognizes their own particular traditions, history and philosophy of life in the context of Canadian society.
I believe this bill addresses that, and I urge all members to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, as reported (without amendment) from Legislative Committee F.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we get into putting the motions, let me indicate that there are seven motions set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act.
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are acceptable. They will be debated together but voted upon separately.
Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk and Motions Nos. 5,6, and 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North cause the Chair some procedural difficulties in that they appear to direct the government to
Government Orders
remit some or all of the moneys collected as a result of this increased tax to the support of various groups or causes: tobacco growers, hospitals or public health programs related to tobacco consumption.
Neither Bill C-10 nor the ways and means motion upon which it is based has addressed the question of how the collected moneys could be dispensed.
In my view these motions attempt to go beyond what was envisaged by the bill given second reading by the House. Therefore, in accordance with Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 698(1), I must declare Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 out of order as they are beyond the scope of the bill.
I shall now put Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling my Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 out of order on procedural grounds. However, I would just like to remind the Speaker that the purpose of my amendments is precisely to earmark the funds for health promotion and health protection.
I wonder, as I feel there is a sense of support from across the floor, if I can have unanimous consent to have Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 put forward and debated.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-10 be amended in clause 1 by striking out lines 23 to
25 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) 0.001 cent per cigarette;
(b)	0.001 cent per tobacco stick; and
(c)	0.001 cent per gram of loose tobacco."
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-10 be amended in clause 5 by striking out lines 5 to
12 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"1. Cigarettes, $0,10889 for each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package.
2.	Tobacco sticks, $0,001 per stick.
3.	Manufactured tobacco, including snuff, but not including cigars, cigarettes and tobacco sticks, $15,215 per kilogram.
4.	Cigars, 40.001 per cent."
[Stage Direction]

Government Orders
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-10 be amended in clause 8 by striking out lines 25 to 29
at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. Cigars, $9,190 per thousand.
5.	Canadian raw leaf tobacco, when sold for consumption, $0,978 per kilogram actual mass.
6.	Tobacco sticks, $0,001 per thousand."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong objections to Bill C-10 and to propose amendments which I feel will help alleviate the adverse impact this bill will have not only on consumers of tobacco products, but also on producers of that product, tobacco farmers.
I want to make sure that this government fulfils the commitment to farmers that it has made time and time again in this House, to return some of this taxation to the producers in order to help alleviate the adverse impacts of increases on their industry.
In going through my amendments, Motion Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are essentially the same. They essentially reduce the amount of tax on tobacco products. I was unable to put in a motion to withdraw this tax totally because that motion would have been ruled out of order by yourself, Mr. Speaker, as was my Motion No. 4 which dealt with giving the returns of this taxation to tobacco farmers.
Let us be clear about this bill. This government has attempted to cloud the issue and to cover up the real intent of this bill. This bill is nothing but another tax grab by this government. This is not a health bill. The government certainly has the right and the responsibility to show its view on smoking and to alert Canadians to the potential health risks of smoking. This is not what is at issue here.
What is at issue here is the use of the tax system to impose an incredible burden on Canadians who supposedly, after considering these warnings, have exercised their ultimate right to choose. What is at issue here is the government's refusal to fulfil promises to assist tobacco farmers in their time of need and to help those who want to leave the industry, and to help those wishing to remain to find new markets for their product.
Why does this government always feel that the solution to its problem is always through taxation, to tax people into submission? It has a deficit problem. It is spending too much, more than it is taking in. So what has to be done? This government's solution is to tax people,
tax the little guy. Taxation is not the answer and it is surely not the answer in this case.
If the government is so concerned about stopping young people from smoking as it claims, why is it not implementing a program like the one in the United States. Students starting in the first year of schooling are educated about smoking and are actually offered certificates for completion of this non-smoking program. It seems to me that if it wanted to stop young people from smoking this would be a viable program to implement. Unfortunately the government has not done that. Instead it has gone the taxation route.
In a recent article Hubert Laframboise, a former deputy minister at Health and Welfare, said that this U.S. program would give students: "a continuous bombardment as to the ills and dangers of smoking and would be a nucleus of a smoke-free society". He said that this would be a beneficial way to stop smoking among young people. Again, instead, the taxation government over there decides to tax people to death.
I welcome any government's concern for the health of Canadians, but I think its concern should not only be limited to those matters which just fatten its own coffers.
This bill proposes a 3 per cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes and, by its own estimates, it will increase the government's coffers by some $1.4 billion.
The real intent of this bill is to increase revenue. It is not for the health of Canadians. It aims to do nothing more than to take money from the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It is a regressive tax, an unfair tax, and it is an unnecessary tax.
Tobacco farmers have been equally exploited by this government. With the latest tax increase it will take $4 billion a year in tobacco taxes from the sweat and labour of our tobacco farmers. What part of this $4 billion is it planning on giving back to the industry this year? Absolutely nothing.
Tobacco farmers have endured yet another year of uncertainty and hardship. While the past crop year has been a relatively good one and quota prices seem to have stabilized a bit, there is no getting away from the fact that the long-term outlook for tobacco is not a positive one.
[Stage Direction]

The decline in the demand for tobacco brought about by growing health concerns, government anti-smoking legislation and those ever increasing taxes applied to tobacco sales, has left tobacco producers in dire straits. They have been left to look for compensation, alternative markets and alternative crops.
We hear time and time again from the government side: "Why do they not find alternative crops?" I am sure most of them would like to. They would like to find an alternative crop that would make them a living, but unfortunately in these hard times for Canadian farmers tobacco farmers are no different. Their soil is not any better than the rest. They are not going to find some magical crop to take over for tobacco.
There is no question that both governments, federal and provincial, have been unfair to tobacco farmers. In many ways I believe it is the uncertainty that is hardest to take. Decisions on tax increases and compensation have been arbitrary. In fact they have been contradictory. There has been stalling. There has been a lack of real analysis and comprehensive planning for the future of our tobacco growing industry.
The result of this lack of government strategy is uncertainty, financial suffering, political cynicism and human tragedy. The tobacco farmers in my area are in no short supply of these afflictions. My communities are probably the greatest victims of a government's lack of responsibility for taxation policy. Even the slightest additional levy on one cigarette means a loss of thousands of dollars in my communities of Haldimand-Norfolk.
Last March this government stopped accepting applications for the REDUX program designed to help tobacco farmers exit the program. Now some 600 farmers in our area are on the list. Will the federal government take some of the $4 billion it alone gets out of the industry and put it back in to help compensate farmers for that? None this year went to that end.
The tobacco farmer with 18 acres produces about
45,000	pounds of dried production, of which the farmer's gross revenue before cost is $66,000. What the government takes is $4.5 billion. That is 68 times what the
Government Orders
farmer gets for his own product. The farmer then has to go and pay for the cost of producing that product. Per package the farmer's revenue is $0,073. The provincial government receives $2.31. The federal government receives $2.04. That is a tax of $4.35 alone in Ontario and the farmer gets 7.3 cents.
Since 1984, 900 farmers have abandoned the tobacco area leaving about 1,200 attempting to hang on. The transition has been very large and it has been very rapid. Nowhere has this rapid transition and displacement been felt more strongly than in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk and in the neighbouring riding of Elgin.
Traditionally it has been one of the largest tobacco growing regions in the country. I am glad the member for Elgin is here to support me today. Many farmers have lost their farms. Some have struggled to start anew with a different crop, buying different tools and equipment, learning a new crop, and usually taking a loss for the first few years; but there are only so many farmers who can find a new crop without flooding the market, and veiy few have actually succeeded.
Farmers are a vital part of the economy of Haldimand-Norfolk and of Canada. When the people of Haldimand-Norfolk suffer indeed the people of Canada suffer. The small businesses where the farmer used to buy his products suffer. The students who work on the tobacco farms suffer, and they need that money to continue their education. In fact, all Canadians suffer when farming suffers. After collecting billions of dollars each year from the labours of these hard-working farmers, the Canadian government is putting them in a situation where they cannot leave the tobacco industry without losing their farms or without losing their retirement pensions.
Even when this government had in the past allocated money to these programs the funding was woefully inadequate. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if you are aware that these farms are these farmers' retirement pensions and because of the slash in quota price, because of the inflictions of taxation policy, these farmers in the end are going to end up with nothing. What Canadian can go through life and suffer through trying to produce a legal product and suffer as much as tobacco farmers do.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
For every $300 it collected from tobacco the government gave less than $1 back to farmers who produced the product and who have lost their livelihood. Now this government contents itself with stalling tactics, with the continuation of these nickel and dime programs. The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Marketing Board has worked long and hard to receive just treatment for the tobacco farmers from the federal government. They have asked the government countless times to end the ad hoc piecemeal approach to tobacco compensation and yet now when the entire state of tobacco is uncertain, this government even refuses to give the board any indication what compensation farmers leaving the industry will receive this year.
Imagine the uncertainty and the stress this lack of government compassion is causing the stricken farmers this very minute. These farmers want nothing more than to be treated fairly.
A group of these farmers have formed together. They have formed together to sue the federal and provincial governments for their increases in taxation over the last years. What did the governments do? They challenged these farmers' rights in the court. They challenged the rights in the court because they felt they had the ultimate time, that they had the ultimate responsibility to be able to defend what compensation these farmers would receive. Quite frankly Canadian farmers and indeed tobacco farmers are upset with this government because of the taxation policies and are willing to show this government next time around why they are upset with them.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss at report stage Bill C-10. First of all I would like to indicate that I share a number of the concerns of my hon. colleague who has just spoken of the concern and plight of those in the tobacco production business. The tobacco farmers themselves obviously have not been treated fairly and not been given adequate support in order to move into other agricultural ventures. But that is something that we have before us, the challenge to deal with in the future, but today we are discussing the pricing of tobacco which I think is, I suppose one can say, indirectly related, but certainly not very directly related and a whole other matter.
I must say that I support Bill C-10 in these areas because I think it is fair to say that tobacco is the only legal consumer product that actually kills people when it
is used as intended. This is rather astonishing when you consider that if people actually followed the intended use of this legal product they would have a very good chance of dying prematurely. As well, they would have a good opportunity of seeing to the premature death of those who sit around them as they smoke because we all know the implications of second-hand smoke.
We are dealing with a substance that is a killer substance. If there are steps that can be taken as members of Parliament to encourage people to reduce the consumption of this particular substance or perhaps not to use it at all, I think that is in the best interests not only of those individuals but of our society generally.
I must say that Canada leads the world in tobacco control. It is regarded around the world as a leader in controlling this substance and our success in reducing tobacco consumption in this country over the past few years actually testifies to the strength of this comprehensive approach. In the three year period, between 1989 and 1991, tobacco consumption in Canada has dropped over 20 per cent. It was during the same period that Canada passed two landmark pieces of tobacco control legislation, the Tobacco Products Control Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act, imposed significant tobacco tax increases in two separate budgets, 2 cents per cigarette in 1989 and 3 cents per cigarette in 1991.
Consumption in 1991 alone, largely owing to the substantial tax increases in the 1991 federal and provincial budgets, is expected to drop by approximately 10 per cent.
When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that there has been much research done on the precise relationship between the price and demand for tobacco products, we know now without any question that for every 10 per cent increase in price consumption will drop by 4 per cent. Because young people are more price sensitive, the impact of a price increase on their consumption of tobacco is even more pronounced. For every 10 per cent increase in price, consumption by young people and teens will drop 14 per cent.
I am going to add a few figures, but they are actually quite astounding. The tax increase of 3 cents per cigarette introduced in the 1991 federal budget means that cigarette prices increased by approximately 18 per cent at the retail level. This price increase will result in a decline in consumption of between 7 and 11 per cent or in other words, 450,000 to 700,000 fewer smokers.

According to the World Health Organization, between one-quarter and one-third of all smokers will die from their tobacco use. Therefore, 450,000 to 700,000 fewer smokers means between 112,000 and 230,000 fewer tobacco caused deaths. No other single tobacco control measure could mean so many lives saved.
It is estimated that consumption among young people will drop a dramatic 25 per cent. Of course, the greatest success to be achieved by any tobacco control program is to prevent people from becoming addicted in the veiy first place. This one measure is expected to stop at least
30.000	young people, age 19 and under, from joining the tobacco market. Many thousands more will quit smoking.
In total this budget change will result in approximately
100.000	fewer teenaged smokers in our country. Because virtually all new users of tobacco products are minors, reducing smoking participation rates among teenagers will, if sustained, result in a substantial decline in the adult smoking population in future decades.
I want to also use this opportunity to refer to a private member's bill that I introduced a few weeks ago that would increase the penalty to those retailers who sell tobacco products to very young children. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, if you are a retailer and you sell tobacco products to a 10 year old, you will be levied a fine of $10 if found guilty. This might have made sense 50 years ago, but in a modern day sense to be fined $10 is hardly something that is going to encourage people to uphold the law.
My private member's bill substantially increases those penalties to what I would term as rather unscrupulous or certainly unthoughtful retailers. A recent study in my own community found that when this particular group who were concerned about young people smoking below the legal age of 16 sent 10, 12 and 13 year olds into a variety of business outlets asking to purchase cigarettes, in most cases the retailers quite wilfully sold a package of cigarettes to a 12 year old. Obviously, a 12 year old is not someone that is 16. At those ages it is pretty obvious.
Government Orders
For that reason I think it betrays a rather lackadaisical attitude at least that some people still have in terms of this particular problem, that as I said earlier while legal and used as intended will actually kill you or the likelihood is certainly there.
Although actually I do not normally support government legislation, I find myself in support of this. I only hope that there is a chance that you would consider your ruling, but I suppose you will not, on the hon. member for Winnipeg North's amendment that would permit the taxes to be directed to health programs. I think this is a useful initiative. It is a targeting of tax dollars to something we would all support. However, technically I understand the reason for your ruling and unfortunately we will not be able to deal with this. Perhaps we could find some other way of introducing this measure at a later date, but I commend the hon. member for this initiative in this particularly critical area.
It would be easy to go on at some length about the horrors of tobacco smoking and the concerns it causes, to say nothing of the incredible costs it imposes on society because of the strain it puts on our health care system. Those speeches have all been made and I think my comments today certainly sum up my feeling on this, and it is that we should not support these amendments that are being put forward by my humble colleague, but support the general intent of this legislation.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both my colleagues for their comments. As those who are sitting here in the House today and those watching the proceedings on television will see, there are definitely two opinions on the piece of legislation we have before us.
I would be very surprised if these amendments to this legislation had the backing of the Liberal caucus because I know many in the caucus, especially the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who has great concern in this area, support this type of activity but would, as his amendments indicated, like to see moneys earmarked for specific reasons from the moneys raised by the increase in taxes.


Government Orders
My colleague from Kamloops laid out some very important statistics, facts and figures that we are concerned about. As a matter of fact, if you look at the projections of moneys to be received from the taxation of cigarettes, we have allowed over the five-year plan for that to gradually go down. We believe that cigarette smoking will continue to decrease.
Our major concern in the health end of things are the numbers of young people who start smoking. The hon. member referred to the retailer selling to youths, and so on. He has a very good point there, there is no question about that. We are finding that especially young female teenagers are taking up the habit. They have probably been the growth industry for the cigarette manufacturers, and of course we are concerned about it. Those in the know, not the government but those outside government, tell us that these proposals in Bill C-10 will prevent 100,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. If that is the case, then the bill has in fact been very helpful.
The colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk whose amendments we are discussing today made some points and I understand his concerns. He represents tobacco farmers here in the House of Commons.
Many tobacco farmers have left the business. There has been some help for them. There has not been a refusal, as he said in his speech, to help the tobacco farmers this year. We are waiting for the Ontario government to co-operate with a program to help the tobacco farmers because it taxes as well and it has the responsibility of sharing to help tobacco farmers. We are waiting for it and he knows that. Those facts were given to him in committee and I was a little shocked when 1 heard his speech today because he slightly misrepresented the facts as they were presented to him, and I felt badly about that.
As far as educational programs in our schools are concerned, curriculum, of course, is the responsibility of provinces. The ministry of health in the federal government has a number of excellent publications regarding health care and the problem with cigarette smoking. They arc widely distributed in schools. I know there arc programs there to encourage young people to stop smoking.
The motions that my friend from Haldimand-Norfolk has proposed today, just so that people understand the magnitude of them, would reduce the taxation on a carton of cigarettes by almost $6. Four-tenths of one cent would be the increase in the taxation and not the $6 per carton the bill purports to do. That is inconsistent with the vote of this House to adopt the ways and means motion and the approval in principle given to the bill by the House of Commons at second reading.
All groups that appeared before committee, people from the field of health, the cancer institute and so on and so forth, support this bill. There is no question about it.
He said that the return to the tobacco farmers is small compared to the end price of the product, and there is no question about that. Grain farmers could probably say the same thing with some of the products they produce, although tobacco farmers' returns compared to what other farmers are finding in returns these days are substantially more than $6,000 more to the farmer. That is the average right now and is of great concern to those of us in this country.
I understand his concerns for the farmers. We share those with him, but we believe that this is a very important bill for the health of the country and to raise revenues. We do not shy away from that. Bills have to be paid.
My friend from the New Democratic Party discussed today some very accurate statistics on the health aspects of cigarette smoking. They cost a tremendous amount of money in health care to which all levels of government contribute. Therefore we have to fund that care.
It is estimated that 30,000 Canadians die each year from the result of cigarette smoking. Anyone who has lung diseases and breathing disorders-not being a medical practitioner I cannot put all the names to them but emphysema and so on-knows full well the health care costs attributed to this. We as a federal government have to pay a good share of those health costs.
All these matters come into play. I would urge that we dclcat Motions 1 to 3 in the name of my colleague and friend from Haldimand-Norfolk and that we proceed to third reading as soon as possible on this particular piece of legislation.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join this debate and support Bill C-10 as an effective tobacco taxation measure.
The health community and I think Canadians generally support the use of fiscal policy as an important component in the comprehensive strategy to reduce tobacco use.
Because of the direct link between the price of tobacco products and their level of consumption, tobacco tax increases are a highly effective health promotion measure. I know that from personal experience. I quit smoking when the price of cigarettes went up to 50 cents a pack and that is a few years ago, as anybody who has attempted to buy a package of cigarettes knows. It is a highly effective health promotion measure.
There is a direct link between price and consumption. As a number of people have pointed out, the young people are most price sensitive. The impact of a price increase on their consumption of tobacco is even more pronounced. That is, for every 10 per cent increase in price consumption will drop by 4 per cent. Hurray, I do not want young people to start smoking and those who have already started smoking, I want them to stop. If we have to tax cigarettes out of existence then I think that is what we should do.
As other people in the House have said the major market is young women. That is another tragedy. It is young women who become pregnant and then pass on the smoke to their infants which causes more health problems. It is a snowball effect.
No other single tobacco control measure could mean as much as a tax increase. No other measure would mean that so many lives could be saved. It is estimated that increasing tobacco taxation will cause young people to stop smoking at a rate of 25 per cent. That is terrific. I cannot understand why there are some members of the Liberal caucus who want to amend this legislation and encourage the use of tobacco.
Tobacco farmers do need support. They need support to get out of the product and to get into new crops that will promote the health of Canadians.
Critics also argue that a substantial tax increase represents an unjust infringement on the rights of smokers to consume a legal product. My colleague, the member for Kamloops, has pointed out that tobacco is the only legal consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended.
Government Orders
Once again I know from personal experience that this is true. My closest friend died 10 years ago from lung cancer, leaving three young children. She had tried to quit smoking a number of times. The smoking finally got to her and she died. Her children are now the same age as my children. They are teenagers, but those teenagers have grown up without the benefit of a wonderful woman as their mother.
There is no freedom from addiction. There is no freedom from the cardiac unit or the cancer ward. The cost to society from tobacco caused deaths and disabilities is billions of dollars every year. That does not even take into account the extraordinary cost and the lost contribution to society of the more than 35,000 Canadians who die tobacco caused deaths every year. These numbers are mind numbing: 35,000 Canadians die from tobacco caused deaths every year.
The government is to be congratulated. I would like to underline the word "congratulated". I am not accustomed to congratulating this government. It should be congratulated for understanding the important role fiscal policy plays in the comprehensive strategy to reduce tobacco use.
In the three-year period, 1989 through 1991, tobacco consumption in Canada has dropped over 20 per cent.
Once again I have a personal story. My 73-year old mother has just quit smoking. I applaud her courage in doing that at this very late stage in her life. It is not just her life, but the lives of all of us who care about her, who care about her health and want her to live many, many more years. The price of tobacco products was a partial reason for her decision to quit.
In 1991 alone consumption, largely owing to the substantial tax increases in the 1991 federal and provincial budget, is expected to drop by approximately 10 per cent. There is a direct linkage between health care costs and tobacco costs.
As a member of the New Democratic Party, the same party that is now forming the government in British Columbia where health care costs are going through the roof, any instrument we may use at the federal and provincial level to reduce health care costs and to pass along the kind of revenues that provinces need to look after the health of their citizens should be applauded. I think we in this House should applaud the government's role in using fiscal policy as an instrument for tobacco use and pass Bill C-10.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on Motion No. 1. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government Whip and the opposition Whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until three o'clock p.m. later this day, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions during the interval when the bells were ringing. I think you would find unanimous consent simply to suspend the sitting until two o'clock. Then the division would take place shortly after Question Period later this afternoon. That would serve the House best.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.48 p.m.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, Small Business Week starts today. Small businesses make a major contribution to the Canadian economy. In fact, in his last Budget, the Minister of Finance called small businesses the motor of Canada's economy. However, as a result of the Tory government's unsound economic policies, Mr. Speaker, the motor is not running smoothly. Small businesses are suffering as a result of the GST and the government's monetary policies.



Since the Tory government came to power, there has been a record number of bankruptcies and lay-offs in this country. In Montreal the situation is catastrophic. Since March 1990, Montreal has lost more than 17,000 jobs in the clothing industry, more than 14,000 in the hotel industry, and the list is endless. Mr. Speaker, to improve the health of small businesses in this country, we need a Liberal government.



THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, at noon today three very important international organizations, the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Program, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, released a very important report called Caring for the Earth, a strategy for sustainable living.
This report says: "Humanity must live within the caring capacity of the earth or we deny the human future". This new book is both an analysis and a plan of action, if you like a user's guide to caring for the earth.
Caring for the Earth defines two basic requirements: to keep human activities within the earth's caring capacity and to redress the imbalances in security and opportunity between the richer and the poorer parts of the world. It is addressed in direct language to politicians, executives, business people, and citizens.
In order to achieve this, it states clearly that a global alliance is essential for success. This would involve strengthening international law, helping lower income countries, turning around the north-south financial flows, and strengthening international commitment and capacity to achieve sustainability.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that later this afternoon you will host a reception acknowledging the importance of this publication. I urge all members to support it and to read it earnestly.



MEN AGAINST VIOLENCE

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers of this weekend's national conference on male violence, and to urge all men to support the very worth-while proposals coming from this gathering.
Men make up only 48 per cent of our population, yet we are responsible for 90 per cent of the violence. For too long now we have denied this problem, keeping silent and pretending it was a woman's problem if she was beaten. It is our problem and we are the perpetrators of the violence. We must work hard to stop it.
The conference produced some very tactical proposals. They include men's organizations, lobbying on behalf of women's shelters, a national pornography boycott and changes in our schools' curriculum to eliminate sexism and stereotyping.
The women of this country live in fear of male violence. In a country such as ours, we cannot and must not allow this to continue. Now is the time for men to speak out against this violence, and to do their part to make it stop.



BRITISH COLUMBIA ELECTION

Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday British Columbians elected the highest percentage of women ever to any Canadian legislature or Parliament, 26 per cent.
It is the first time in Canadian history that more than one quarter of a legislature is made up of women members, even though women are more than half the population.
We are looking forward to better days in British Columbia. We finally have a chance to establish firm roots of equality for women. Thirty-one per cent of the governing New Democratic Party caucus are women. It is a government of women and men committed to full social, legal and economic equality for women.


5. o. 3i
We are sweeping the country, and it is about time.



HOUSING

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in these financially strapped times, we need creative thinking if young people are going to be able to afford to buy homes.
The Canadian Real Estate Association has been working diligently to come up with just such creative solutions. It proposed a plan where first time home buyers could have their registered retirement savings plan assume an equity share in their home.
Similar to the treatment of common stock held in an RRSP, the RRSP owned portion of the capital appreciation of the house would be taxable. Many young families may be willing to forgo the capital gains exemption on the share of their home owned by the RRSP in return for earlier home ownership and greater equity in the property.
The Real Estate Association has developed this proposal with input from industry members, financial institutions, consumers and government. I urge the Minister of Finance and his officials to give this proposal serious consideration.
Young families who are looking to buy their first home need this type of support.



YUGOSLAVIA

Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, nations around the world are still deeply concerned at the internationally peace threatening conflict which is taking place in Yugoslavia.
Not only are we witnessing the horrible destruction of property and human life in Yugoslavia, but many fear that the racial tensions expressed there will spill over into other countries in the area.
Across this country, concerned Canadians are rallying to demonstrate for a peaceful resolution to the Yugoslavian conflict. In London Ontario alone, 400 demonstrated for peace in Yugoslavia this past weekend.
The Prime Minister has said that the UN must play a role. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said
that the international community must act, that we must induce Yugoslav parties to honour a cease-fire.
An embargo was suggested. Canada must not wait. It must lead the way and continually act until peace in Yugoslavia is achieved.



GUN CONTROL

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention an article published in Paris Match in October 1991, which is about violence, children and firearms in America.
According to the article, it is the new American disease, the biggest epidemic since AIDS. It is spreading in schools, classrooms and playgrounds. Not a single large city in the United States has been spared. According to the FBI, 2,162 children and teenagers were killed by gunshots last year, an average of six children per day. In a subway station in Greenwich Village, two 14 year-olds shot a high school student in the back to get her gold chain. In the Bronx, a 9-year old practises shooting from the window of his apartment and narrowly misses a woman in the apartment across the street. Eveiy day, statistics show the extent of the massacre. Firearms have recently become the main cause of death among young people.
Mr. Speaker, I hope these few sentences will make people think, especially those who, naively or otherwise, favour the complete absence of gun control in this country.



ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES

Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, if we are to say that language is about understanding one another, then today in this House the aboriginal people of Canada have been totally misunderstood and unappreciated.
The government authorities on the other side have deemed that the bill to establish an aboriginal languages foundation would be dropped from the Order Paper and not have unanimous consent to make it a votable bill.


It is serious when we realize that languages with fewer than 10 speakers in Canada are on the verge of extinction. Those with 10 to 100 speakers are extremely endangered. Out of the 53 aboriginal languages, only three languages have more than 5,000 speakers.
Could these people have not found it in their hearts to do the right thing and not to be confronted further on the constitutional end on this very vital issue?



CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS

Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have all of the facts about where their country is going, so I rise today to condemn statements made in a newspaper ad this past weekend by the Canadian Labour Congress and Action Canada. The ad said this government has a high interest rate policy. That is wrong. Today's prime rate of 9 per cent is the lowest in years.
The ad blamed free trade for the loss of 300,000 jobs. Wrong again. A continent-wide recession, a natural but regrettable economic cycle was largely to blame.
The ad said this government is not interested in advancing women in the work place. Absolutely wrong. The creation of permanent, full-time jobs for women has been a priority and an accomplishment.
This is the worst kind of political advocacy advertising. It seeks to distort the facts and foster confrontation which makes Canada uncompetitive.
Finally, I am curious as to why this ad uses American spelling instead of Canadian. Has the CLC been using Bob Rae's American advertising agency?



ABBY HOFFMAN

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government moved Abby Hoffman from her position as Director General of Sport Canada. She now has a senior planning position with Health and Welfare.
In her career so far, Abigail Hoffman has made an outstanding contribution to sport in Canada. She had a great career in track and field for Canada, qualifying three times for the Olympic finals in the 800 metres.
More important, in the last 10 years as Director General of Sport in Canada, she has shown leadership and a commitment to equality of access to sport, a
commitment to excellence in sport to a strong professional administration of sport, and to a strong federal leadership in sport.
I hope this move by the government does not signal a lack of commitment by the government to these important achievements by Abby Hoffman. We congratulate her on her achievements so far and look to even greater things in the future.

NATIONAL HOMEMAKER/HOME SUPPORT WORKER WEEK


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South West):: Mr. Speaker, Home Support Canada has declared this week of October 20 to 27, 1991, National Homemaker/Home Support Worker Week.
During this time, Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in numerous activities meant to increase public awareness of the homemaker and/or home support workers role in making Canada a caring nation.
These workers all across Canada provide a variety of services in their homes to people who truly need them; teaching young parents in crisis the necessary skills effectively to operate a home or providing assistance to persons living with AIDS. Those are just two examples of the many services they provide.
The value of home support services to seniors, persons with disabilities and families in crisis really cannot be ignored. One study found that 72 per cent of Canadians over the age of 85 have disabilities while 40 per cent of those between 65 and 84 also are considered to have disabilities. Seventy-two per cent of all persons with disabilities require assistance in their households to help with their chores and meal preparation.
Home support staff and volunteers are to be congratulated for their contribution and commitment to a better way of life.



MEN AGAINST VIOLENCE

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in this House today to applaud a group of men who sponsored and held a conference this past weekend here in the nation's capital on violence, Men against Violence. It is heartening to see that these men are taking an active role in combating that problem which has darkened all our lives.

Indeed, we are approaching the anniversary of that day two years ago when a man with a gun murdered 14 women in cold blood because they were women.
Last week in a place called Killeen, Texas, another man with another gun walked in to a diner and 15 minutes later he and 22 other people were dead. Today the death toll has risen to 25. Fifteen of these victims were women.
The men at the conference this weekend undertook to help change in a fundamental way the attitudes that some of their brothers have about women. These attitudes have resulted in 40 per cent of the people in society committing 90 per cent of the violence against the rest.
The conference proposals included a commitment from those in attendance to lobby others to stop sexism, stereotyping and violence directed at women and children of all ages. Those at the conference believe that the participation of men is crucial to stopping male violence.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House will join with me in congratulating the participants of this weekend's conference and also to join them in ending the silence.



PENITENTIARIES

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, while gathering information to support the application of Colchester county to attract a proposed facility for federally sentenced women, we have determined some disturbing disparities which have a very negative impact on the economy of rural and small town Nova Scotia.
There are 13,000 federal employees in Nova Scotia and
10,000	of these are in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. Although Halifax-Dartmouth has only 33 per cent of the population, it has over 75 per cent of the federal government jobs. This inequity is completely out of all proportion and every effort should be made to decentralize this employment around the province.
An excellent start would be for the Solicitor General to announce that the facility for federally sentenced women would be located in Colchester county. With 70 per cent of the inmates coming from rural areas, Colchester provides an excellent location and a positive community atmosphere to reinforce women as they move back into society.
Not only is Colchester the very best place for the facility, it will begin to correct the disparity in federal government jobs in Nova Scotia.



NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK

Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National Science and Technology Week. The importance of science and technology cannot be underestimated, as these fields will be Canada's passport into the next decade.
This government sponsors many excellent programs in the field of education. One which comes to mind is the Canada scholarships. This program offers a wonderful opportunity for 2,500 outstanding men and women for undergraduate studies in science and engineering.
Encouraging students to venture into the fields of science and engineering is an insurance policy for all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, four of the recipients of this year's scholarships are from the riding of Wild Rose. I am proud today to congratulate all the recipients. Diligence has its rewards.



NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today the Nobel committee in Norway announced that it was awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar or Burma's opposition leader. While many of us who have supported the struggle of the people of Burma for democracy' and justice rejoiced at this news, it is highly probable that Ms. Suu Kyi herself is unaware that she is the recipient of this prestigious award.
Ms. Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for two years now, following a bloody crackdown by the military government against the opposition movement in Burma. Despite her detention, she successfully led her party to an overwhelming victory in national elections in May,
1990.


The Nobel committee praised Ms. Suu Kyi for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights and for one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent decades. It is such courage that must motivate the policies on human rights of the Government of Canada.
I call on the Prime Minister to take a leadership role in condemning the systemic, gross and continuous violations of human rights in Myanmar. I am sure all members of the House would join in congratulating Aung San Suu Kyi for her courage and leadership.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to welcome the Prime Minister back from his meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I would like to say that we appreciated his speeches on human rights, but according to Amnesty International, the Iranian government has jailed hundreds of opponents to the present regime. Torture is common in that country. While the Prime Minister was making his pretty speeches in Zimbabwe, the Minister for International Trade was in Tehran last month, to extend a one billion dollar line of credit to the Iranian government, which has been condemned by Amnesty International.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile what he said about human rights at the Commonwealth Conference with the one billion dollar line of credit extended to the government in Tehran?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well there are distinctions to be made in international finance and direct aid to developing countries. For instance, despite the problem we have always had with certain major actions by the Chinese government, we still have trade relations with China. We are trying to sell wheat from the Canadian West, as we have been for the past 25 or 30 years, so there are some important distinctions to be made.
As far as protecting human rights is concerned, I announced the Government of Canada's policy in Africa
Oral Questions
last week, and I think it is a policy that stands on its own merits. It is the Canadian government's policy, and it is one that we intend to defend regularly, not just at Commonwealth meetings but also at the Francophone Summit and throughout the world.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as he has just said in French, the Prime Minister is just back from the Commonwealth Conference in Zimbabwe where he talked a lot about human rights.
Yet at the very moment he was making these speeches about human rights, his government was busy sending back to Iran a woman who had been beaten 35 times with a steel cable because she was not wearing a veil. I want to ask the Prime Minister where is the government's so-called commitment to human rights?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say to the hon. member and to members in this House that the question he raises is a very serious and delicate one indeed.
He knows, as do all members, that the Privacy Act prevents me from going into detail-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: It prevents me from going into the details of this case.
I can advise the House however that the individual in question has had the benefit of the most generous refugee determination system in the world. This person has also sought intervention on the part of the minister on human and compassionate grounds.
With the information I have at this time concerning this case, I have indicated that I was not in a position to intervene. I am looking at the details of this case, as are my officials as we speak here, and when I have fully assessed all aspects of that claim I will be able to make a final determination. Contrary to certain media reports that person is not scheduled for deportation today.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes have a little difficulty in figuring out what this government thinks a refugee is. Last spring ministers were busy with the red carpet treatment from Ottawa to Vancouver for Al-Mashat and here is a lady who received 35 lashes with a steel cable. The minister says that he needs more information. It is in the file, Mr. Speaker.


Oral Questions
I want to know from this government when it will do the right thing and not send that lady back to hell, but give her refugee status in Canada right away.


Bernard Valcourt: I guess, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member chooses to play on the repulsive side of what has taken place in the country of that person. It is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
I have told the hon. member that I was looking at the case as we speak, that I was going to assess all of it and then make a decision. That decision has to be made within the framework of the Immigration Act. We have to look at the interest of Canada in making that decision also.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. The same minister will know that he has had several days to review an extremely extensive file on this woman.
In fact, his officials and his government took the position that even though this woman was taken from a private party, arrested, publicly flogged 35 times, and spent a month in hospital as a result of the flogging, according to affidavits which he has in his possession, the Canadian government has taken the position that this degradation was and I quote "not exceedingly harsh considering that she has not suffered permanent physical damage". The minister will note that is a direct quote from the file.
Is it the minister's position that women who are whipped with wire cables will only be allowed to stay in Canada if they have permanent scars from the whipping?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just quoted the refugee determination board. She attributes that to the Government of Canada. She should stand up, apologize to Canadians and say that that decision was made by the refugee determination board. It was not the decision of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: You know better than that.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this	B
woman was thrown in the Hamilton jail last Wednesday	B
night because this minister upheld the decision which he	H
is now trying to dissociate himself from. 'Hie final	H
decision lies in the hands of this minister.
I asked him last week if he would please reconsider	I
and I ask him once again. Will he exercise his judgment	I
and tell this woman and hundreds of others like her that	fl
they do not have to return to Iran after they have been	B
publicly flogged and hospitalized to the extent that this	fl
woman was tortured by the Government of Iran? Will he	fl
tell her today as she sits under arrest by his officials now	fl
in Toronto?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting to this House that every time a citizen, not of Canada but of a foreign country, comes to Canada and seeks to be landed, because in his or her own country there is a law that that person does not like-and that it happens we also in Canada find repulsive-does that mean that just because of-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to tell the House is that the decision to be made in this case has to take into account all of the factors. This is what I am doing.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would first like to tell the Prime Minister that the policy of tying economic aid to human rights is laudable. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he can now go further and act. Will he announce today that any aid from Canada, any economic support and any economic treaty will depend directly on respect for human rights?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in general, people seem to support the Canadian position that I articulated at the Commonwealth meeting-in particular, a statement by the Hon. Ed Broadbent, if I am not mistaken. One of the results is found in the Commonwealth communique today, which reads as follows:
"-having reaffirmed the principles to which the Commonwealth is committed-the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth, democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, et cetera; fundamental human rights including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief; equality for women, so that they may exercise their full and equal rights".
What we were trying to do in the Commonwealth was to signal, as an important donor nation to the Commonwealth and elsewhere, that Canada, this government and its Parliament, will be guided in these decisions in future more and more by considerations of the manner in which these countries treat their own citizens; that human rights is a question of fundamental importance. It cannot be set aside. It is one that Canada is going to try and incorporate more and more with its allies and friends around the world into the general thrust of assistance to countries that seek to develop democracy in their own countries.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the members of the Commonwealth did not totally get on board with the Prime Minister. As I said earlier in my first question, it is a laudable goal, I believe, to attach economic aid to human rights development.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a question in the leadership role that he is taking on this issue. We are now in the process of negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, a country that an Amnesty International delegation visited last year, interviewed dozens of people and said, and I quote: "These people had suffered or witnessed human rights violations, harassment, illegal detention, ill treatment, arbitrary killings, extrajudicial executions, disappearances and torture".
Given the leadership that the Prime Minister has said he is prepared to take on human rights, will he withdraw from the trade deal discussions with Mexico?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, since 1987 the cabinet meets to consider the question of human rights in regard to foreign policy
Oral Questions
decisions, particularly in regard to the question of the distribution of aid and assistance. Canada in this regard is the second highest granting nation of the G-7 countries and ranks with the top in the world. So our contributions in real dollars are not insignificant. We can have an impact if we do this in co-operation with friends and allies around the world.
It is generally acknowledged that President Salinas has made remarkable strides not only in modernizing his economy but in dealing with human rights abuses.


Mr. Barrett:: Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I had the occasion two or three weeks ago at Stanford University to discuss this question with him and I am encouraged by his commitment to the elimination of human rights abuses which have taken place and his commitment to substantial improvements in the future.
Amnesty International makes an important contribution around the world and this is one of the factors that the Government of Canada considers when it makes its determination on aid at the end of every given year. With regard to the comments by my hon. friend from British Columbia about President Salinas, these I repudiate because President Salinas is widely recognized as a leader who is doing a great deal both to modernize his country and to respect human rights in all of its activities.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say that we are in support of human rights, but it is another thing to take the kind of direct action on behalf of Canadians that will demonstrate that we care about human rights in these countries.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that I am aware of the measures that the Mexican government has taken, but still international bodies such as America's Watch say: "The volume and severity of reported abuses in Mexico remains unchanged".
The Prime Minister said just this month that: "nothing in international relations is more important than respect for individual freedoms and human rights". I agree. Will the Prime Minister withdraw from the talks with Mexico on the basis that it is violating those very human rights he wishes to champion?


Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: No,
Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that I do not accept the premise of my hon. friend. I do not question her sincerity, but I do not accept the premise.
What we are trying to do with the North American free trade agreement is to take a developing country and, through the combination of trade, principally trade but also some aid mostly of a technological and a technical nature, to raise the living standards of the poorest of Mexicans.
My hon. friend from the NDP says: "Tb lower ours." That is a socialist view, that you help poor people by lowering the revenues of the wealthy countries. That is exactly false. This government and this Parliament believes that the way you assist the poor is by opening your markets, by trading more liberally with them so that you raise the wealth and the individual well-being of individual Mexicans without impoverishing Canadians.


FOOD BANKS
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. More than 25,000 households in Montreal now depend on food banks every month, an increase of 23 per cent since last year. Sid Stevens, director of Sun Youth, would like to see joint action by the three levels of government, at the highest level, and the food banks to discuss ways to end this situation. Will the Prime Minister undertake to initiate such a meeting as soon as possible?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that everything must be done to try to eliminate the need for food banks wherever they are in this country, although in our present circumstances, they are extremely useful for the people who call on them.
I think that the hon. member knows that last week, in cooperation with the Government of Quebec, we made an important announcement concerning Canadair. But I also said then that I intended very soon to meet with ministers of the Quebec government and representatives of the city of Montreal, and the meeting is scheduled, to coordinate the action that the federal government is taking and continues to take in Montreal.
I think that on the whole we agree that federal action, which is recognized in Quebec as ongoing in recent years, should continue so that the kind of problems to which my colleague refers can be avoided, and I fully agree with him.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sid Stevens, Sun Youth's director, has extended a personal invitation to the Prime Minister to visit Sun Youth to talk about the lack of jobs, affordable housing and day care, which have made food banks the fastest growing industry in Canada.
I would ask the Prime Minister to visit Sun Youth to see for himself how serious the situation has become.
Will the Prime Minister reply promptly to this invitation and will he initiate a meeting between the three levels of government and the directors of food banks to obtain their perspective on how to put food banks out of business?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the observation. I agree with his assessment of Sid Stevens and Sun Youth and the very good work that they do in Montreal. There are similar institutions that exist elsewhere.
We have an immediate problem and it is not an insignificant one.
I will be happy to look at the suggestion of my hon. friend. I think that all the donors and even the executive director and his colleagues would agree that while there is this important short term and immediate problem, the longer haul solution must be to continue the lowering of interest rates and to bring inflation down, as it came down last Friday to the lowest point that it has been since 1970, and to develop an economic recovery plan with low inflation, high investment and declining unemployment based on lower interest rates which comes about because of international investor confidence.
That is what we are in the process of doing. The results are encouraging, but I will acknowledge that my friend's suggestion is an interesting one, one that I will look at and report back to him.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the right hon. Prime Minister on the same subject.
In metropolitan Toronto, food bank use has grown by 44 per cent. Yet, public donations have gone up by only 21 per cent, and $16 million worth of donated food will be distributed this year alone.
Why has the Prime Minister refused to visit the Daily Bread Food Bank to which he was invited in Toronto, the largest food bank in Canada, to see for himself where 2 million Canadians will get their food this year? What solutions does he have for the elimination of food banks in Canada, which are becoming permanent institutions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend again, no doubt with some consultation with my friend from Saint-Henri-West-mount, asks the larger question: What are we going to do to eliminate the food banks?
The year-over-year rate of inflation was 5.4 per cent in September, down from-


Mr. Keyes:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberals ask a question, and when you begin to give a serious answer, they start to heckle. They do not want an answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our friends refuse to acknowledge it, but the fact of the matter is that-as I have indicated this may not appeal to a government that 10 years ago today had a prime rate of 22.75 per cent-it is down to 8.5 per cent today. Inflation was 12.9 per cent and it appears now it will be annualizing next year in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent.
Economic growth-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park will put his question, please.


An hon. member:: He did.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They raise a question of poverty. When we try to deal with the-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is the policies and the uncaring attitude of this governor Questions
ment over the last seven years that have driven this country to a food bank economy.
The burden of feeding Canada's most vulnerable people has been refused by this government and has been dumped on to charitable organizations. Will the Prime Minister do something positive to help the poor and the needy by removing the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan today?


Mr. Andre:: Do you want us to raise taxes or increase the deficit?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the number of low income Canadians declined by 1 million over the 1984-89 period.
As a result of changing the personal tax system,
850,000	low income Canadians, including 245,000 seniors, had their income tax reduced to zero. In 1991, $2.4 billion will be paid out to 8.6 million low and middle income tax filers as a result of the GST tax credit. The child tax credit was increased by almost 50 per cent since 1986.
In co-operation with the creation of 1.4 million new permanent jobs in Canada, a low inflation rate and high investment figures is the way that we must go to eliminate poverty in Canada. It cannot be done artificially. It cannot be done like the Liberals tried to do it, by printing or borrowing money. It must be done by sustained economic growth, by adherence to firm and reasonable fiscal policies that inspire confidence and growth. That is what is taking place and that is what we are going to do.


HUMAN RIGHTS
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, in my hand I have two documents published by Amnesty International. One is dated September 1991. Both of these documents refer to human rights violations by way of torture in Mexico. The recent document in September of this year categorically states that the moves by the President of Mexico have been a failure and human rights violations by torture have continued to this date. This document gives chapter and verse September this year.
The Prime Minister said and I quote: "Nothing in international relations is more important than respect for individual freedoms and human rights". How does the Prime Minister avoid the accusation of hypocrisy in continuing to sit with Mexico while these-


Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. There are a lot of ways to use words that have been held to be unparliamentary and that was another way of doing it. I know that the hon. member would want to put his question without an accusation that is unparliamentary.


David Barrett: All right, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister, will he convey to the President of Mexico his newfound standards of human rights behaviour and apply it to his sitting at the table with Mexico as he gives lectures to other countries in the world?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is going to have to make up his mind. His leader has just complimented the government for the position we have taken and my hon. friend seems to be in a disagreement with it.


David Barrett: Why not apply it to Mexico.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Make up your mind. Do you support the government on this or don't you?


David Barrett: Why are you being a hypocrite?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has put a question and the right hon. Prime Minister is answering it. I give the floor to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to ascertain who is really speaking for the NDP on this important matter. I have articulated a position on behalf of the Government of Canada that is one we think is appropriate and helpful.
I know my hon. friend has really got a bee in his bonnet about Mexico. He really does not like Mexico and he really does not like Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca will put his second question.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, does the statement made by the Prime Minister regarding human rights recently uttered by him at the Commonwealth apply to Canada's relationships with Mexico?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we do not have with Mexico the kinds of relationships to which my hon. friend referred on the declaration of-


An hon. member:: A $700 million line of credit.


An hon. member:: When were you against selling wheat to the Soviet Union?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have already indicated that I have had conversations with the President of Mexico. There is general recognition that President Salinas is doing some pretty impressive things in regard both to modernizing his country and improving the human rights situation. I think he should be encouraged for that.
If we take my hon. friend at face value today on the floor of the House of Commons, the implication of what he has said means that we would terminate all our activity to sell wheat to the Soviet Union today, that we would terminate our billion dollar contract and lines of credit with China because of human rights violations there. In other words, Canada would cease to exist on a commercial basis.


David Barrett: Why are you being a hypocrite?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The only hypocrite here, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Willowdale.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Tory economic record of which the Prime Minister spoke so glowingly, last month Canada lost 24,000 jobs in its retail sector. At the same time as this happened cross-border shopping has sky-rocketed. It is up a staggering 58 per cent and many communities are being devastated.
Will the Minister of Finance at least admit what every Canadian shopper knows; that his high tax, high dollar policies are hurting Canada and are helping the United States.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: I am sure the hon. member would be happy to note that 65,000 new jobs were created last month which brought the unemployment rate down from 10.6 per cent to 10.2 per cent. I think that is really a step in the right direction.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, interest rates are going down, not going up. Interest rates are at the lowest level they have been in 13 years. The Gross Domestic Product is growing, it is not receding. The composite leading indexes are trending in the right direction. The merchandise trade is going up, not going down. The unemployment rate, as I said, is going down, not going up. Housing starts are up, not down.
With respect to the retail sales to which the hon. member referred, he is talking about August figures which were affected to a large extent by a drop of 6.1 per cent in motor vehicle sales. However, the September figures show there has been an increase in motor vehicle sales by 11.4 per cent so that is stale-dated information.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and particularly Canada's unemployed are not impressed with this government's economic record. All is not rosy. For example, Statistics Canada just reported that retail sales fell 1.3 per cent, the biggest drop this year.
The minister's high dollar, high tax policies are driving Canadian shoppers, Canadian jobs and Canadian hopes south of the border. Will this government act today to stop this self-inflicted haemorrhaging that is hurting Canada so badly?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated in answer to the hon. member's question that the retail sales figures for August were lower because of the decline in automobile sales of some 6.1 per cent. In September we have shown a very important increase of 11.4 per cent in motor vehicle sales so that the data which the hon. member is referring to is really stale-dated.
I should also draw to his attention the fact that the merchandise trade balance rose $8.1 billion at an annual rate to $13.5 billion in August. That would not signal to me that we are losing trade but that we are gaining trade.
Oral Questions
In other words the trade figures are going in the right direction, just as the employment figures, just as the interest rate figures, just as the inflation figures. That is the key to sustainable development, sustainable growth at low interest rates and with price stability.


MONTREAL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for health. According to reports last Friday, the minister finally recognized that 600,000 people now live below the poverty line in Montreal and he said that new measures were urgently needed to halt the area's economic decline and to promote high-growth sectors.
Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker, these are the same words found in our opposition resolution of June 4.
Nevertheless, I want to ask the minister what specific new measures does he have in mind for Montreal? What in fact is he proposing for us in that city?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am sorry but I do not read opposition resolutions.
Second, what I said last week is that I am in touch with the government of Quebec to look at the possibility of having discussions about industrial development in Montreal, tourism, and of course, forestry for all provinces. We have always admitted that there were problems in Montreal and we continue to say that. We put forward, in collaboration with the minister responsible for Montreal, a program for southwest Montreal and east Montreal which worked very well. I think that people in Montreal know that we are trying to do what should be done.
However, I believe we need collaboration with the province of Quebec. It is what we do. We need leadership; it is what we are trying to give. We believe we are coping with the problem. It is a big problem. It is a 20-year old problem. Unfortunately, he should have looked at them when he was in power, Mr. Speaker.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, according to officials in Montreal, there are now 15,000 homeless people living in the streets of that city, many of whom are untrained, unemployed young people. Is the minister prepared, in his discussions with Quebec, to develop not only an economic plan for Montreal but also a social plan to help those people?

Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, two things: First, we co-operate with the City of Montreal as we do with all the provinces, and in this instance, with the Province of Quebec, on the sharing of social services in Quebec. Second, I think that the best way to help those people, as the hon. member knows very well, is first and foremost to try to find jobs for them.
I think that the hon. member will agree with me, particularly as regards Canadair, where the number of jobs has risen from 4,500 to 8,200 since we privatized this company. That is still the best way to create job opportunities for Montrealers and to cope with the social problems to which my hon. colleague refers.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week the Nobel committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the courageous Myanmar leader, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for over two years at the hands of the brutal regime there.
Given the Prime Minister's stated commitment to human rights, I want to ask him to apply that in two concrete ways. First, will he take action to ensure that the Government of Canada, which is an 80 per cent shareholder in Petro-Canada International, stops all involvement in Myanmar. Second, will he ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, who will be visiting China later this week, will urge China in the strongest possible terms to stop its sales of arms to the repressive regime in Myanmar.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second point, that has already been attended to. In fact, prior to coming down, I made arrangements to speak with the Minister of Agriculture, who is in Japan en route to China, on precisely some of the matters raised by my hon. friend and a few other things.
With regard to Petro-Canada International, I would have to take a look at his suggestion. I think we have
already wound that up. I may be wrong but I will check into that. My colleagues say that is correct, that it has already been wound up, and so we could not use that vehicle. It has already been done.


Svend Johannes Robinson: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister indicated earlier during Question Period that cabinet has met on a number of occasions to consider human rights considerations in granting aid and financial assistance.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would now explain how he can defend the granting by his government of a $1 billion line of credit to Iran, a country which has revolutionary guards flogging with metal cables women who refuse to wear a veil and which, according to Amnesty International is responsible for very serious violations of human rights with torture, detentions and executions?
I want to ask the Prime Minister, will he now practice what he preaches to other Commonwealth leaders and ensure that this $1 billion line of credit to Iran is not proceeded with. Will he show genuine respect for human rights, for the people of Iran?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying in any way to be coy, but I ask my hon. friend to remember that the statement I made is in regard to the aid giving and granting capacity of Canada in regard to the international community. That is what it was limited to.
Canada has commercial relations, ongoing trade relations with many countries, even though we, from time to time, have serious disagreements with them about policies that they have at home. In 1989 there was the situation with China, by way of illustration. Do I take as a corollary of my hon. friend's suggestion that we terminate all financing of grain purchases by China from western Canada. Do we terminate it today, because we have very serious disagreements with human rights questions in the Soviet Union?
For example, in the Ukraine, prior to a few months ago, do we terminate commercial arrangements there?


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about Iran?



.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is now making a distinction between the Soviet Union, China and Iran. With regard to the case that was raised today by my hon. friend, I do not have to tell my hon. friend how offensive and repulsive and repugnant this kind of attitude or development is. The minister has already indicated that he is going to review this case very carefully in light of this. With regard to China, where we have had disagreements, with regard to the Soviet Union and other countries including Iran, we maintain commercial relations.
This is something we may want to review here in the House of Commons, but it remains a distinct and ongoing policy of the Government of Canada and has been for 50 years.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Recent German proposals to transform existing agricultural subsidies into direct income support for European farmers may pave the way for a breakthrough in the current Uruguay round negotiations, but they will raise serious questions about the future of Canada's supply management system under the GATT.
Does the government guarantee to preserve Canada's supply management system, whatever the pressures in the Uruguay round, to change existing practices?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the position the Germans seem to be taking with respect to de-coupling agriculture support from production would lead to the conclusion that the hon. member has suggested.
The position of Canada has been very clear. It has been a position that has been developed in very close consultation with the agricultural community and with provincial governments. That has been stated over and over again, and restated by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of
Oral Questions
State for Agriculture, and Canada's position with respect to our over-all position at the GATT negotiations remains the same. That is specifically referring to article XI. We are advocating not only the clarification but the strengthening of article XI and we have a fair amount of support within the GATT community to support that position.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the massive grain subsidies in Europe and in the United States have seriously eroded the income of Canadian grain farmers. Does the government believe that it can win reductions in such grain subsidies and at the same time withstand European and American pressures to change Canada's supply management practices? Is that what the minister is saying?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the European community chooses to de-couple its agricultural support from that of production, and in other words provide income assistance rather than tying the subsidies and the incentives to production, then we will be on a pretty equal playing field. That is precisely what we have been attempting to do through the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the Net Income Stabilization Account. These programs are not directly coupled to production, but they provide a measure of income assistance to the agricultural community. I might say that there is $1.5 billion that is going to be flowing to the agricultural community between now and Christmas, and another $1.1 billion after Christmas, in addition to the $800 million that was announced just the other day. That works out to about $40 an acre net in the hands of the agricultural community. I think that is pretty generous. I also think that it is done in a way that would-


RAIL BARRIERS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Again, I am asking for rail barriers at the rail crossing at Ste-wiacke, Nova Scotia. This crossing has resulted in 13 deaths and injuries over the years. For decades people have been demanding the barriers. The barrier gates were recommended by the Canadian Transport Commission 15 years ago. They still are not there.


Tributes
In September the minister indicated he might have a favourable answer shortly. Does he have that favourable answer?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, again I congratulate the member for his concern about this important problem. I want to assure him that I, too, am very concerned. I am awaiting from my officials the report that I mentioned to him earlier. As soon as I have it, I will be in contact with the member.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He would be aware that his fisheries aid package is getting some pretty rough reviews, particularly from the many people in Lawn and Melrose in Newfoundland and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, who do not meet the terms and condition of the package.
The minister has also said publicly that the amounts may not be adequate. I wonder if the minister would now undertake to end the misery for those thousands of people, make some adequate funding available for the program, and redraft the program so that it can be available in time rather than in five to eight weeks from now for the people it is suppose to help. Would he redraft it and make it available now so that it can end some of that misery for them?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, this is a $39 million program which together with the $18 million ice compensation program is the largest amount of money ever put into a catch failure or emergency situation in Atlantic Canada.
There are not thousands of people who cannot get on job creation programs. They are about to start. I checked with my colleague's department before coming into the House. Money is being transferred to the Newfoundland offices so the program can begin immediately. Liberal MPs can stop their rumour mongering and suggesting that there is no money there. They do a disservice to those people who are anxious about this.
It has been suggested in the House and on the radio that there is not sufficient money. I am advising the
House now that money is being transferred down. There is more than adequate money.
With respect to whether or not a person qualifies, the rules are generous and anyone who can show a reasonable connection to the fishery or to being a plant worker is going to be assisted, or my name is not John Carnell Crosbie.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Petru Marculescu, Romanian Minister of Agriculture.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege which relates to comments made by the Minister of Health during Question Period. The minister may not read opposition motions, but he doesn't have to brag about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps, but that is not a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points. The first one is that I wish to withdraw the accusation I made about the Prime Minister, and I hope the House accepts my apology.


THE LATE REVEREND SANDY NICHOLSON
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on some sad news about the death of a former member of this House, a pioneer of the CCF Party, the Reverend Sandy Nicholson.
Reverend Nicholson served in this House for four terms. He was a Christian Socialist. He was United Church minister who left the pulpit in furthering his view of the cause of social justice.


Reverend Nicholson was the founder of one of the first co-op farming institutions in Saskatchewan. Along with an early Jewish community in Saskatchewan known as Eden Bridge, Reverend Nicholson started a parallel co-op farming institution in that province.
Reverend Nicholson was incredibly noted for his sense of humour, his tremendous capacity for kindness and being a tough bulldog of a fighter, but most of all he is best remembered for the fact that he as the minister of health in the province of Saskatchewan introduced the first socialized medical care plan in North America, against the struggle of political opposition from all the other political parties.
Today all those parties now support this socialist program. If not, you can rip up your medicare cards. Nonetheless, I want to say that his passing after 91 full years of life is a day with a touch of sadness but also with a touch of joy as he was truly a Canadian hero.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party wish to associate ourselves with the words already said about the late Sandy Nicholson.
For most of the 1940s and the 1950s Sandy Nicholson was a distinguished member of this House and a respected voice on behalf of the less fortunate in our society. Even after serving four terms in the House of Commons, Sandy Nicholson had yet to make his most notable contribution to Canadian public life and to the Canadian public policy process.
In 1960 he entered the Saskatchewan cabinet and sponsored the legislation that brought into being Canada's first medicare plan. In less than 10 years after this beginning medicare has become a national institution. What a crowning touch for a political career. Sandy Nicholson lived a long and very productive life.
We on this side of the House extend our condolences to his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members of the government side of the House I am pleased to rise as well to pay tribute to Reverend Sandy Nicholson.
Government Orders
Sandy Nicholson ran in this Parliament and existed as a member of this House, as has already been said, roughly from the year 1940 through to 1957. He was successful in some four elections to the House of Commons and, as has already been mentioned, has made a tremendous contribution to the life of Canadians.
He was particularly noted for his concern for people who suffered poverty and for his active work not only in his province of Saskatchewan, but throughout the country as well.
I understand that he is survived by three children, nine grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. On behalf of members of Parliament on all sides of this House, we express to them our sorrow. Our thanks to them for having shared him with the Canadian public and the Canadian people.
Also we would like to say that he has had a tremendous impact on the country. He has had a tremendous influence on what has happened in this nation. I am sure that his friends like Stanley Knowles, who was very active in participating with Mr. Nicholson, can say with all of us that he will be missed. We are thankful for his contribution and we express to his family our sincere sympathies on his passing.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, and Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, as reported without amendment by Legislative Committee F.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-10, an Act amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
The first question is on motion No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Speller. Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:

Government Orders
(Division No. 46)

Members
Riis	Rocheleau
Stupich	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne	Waddell-28


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Ferguson
Speller-2
++NAYS
Members
Blais	DeBlois
Jordan	Karygiannis
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand
Angus
Brewin
Darling
Dingwall
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Langdon (Essex -Windsor)
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Mazankowski
Murphy
Riis
Stupich
Venne
Andre Blaikie Caccia de Cotret Epp
Gauthier
Hunter
Lapierre
MacLaren
McCurdy
Parker
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont) Waddell-28
The next vote is on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of Mr. Speller. Does the House unanimously agree to allow the result of the first vote to apply to Motion No. 3 as well?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:



[Stage Direction]
Blais	DeBlois
Jordan	Karygiannis
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
(Division No. 48)

Members
The next vote is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of Mr. Speller.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I think that the House will unanimously agree to let the result of the just taken apply to Motion No. 2.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 47)
++YEAS
Members
Ferguson
Speller-2
++NAYS
Allmand
Angus
Brewin
Darling
Dingwall
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Mazankowski
Murphy
Riis
Stupich
Venne
Members
Andre Blaikie Caccia de Cotret Epp
Gauthier
Hunter
Lapierre
MacLaren
McCurdy
Parker
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont) Waddell-28



[Stage Direction]
Blais	DeBlois
Jordan	Karygiannis
Ferguson
Speller-2
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Andre
Angus	Blaikie
Brewin	Caccia
Darling	de Cotret
Dingwall	Epp
Gardiner	Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)	Hunter
Langdon (Essex-Wmdsor)	Lapierre
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacLaren
Mazankowski	McCurdy
Murphy	Parker
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [English]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, later this day?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to designate tomorrow an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia who are concerned about the support for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
They urge the Government of Canada to maintain full funding to enable them to fulfil their mandate adequately-


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another unrelated matter, Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition on behalf of residents from Little Fort, McClure, Kamloops, Clearwater, Barriere and Darfield, British Columbia.
Routine Proceedings
They are concerned about a proposal to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount in an effort to divert water into the San Diego, California area. This plan is presently with a company on the Vancouver stock exchange.
They are asking that the Government of Canada state categorically that it will not permit freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States and state simply that Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present to the House a petition from the First Nations of Canada on the issues of aboriginal languages, linguistic equality and the justice they hope to achieve.
First, the petitioners ask for the recognition of the 53 distinct, living and vital aboriginal languages, representing 11 linguistic families.
Furthermore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities to the citizens of the First Nations and aboriginal peoples in Canada by taking immediate steps to recognize the right to use, preserve and enhance aboriginal languages in the Constitution of Canada.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Joutel, Vassan, Val-d'Or and Amos, concerning preventive withdrawal. Your petitioners request that perventive withdrawal for pregnant women be made a desirable and necesary option for women in the workplace. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider, during the review of the Canada Labour Code, the deficiencies of this legislation and recognize the need to include clauses on the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, with pay.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I have another petition which concerns firearms. Your petitioners are from Cap-aux-Meules and the iles-de-la-Madeleine, and they respectfully submit that access to firearms is a critical factor in cases of homicide, accidents and suicide. Many types of weapons readily available in Canada are not needed for legitimate purposes such as hunting and competitive shooting, and your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation that would prohibit possession of firearms by any person with a criminal record.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions today: one of 119 signatures and one of 145 signatures.
They relate to the present government's polity on wage freezes in the Public Service. Again the petitioners humbly pray that this House will ask the Conservative federal government not to take away the collective bargaining rights of workers across Canada, threaten them with job losses and contracting out, interfere with conciliation and arbitration and legislate employees back to work as it has been doing on numerous occasions.
The petitioners also humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


Douglas Fee: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition to this House on behalf of several Albertans that has been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The family is the cornerstone of our society. The responsibility toward family members extends beyond one generation. My grandparents contributed much to my development. My life and many others were enriched by the relationship with our grandparents and yet not all children have that opportunity. At present there is no provision in the Divorce Act or in any other federal legislation to provide a right for grandparents to have access to their grandchildren.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Divorce Act of Canada to include the following provision: that in no case may the father or mother, without serious cause, place obstacles to personal relations between a child and his grandparents.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, many Canadians are concerned about the growing crime in Canada and feel in danger. Canada has always been a peaceful country but there has been an increase in crime.
I have a petition from residents of Kamloops and other parts of British Columbia, and residents of my own riding in Port Moody-Coquitlam in which they pray that the government considers giving proper funding to the RCMP, a Canadian institution, so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia, and remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity and a strong force to prevent this growing crime in Canada.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order under petitions. As you are aware, the government is required to respond to petitions that are tabled in this House.
I have before me a response dated September 16,1991, petition No. 3430255, regarding petitions relating to the back-on-track campaign for Via Rail.
The answer that the government continues to give this House is the answer prepared three years ago for a different kind of petition related to Via Rail, calling on the government not to decimate it.
I would ask the Chair to review the appropriateness of government recycling answers that really do not relate to the petitions being tabled in this House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member drawing this to my attention and I can assure him that we will check into the information he has laid before the House and do everything possible to make sure that his constituents and others receive a proper response to their petitions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 6 and 120.


Mr. Bellemare: 1. With respect to the Summit Conference on Translation in
Canada which was cancelled on March 8, 1991, (a) how much

Government Orders
money was spent prior to its cancellation (b) what was the cost of cancelling the conference (c) are there any financial credits being held should this conference be reconvened later in 1991 and, if so, in each case, under which accounts will it be funded?
2. Was there an outside source of funding for this conference, and if so, what was the share for (i) government (ii) outside source?


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: 1.	a) $106,844.83*
b)	$25,370.33**
c)	No financial credits are being held in 1991-1992.
2.	No. The only other credits were to come from registration fees.
* This-amount includes all the material related to the themes of the Summit Conference. This product can be used in connection with activities similar to the round tables which had been planned for the Summit Conference-for example, at the next symposium of the Canadian Association of Schools of Translators and at the conferences of the professional translation associations.
** This amount includes the cancellation fees for blocks of hotel rooms, cancellation of the management contract for the exhibitors' hall and the cancellation fees for the rooms in the conference Centre.


Mr. Dionne: Has the Minister of Supply and Services made renovations or improvements to his House of Commons office and, if so, in each case (a) who received the contract (b) what was the nature of the contract (c) what was the total cost?


Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: The Department of Supply and Services has not made any renovations or improvements to the Minister's office at the House of Commons.
This answer is consistent with the reply to Order Paper Question No. 469 answered on March 27, 1991.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act, be read the third time and passed.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, this bill contains the legislative amendments to implement the increases in the excise tax and duties on tobacco products and the taxation of inventories of these products that were announced in the February 26, 1991, budget.
These tax measures will reinforce the government's national strategy to reduce tobacco use, a comprehensive plan designed to encourage smokers to quit and discourage other Canadians, particularly young people, from taking up smoking.
This national plan includes a wide range of initiatives in such areas as the placing of bans or restrictions on smoking in work places and common carriers under federal jurisdiction, the introduction of prominent health warnings on tobacco product packages, and health promotion and community support activities.
As part of the comprehensive strategy, we have also implemented programs to assist tobacco growers who wish to diversify or leave the industry altogether. These programs have played an important role in the orderly downsizing of the tobacco industry.

Government Orders
I might add, as a former smoker who decided to quit when cigarettes became $1 a pack back in 1979, which relatively speaking is not long ago, I can attest to the cost of the product in forcing one to quit smoking. This has a great deal to do with that.

Madam Speaker, this strategy has proved itself most effective in inducing Canadians to cut down on their smoking. Since 1986, sales in Canada of cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco have dropped by more than 20 percent. It is expected that use of tobacco products will drop again this year and next year, as a result of the tax increases under this bill.

The increases in the taxes on tobacco products include a 3 cent per cigarette or $6 per carton increase in the excise tax on cigarettes and a proportional increase in the excise levies on other tobacco products. As well, tobacco sticks will now be taxed on a per unit basis and the excise tax and duties set to equalize those in fine cut tobacco for roll-your-own cigarettes. These changes all were effective on February 27, 1991.
The bill also ensures that the tobacco tax increases are applied in a consistent manner at different trade levels by applying the excise tax increases proposed in the budget to the tobacco inventories held by wholesalers and retailers at the time the new rate takes effect. However, to simplify compliance for small and mediumsized retailers, the tax on tobacco inventories did not apply to the first 1,000 cartons on hand in the retail outlets at the beginning of February 27, 1991.
Together the changes in the taxation of tobacco will raise an estimated $1.4 billion in the 1992-92 fiscal year, declining to $980 million by the 1994-95 fiscal year. These additional revenues will make an important contribution toward restoring fiscal stability in this country.
I might point out that it is an area in which we are projecting declining revenues over the next few years because we expect that it will have a very great effect on tobacco use in this country, especially with young people. It is estimated, not by the government but by those in the health care field that this tax will prevent an additional 100,000 young people from starting to smoke.
Personally, I hope the figure is much higher, that it prevents all young people from starting to smoke.
It was a mistake that I made as a youth and one that I know had I not quit would have damaged my health because that had already started. They say there is nothing worse than a reformed anything because once reformed they love to preach. This is one already in which, although I try not to be obnoxious in my preaching, I do advise all young people never to start and those who have started to try and quit. I know how tough it is to quit because I have gone through that.
My colleague from Winnipeg North has suggested that by way of amendments we earmark where the revenue goes, how we channel the revenue. Those amendments were ruled out of order, and rightfully so. Some of the initiatives were assistance to tobacco producers, health promotion and education, as well as care for people with smoking-related illnesses.
The government has already implemented a successful strategy. I say successful because we know that tobacco consumption has dropped rather dramatically in the last few years.
Furthermore, while the government has earmarked taxes such as the goods and services tax, which by legislation will go to service the debt and eventually start paying back the debt, it is just in exceptional circumstances that we do that because the earmarking of tax revenues constrains the government's flexibility in responding to changing needs. Particularly over time, earmarking can easily result in the over or underfunding of the selected areas and, of course, we would not want to see that.
As well, a number of amendments were proposed that would have effectively rolled back the substantial tax increases contained in the bill. While the House did not adopt any of these motions, hon. members may rest assured that I have noted all their comments and will take them into account when we are considering further tax changes.
In conclusion, this is an important bill. It will raise substantial revenues which will serve to reinforce the government's plan for economic recovery, a plan designed to help achieve a strong and prosperous Canada, and it is also a key element to the government's strategy to reduce the consumption of tobacco in Canada and


protect Canadians, particularly young Canadians, from the very serious health hazards of smoking.
I encourage members of the House to give swift passage to this bill so that it may become law and we can get on with some other matters that are facing the House today.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on Bill C-10, an act to amend the excise tax.
When I spoke on this bill about four months ago during second reading, I indicated the importance of this bill. It is a bill to protect the health of Canadians, of smokers that they may quit smoking, and of those who have yet to learn to smoke not to start the habit.
Since four months ago when I spoke on second reading of this bill an estimated 12,800 Canadians have died from causes related to smoking. They have died from lung cancer, obstructive lung diseases, heart diseases and, shamefully, some of the victims were infants bom too weak to survive.
The newborns perished because of the tobacco chemicals that crept from the body of the mother into the body of the child while still in the mother's womb.
I am sure all Canadians, as I am, are sickened by this waste of human life. If taxes will stop some of the harm, some of the travesty of human life, then I believe in the taxes being increased on tobacco and I therefore support this bill.
But taxes without amendments specifically tailored for health and the general well-being of Canadians naturally give me some concern. I feel they represent a callousness and insincerity on the part of this government. It will not go one step further and assure Canadians that this bill is truly a bill to help stop smoking and prevent the non-smokers from starting the habit.
Hence, I see that this bill only constitutes a partial solution, a partial component, to the over-all strategy. But I support it as well because I still believe that we can persuade the government, perhaps through some other mechanisms such as writing to ministers, to earmark more funds for health.
The minister in his presentation of the bill indicated that he was against earmarking. If I may quote him, he says: "The earmarking of tax revenues constrains the government's flexibility to respond to changing needs",
Government Orders
and that over time earmarking can easily result in the over and underfunding of selected areas.
That is not a valid argument to not support earmarking. In the document produced by the Canadian Tax Foundation Charging for Public Services; A New Look At an Old Idea, there is a beautiful paragraph about earmarking. I would mention the strong argument, the two principal arguments, why we can earmark funds such as this revenue for specific programs.
The first argument that has been proposed in favour of earmarking funds, and I quote: "it provides a means in certain circumstances of implementing the benefit principle, which in turn is appealing on both equity, and especially efficiency, grounds".
I ask this government, why does it refuse to sustain the benefit principle? Why will it decline to earmark funds when it is known that by earmarking funds we can increase the efficiency of the delivery of programs and the expenditure of these revenues for targeted programs?
The second argument concerns why earmarking funds is essential and important, and I quote: "It may induce the public to support new or increased taxes on which they otherwise could not agree by linking the taxes with an expansion of some government activity which they desire".
In a real sense then, if we earmark funds we are trying to say we provide that needed link between tax revenues and government expenditures on programs. On that basis I think the argument of the government that it would not like to earmark the funds is not tenable. Canadians will see that.
One more thing, Madam Speaker. When I spoke on this bill four months ago, we realized the many benefits that would accrue when we passed this bill, despite the limitation, despite the absence of earmarking that I indicated. In fact, I believe that effective tobacco taxation is a progressive health policy for a variety of reasons. As has been indicated already, for every 10 per cent increase in price, consumption will drop by 4 per cent, particularly among price-sensitive young people where the impact of a price increase on their consumption of tobacco is even more pronounced. Hence, we can expect a drop in consumption among children and teenagers of some 14 per cent for every 10 per cent increase in price.

Government Orders
We have heard already, and I will not belabour the point, of the many deaths that have happened from smoking. I would like the House and all colleagues to support this bill.
I would also like to seize this opportunity to put on the record the many associations that support this bill so that Canadians may know them: The Canadian Association of Hospital Auxiliaries, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, the Canadian Association of Pathologists, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Chiropractic Association, the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation, the Canadian Hospital Association, the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Physiotherapy Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists, the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, The Canadian Association of Optometrists, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and The United Church of Canada.
These are among the many supporters of increased taxation on cigarettes so that we can stop smoking in this country.
I may note that there are only two or three organizations that are opposed to this bill. One is the Tobacco Manufacturer's Council and the other one is an organization that is supported by the Tobacco Manufacturer's Council.
You can see that the vast, vast majority of Canadians support this bill.
I would also like to put on the record a letter from the chairman of the Health and Public Policy Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Dr. David Sackett, dated July 16 of this year, to all the ministers of health in all the provinces and territories.
Canada has begun to make progress in decreasing the toll of disability and untimely death from cigarette smoking. The tobacco companies are engaging in a campaign to discredit this progress through the smoking packet write-in campaign. We are writing to
you to indicate the need for more, not less vigour in the effort to reduce the death and disability toll from cigarette smoking. We therefore call upon you to ignore the efforts of the cigarette companies who benefit from this toll of human suffering, and to continue to support increasing efforts toward the discouragement of cigarette smoking in Canada.
My only regret this afternoon as I debate this bill is that the three amendments that I proposed and I thought would be given an opportunity for debate were ruled out of order on procedural grounds but not on the merit of my proposals.
For the benefit of those who have not seen my amendments, let me read again the thrust of my amendments. My first amendment would allow for the earmarking of funds for the prevention or treatment of illnesses related to tobacco use.
Why would the government refuse to give consent to such an amendment to be debated?
The second amendment is to earmark funds to inform the general public of the risk for human health involved in tobacco use. Again, why did we not give consent to this so that it can be fully debated in the House and thereby test the will of Parliament?
My last amendment would have been to earmark funds to help people who wish to overcome their tobacco addiction.
Smoking truly is very addictive. An addiction to tobacco is one of the strongest known, comparable only to the death grip of heroin and alcohol. I would have wished that we could have earmarked funds for cessation programs for smokers. I believe with $1.4 billion being received alone through this tax that there is no excuse not to help the people suffering the tax burden the most, the smokers.
I would like the government to help them quit instead of only milking their addiction for revenues.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that I hope all members of the House would support this bill, notwithstanding its limitations, and I further hope that the government, although we were unable to debate the amendments, would take the substance of those amendments into consideration and institute health programs to address those very issues and concerns that I hope the government equally believes are important. I hope it would support them with added funds, including the preservation of our health care system.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege. Last Thursday I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Maurice Ruel, director general of the oil and gas branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to Mr. Daniel Dubeau, vice-president, Environment, Hydro Quebec.
This is quoting from the English translation. I only received this today which explains why I am rising today. I had received the original text on Thursday but had to wait for the translation before I could fully understand the import of this statement.
In the letter, he states:
I would suggest that Hydro-Quebec acknowledge receipt of Mr Knowles' letter-
Mr. Knowles is the clerk of the Standing Committee of Energy, Mines and Resources:
I would suggest that Hydro-Quebec acknowledge receipt of Mr. Knowles' letter, telling him that you support in principle the presentation made by the Canadian Electrical Association to this committee in "Environmental Challenges Facing the Electric Utility Industry" and therefore you do not see the need for Hydro-Quebec to take part in its hearings.
I consider it to be a completely unacceptable and unwarranted interference in the proceedings of Parliament for an official in the department to be instructing a witness not to attend and to take part in our hearings.
In this regard, I would appreciate it very much if the Chair would recognize that this is a prima facie case for the existence of a question of privilege and that it therefore accepts my motion that the matter be placed before the appropriate committee of the House, the House management committee.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, as vice-chairman of the same committee that the member who raises the question of privilege belongs to, I would add a few words on the same subject, if you allow me.
Privilege
In the same letter that he just referred to, Mr. Ruel wrote in French: "I would suggest that Hydro-Quebec acknowledge receipt of Mr. Knowles' letter, telling him that you support in principle the presentation made by the Canadian Electrical Association to this committee in 'Environmental Challenges Facing the Electric Utility Industry' and therefore you do not see the need for Hydro-Quebec to take part in its hearings."
As my friend just told you, Madam Speaker, officials at the Department of Energy, like all public servants, work for all the people of Canada and for members of Parliament, in that we work together, and I say that as a former federal civil servant. The minister is now in the House and perhaps he agrees with my colleague and me on this point and he may also wish to say something on this subject. I find it hard to understand how a deputy minister or a director general of a federal department can in fact write such a letter telling Hydro-Quebec to ignore our committee's hearings. In short, I wish to support the motion moved by my chairman. I hope that we can at least obtain a decision on this question which I think is quite important.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I too want to associate myself with the points being made by my hon. colleague.
It is a most serious matter. He has succinctly stated the case in the spirit of parliamentary reform in making the committees of the House of Commons effective in terms of doing a thorough analysis of issues and submitting reports and recommendations. I think the point raised by my hon. friend is most important. I want to lend my enthusiastic support to the points that he has made and encourage the Chair to look favourably upon this request.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the chairman of the standing committee as well as the two members of the parties opposite. I cannot address my comments to the larger issue which I think the House leader of the NDP referred to, namely what will be or what might be the role under parliamentary reform of federal public servants in terms of information that they can give, not necessarily to standing committees, and also advice that they might be seeking or advice they might want to give in terms of other jurisdictions.


Privilege
For instance, there has been a case just recently of a Canadian official being asked to give evidence in the United States on quite another matter. This is a debate which is appropriate for the House and for House Leaders, so I cannot address that.
What I can address is specifically what the chairman of the standing committee and the two members specifically referred to. This morning officials in my department brought to my attention the letter that had been sent by an official in my department, namely the director general, to Mr. Daniel Dubeau of Hydro Quebec who had received, or Hydro Quebec received, a request to appear before the standing committee. That is the work of the standing committee. It is an independent parliamentary standing committee of which a minister cannot nor should have the ability to direct who appears before it and so I do not do that.
I have checked with the department. It is not a letter that I either had authorized or was aware of, but I fully understand parliamentary responsibility and cabinet responsibility. I take the responsibility of the work within my department.
I apologize not only to the chairman of the committee but also other committee members. This is not the manner in which we should proceed. There has been another letter trying to correct which in my mind was a mistake. In fact, Madam Speaker, I know the two members have read from the letters but cannot table them. If it helps the House for me to table those letters, I would be willing to do so. Hopefully this issue can be corrected in that way.
The larger issue of what is the role of officials both federal and others relating to parliamentary standing committees I think has to be taken up by appropriate members of the House who have responsibilities for their parties in respect to House business.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the comments made by the minister. If there is unanimous consent, could we have all those letters on the Table right now?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister has offered to table the letters. I am sure that there would be consent and it would be appreciated.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, just to clarify for the House, I am willing to table all letters that are in my possession. We have gone into the files. The letters that I am tabling, including questions and answers that came from the committee as well, are all in this file. I hope that that file is complete. To my knowledge this afternoon, it is complete.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. minister for his comments. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast and the hon. member for Kamloops said in the House.
I can certainly understand the reaction of the hon. chairman of the Standing Committee to the incident that he related to us. In any case, it is a matter that should have been brought up before the committee in the first place, before being brought up in the House. It could aslo have been brought to the attention of the House in a committee report. Since the hon. minister was with us and apologized on his behalf and on behalf of his department and the official involved, I think that, for now, the matter is resolved. I want to thank all those who took part.
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 Gatineau-La Lievre, Agriculture; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Trade; the hon. member for York West, de Havilland; the hon. member for London East, Housing; the hon. member for Davenport, Illicit Drugs.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to say that I am happy to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, a bill that essentially sees an increase in taxes on tobacco products.
I want to begin by first of all saying that I very seldom find myself agreeing with initiatives that the government has taken over the last little while, but this is one where I find myself in complete agreement. It is appropriate that we use fiscal policy in an effort to introduce a comprehensive strategy to reduce the use of tobacco.
I want to begin my comments by simply stating that tobacco, as far as I am aware, is the only legal consumer product that actually kills people when used exactly as it is intended to be used. In other words, if you smoke, there is a very good chance that you will end your life prematurely. You will have an influence on ending the lives of other people prematurely as well as a result of the second hand use of tobacco. As a matter of fact, I think the statistics would indicate that in an average year,
35,000	deaths occur in Canada directly related to the use of tobacco, to say nothing of all of those folks who find themselves spending time in cancer clinics, in cardiac wards, suffering from emphysema and other related illnesses.
Again, I think the statistics of second hand smoke indicate very clearly that smoking is something that we ought to encourage people to eliminate and certainly to reduce.
However, before getting into the subject matter itself, I want to simply say that we ought not to lose sight of the fact that 1,200 growers are involved in the tobacco industry as farmers. While we are taking steps here in Parliament in a variety of ways to encourage people not to consume tobacco, the reality is that it is a legal product and there are 1,200 families involved in its production, to say nothing of another few thousand involved in the production and sales of tobacco who
Government Orders
depend on the industry for their livelihood. There is not one in this House of Commons who would not support increased activity, increased financial support to encourage those growers to get out of the tobacco growing business and into something else that would be more acceptable to Canadian society generally.
We have made positive steps in this direction over the last number of years, but we have a lot to go.
It is interesting when you look at the price of a package of cigarettes today, and they cost about $5 or $6, depending on where you buy them, and yet the actual farmer only receives about 7 cents of that. It can be seen in terms of the amount of money consumed in taxes and in other costs throughout the system in terms of production and marketing of tobacco, 7 cents going to the farmer means that there is certainly a great deal being generated to society to say nothing of taxes.
The minister earlier indicated an interesting trend, that the government is actually projecting a decline in revenue over the next number of years as a result of this initiative. A lot of people are of the opinion that we simply keep jacking up the taxes on the price of tobacco to gain additional revenue. Well, to a point that does work.
I think we have reached the point now where the taxes and costs are so high that it is actually having an effect on the number of people smoking or beginning to smoke, so that the use is falling off and consequently the long-term revenue to government will actually decline. I think that in terms of a financial viewpoint it is probably bad news but over all we have to welcome the trend that fewer and fewer people are involved with smoking tobacco.
I might say in my constituency a lot of people chew tobacco. I tried it once, got sick and did not try it any more. Baseball players and cowboys it seems still find that to be an interesting way to consume tobacco.
I want to point out some very encouraging statistics. Let us also acknowledge the fact that Canada is a world leader in tobacco control. This Parliament has passed the Tobacco Products Control Act and the Non-smokers' Health Act which have had significant impact in seeing Canadians set aside their packs of cigarettes or their pipes or cigars or chewing tobacco and move away from that habit. In the three year period between 1989 and 1991 tobacco consumption in Canada dropped over 20 per cent. What is encouraging is the drop with young people.


Government Orders
Statistically we know that there is a very clear relationship between the price of a commodity and the demand for the commodity. It is fair to say that statistics and studies have proven that for every 10 per cent increase in price of tobacco, consumption will drop by 14 per cent. It is even more when you consider young people because they are very price sensitive. They are not as addicted, if you like, as older folks and they have less disposable income. For every 10 per cent increase in price of consumption by young people-I mean by that children and teens-the consumption does not drop 4 per cent, it actually drops 14 per cent.
We can see that this most recent round of price increases on a package of cigarettes will be encouraging younger people not to smoke even more.
We know that the tax increase of 3 cents per cigarette introduced in the 1991 federal budget means that cigarette prices increased by approximately 18 per cent at the retail level.
Let me just as an aside say something about the retail level. As a result of a recent study that was completed in my constituency of Kamloops and I suspect duplicated in other areas, I am just not aware of the various studies, people were puzzled by the seemingly ease with which young people, and I mean very young people, could purchase cigarettes.
It is illegal to sell cigarettes to someone under the age of 16. However, when you look at the act that was passed, which must have been 100 years ago, it said that if you are caught as a retailer selling cigarettes to children, you will be fined, get this, $10. Hardly a punitive sum. If you are caught twice, you get fined $25. The third time is really heavy, you get a $100 fine. Obviously what this means is that people will just ignore this and sell to children. Some retailers do not. They recognize the law for what it is, for a good reason and refuse to sell.
A study was done in Kamloops. One of the local organizations concerned about the increased amount of smoking by young people, particularly young girls, sent children to the various stores, 14, 12,11 and 10 year olds, and found that it really did not matter if you were 10, 12 or 14, a retailer sold you cigarettes. I think we all appreciate that if someone 10 years old comes in asking for a package of Rothman's, they are obviously not 16 and the retailer ought not to be selling it to them.
I have introduced a Private Members' Bill for those thoughtless retailers who sell cigarettes to children. If they are caught, the first offence would be a fine not exceeding $1,000; the second offence, $2,000; and the third offence, $5,000. Hopefully this will encourage people to simply obey the law if you are selling cigarettes to people, and particularly young people.
It is interesting that the price increase of the 1990-91 federal budget will result in a decline in consumption of between 7 per cent and 11 per cent or, in other words,
450,000	to 700,000 fewer smokers. According to the World Health Organization, between one-quarter and one-third of all smokers will die from their tobacco use. Therefore, we can extrapolate that 112,000 to 230,000 fewer tobacco caused deaths will occur as a result of these tax increases in the 1990-91 federal budget.
That is encouraging. No other single tobacco control measure could mean so many lives saved. It is estimated that consumption among young people will drop a dramatic 25 per cent as a result of this increase. The greatest success to be achieved by any tobacco control program is to prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place. This one measure is expected to stop at least 30,000 young people under the age of 19 from joining the tobacco market and many thousands more will quit smoking on top of that. In total, the assumption is that the budget increase in tobacco taxes will result in approximately 100,000 fewer teenage smokers.
That is great news. Any step that will result in 100,000 teenagers not starting to smoke has to be a welcomed initiative. I was pleased to see in the voting earlier today on this matter that it had the overwhelming support of the members of the House.
I want to refer to one rather disturbing fact that has become known in the last little while and that is the fact that the tobacco marketers are aiming at young women as a target market. It has worked because if you look to see where the increase in smoking is occurring, it is among young women. I would like to think that we will take steps as a Parliament to encourage all people, particularly young people and young women, to reconsider what they are doing, acknowledging the fact that tobacco will kill you or result certainly in a premature death.


I want to say that my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North had an interesting suggestion in his amendments. He tries to suggest that some of these increased tax revenues should go toward an educational program and to treating smokers and encouraging those who are considering smoking not to.
I noticed that the government when it collected the GST targeted some excess revenue there toward deficit reduction which in a sense is a bogus plan but, in that same kind of thinking, not the bogus part but the serious part, we should be suggesting that some of these additional revenues should go into a massive campaign to encourage young people not to smoke and not to begin smoking, which will likely result in some form of addiction.
I must say that I find it troubling to attend sporting events and often find that they are endorsed by cigarette manufacturers. Encouraging young athletes and so on to get involved in sporting activities and having to resort to the tobacco companies endorsing those athletic or sporting activities is a little odd in logic and is something that we need to consider in the future.
I want to simply add to my comments by suggesting that when people say "look at the price of tobacco products", if we actually look what happened in our country between 1950 and 1980 and just adjusting for inflation, we find that the real price of tobacco actually fell and that tobacco is actually cheaper to obtain in terms of a typical wage earner in the country now than it was years ago in spite of what appears to be an incredibly high cost for a package of tobacco. In terms of what these additional taxes have done, they have not even kept up to the rate of inflation.
In closing, I simply want to say that the fact that so much cross-border shopping is resulting now in illegal cigarettes from the United States coming to Canada is a reflection that the United States really has not appreciated this problem as we have in Canada. In the United States taxes on cigarettes account for about 27 per cent of the retail price.
Government Orders
In Canada it is closer to 67 per cent of the retail price. What we are saying is that while we have passed legislation in this Parliament to preclude smoking in federal precincts and taken steps to encourage people not to smoke, the United States has not done the same.
It is a sad fact that people find themselves going across the border to pick up cheaper priced cigarettes. It is inferior tobacco, as we all know, and inferior cigarettes. It does indicate the challenge that is before us.
In closing, I want to say that we support this legislation. We support the fact that it has proven successful in terms of increased taxing and taxes on cigarettes have resulted in a decline in use. However, let us also acknowledge that as the industry winds down, and hopefully will continue to wind down and save a lot of peoples' lives in the process, we simply cannot ignore the tobacco producers.
While we change our laws and our positioning on this particular commodity, they are in a sense the innocent bystanders. We have to acknowledge that fact and introduce clear programs that will help them in their transition to other forms of agriculture or other economic activities.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my colleague from Kamloops on this very important issue.
There are four points that I would like to make as observations, and I am wondering if he might comment on them.
The first is that the government is taking something in the order of $60 million out of this. I got my figure confused, but it is a large amount of money. It is only part of the solution to this. There needs to be additional action taken by the government.
It has been said that in the reform of health care, probably the most critical thing that has to be done in this place and the provincial legislatures across Canada is to address driving, smoking and alcohol in the reform of the health care system because of the lifestyle problems

Government Orders
that are created in health care. This is one of the critical ones.
The House of Commons, through the office of the Speaker, could provide a very effective model across this country. I know the House provides opportunities for staff and members to participate in quit-smoking programs, but there is no rigorous attempt to sell that program. There is no attempt to assess the size of the problem, to follow up and to catch those who fall off after the initial investment is made.
The Government of Canada pays for it, but it does not do it effectively. It could be very effective. I do not think I have ever met a smoker who does not want to quit smoking.
The second thing is the government has put forward a proposal to end the partisanship nature of the House of Commons, and I could not think of a better issue than this one. I think my colleague will agree.
I have talked to many members on the government side, in the Liberal caucus and in our own caucus who want to see something positive and constructive done to bring this issue forward and to reduce smoking.
I would think that this is the kind of a situation that the committee could continue on. There needs to be a ban, as my colleague has said, on export and import of this product.
It could quickly cut down a great amount of infringement of the intent of the law if that were to happen, both exporting the product to Third World countries and allowing the imported product to beat the prohibitive nature of the cost here.
The last thing is the conversion cost for farmers and the production and distribution cycle. Those people are the innocent victims of it. The money taken in by that tax, and I know the government is reluctant to do this, should be specifically targeted into the smoking area. It should provide assistance so farmers can convert to other products and so manufacturers can orderly scale down operations and exit the business and so that workers can be relocated and retrained.
The four points are, in summary, as follows: The House of Commons should be a model of an organization that really attacks the problem of smoking by helping people to get off it, following it up and for those who want out, help them out.
As for the constitutional move to make this place non-partisan, we all agree on what should be done and I
think we should move forward as a group to end this as much as we can. Export and import, get on with targeting the conversion costs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to those very thoughtful interventions by my hon. colleague.
While the House of Commons has taken a number of steps to encourage members and people that are employed on Parliament Hill not to smoke, with I think relative success, although we still find long line-ups outside the doorways with people squeezing in that last cigarette before they start or slipping out for a quick one, particularly during the winter months, which looks a little odd, but we still have some work to do and there is still much that could be done.
I remember the days when we used to have all of those ash trays out behind the curtains and everybody would be out there smoking. Now you do not find anybody out there smoking at least, and no ash trays. I think we have made tremendous progress and ought to continue to work for, as my colleague says, setting a model for what can be accomplished if we set our minds to it.
Also, the acknowledgement of my hon. friend that there is a tremendous cost associated with our health care system when you consider all of the people suffering from some aspect of smoke-related illnesses. The cost is horrendous. Therefore, it would really be an investment of significant proportions to encourage, particularly young people not to smoke. We acknowledge the fact that if you can keep a young person from smoking up until age 18 you have probably won the battle, that very few people are addicted after the age of 18. Therein lies the challenge in our school programs. I think we would all agree that really we have only touched the surface, that not a great deal has been done.
Madam Speaker, when you look at a package of cigarettes these days and see about half the pack covered with a sign saying "smoking is injurious to your health; smoking causes cancer; if you are pregnant don't smoke", and so on, you would think that people would get the clue that this is not a good idea. As my hon. friend has indicated, I think most people have. But the facts are that it is an addiction and how you rid yourself of this addiction obviously requires a major effort, and that while progress is being made much more ought to be done.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention, and particularly again his reference to the fact that transitional funds must be provided for the growers in the business. We must also re-think our export of tobacco products, particularly to the developing world. One reads with a great deal of disappointment that the major marketing now of tobacco products is into the poorest parts of the world, into the parts of the world where, since one is having difficulty selling them in Canada, that a major initiative is being taken to sell cigarette products in the developing countries. This is something we should not be encouraging, and as a matter of fact should be taking steps to eliminate.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to belabour the point because we agree absolutely. But another suggestion is that it is ironic; in the House of Commons it is not just a matter of prohibiting people from smoking in offices, which is observed or not observed, but the House spends thousands and thousands of dollars on programs. If a member of Parliament or a staff member wishes to sign up for a non-smoking program the House will pay for it and that is a very positive move.
Unfortunately the health officials in the administration of the House do not attempt to size up the size of the problem. They do not attempt to target it or promote it. The second thing they do not do is that if somebody takes that program there is absolutely no follow-up. People here have suggested they do not have the resources to do that. But, in fact, there is a school of nursing at the University of Ottawa, in Algonquin College, where students could-probably as part of their project-do an assessment. I discussed this previously with a number of folks who thought that they would be quite prepared as a project in health care to come in here, do an assessment and do a follow-up.
But what I am arguing about is that we could set an example here. The second thing is that the House leader, in speaking to his other colleagues, might be able to approach the Speaker and ask if something slightly more energetic could be done to begin to set the model on the Hill. I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is a solid supporter of the kinds of activity that go in his report on health care and it is well known that the lifestyle types of things are important.
So right within the House things can be done. I would also like to say that he did not comment on the
Government Orders
non-partisan nature of the desire of the government to move into areas where members of Parliament do agree.
I am wondering about the possibility of House leaders sitting down for a discussion on what might be added to the health care committee to see whether or not the government may want to target some of these tax dollars to education programs, to conversion programs, and to really make this thing work. The government's initiative in using the stick is fine, but additionally there needs to be more on the carrot that would encourage people to get off the habit.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I am taking part in this debate today as a non-smoker. I am very proud to say that none of my children smoke either, but yet I am the first to recognize that perhaps through continuing research, partially funded by the Government of Canada, the Canadian tobacco industry has one of the best products of any country in the world. They have lower tar and nicotine content than most other countries of the world. Consequently the Canadian product itself is not only of higher quality but it is much safer.
We only have about 1,200 growers left and yet in 1988-1989 fiscal year those farmers contributed $2,097 billion in tax revenues to various levels of government in this country.
What we are seeing in this bill is another tax grab that is going to drive Canadians into more cross-border shopping to pick up cigarettes at about half the price. Of course, while they are over there they will buy other products that are cheaper because the retail sector does not take as big a mark-up and because there are not as many levels between the growers and the retail outlet. They will also fill up with gasoline, again made far more expensive by the levels of taxes in this country. This is hurting the cross-border communities in a very dramatic way.
The minister spoke earlier today about a national plan to reduce smoking. He said that the strategy would be effective to reduce this but I have to ask the question how much of this revenue has been missed not only due to the cross-border shopping but also due to the illicit trade that we are reading more and more about as time goes on. I believe that the increased taxes have had an adverse effect not only on government revenues but maintaining a desire for the people to obtain their tobacco needs in the U.S.


Government Orders
A few months ago the minister of energy, and I hope he will come back in, made a comment on a comparable product, and I would be very remiss if I did not touch on it now that he has mentioned it.
Tobacco has been described here today in the House as a legal killer. I have to suggest there is another substance used in Canada at the present time that is an insidious neurotoxic substance which is certainly banned in some other countries but is still being used here in Canada.
He looked at tobacco being labelled as a killer. I suggest that the octane enhancer currently used in gasolines in Canada, MMT, which is methylcyclopenta-dienyl manganese tricarbonyl, is nearly as bad as the product it replaced which is tetra-ethyl lead. I have documents that suggest that while we are flailing away at the tobacco industry to protect the lives of Canadian people, the sad part is that other ingredients used in our gasoline is particularly harmful to the health of infants and children. They are the most vulnerable victims of this substance, yet tobacco products are not used by these young people or children whose immune systems are not yet in place.
I would like to cite from the June issue of the Canadian Medical Journal, where it points out that among infants 10 to 14 months of age in low-income families in Montreal, 24.3 per cent had iron deficiency anaemia.
Then we look at some research done by Michael and Judy Ashner at Albany Medical College, in Albany, New York. They found that in laboratory animals that have iron deficiencies the uptake of manganese accelerates dramatically.
This happens in laboratory animals and of course the laboratory work is done to assess the impact of these substances on humans. Then does it also follow that many of these infants in Canada whose blood brain barriers are not yet in place and who do not have the mechanisms to excrete this substance may also be at risk.
Therefore, I suggest that we have a double standard here. We are aiming to eliminate smoking by imposing high taxes on the smokers, yet we are continuing to allow
the use of the substance MMT containing manganese in our automotive fuels. We are allowing MN3 to come out of the exhaust systems of cars that causes pollution and the MN3 is taken into the respiratory systems and accumulates in the bodies, not only of children who are the most susceptible, but also other Canadians. It is taken in through the respiratory system and it accumulates and attacks the cells at the base of the brain.
There is another double standard here. Tobacco is produced here in Canada, and as I indicated earlier, it has the lowest chemical content, nicotine content, of any nation in the world. But we allow the importation of a product into Canada that is not even manufactured here that places the health of our children and adults at risk.
I have to say that I am amazed that this government can bring in a tax measure such as this on the pretext of trying to force Canadians to quit smoking and at the same time allowing the continuous use of an insidious neurotoxic substance in gasolines that over a period of time may have an adverse impact on the health of our children if continued exposure is allowed to exist.
I want to be very clear on this matter. This is taken in and accumulates in the body over a long period of time and the outcome of this will not be known for years to come, long after these infants have grown up.
I should also put on the record that this material has been banned in the United States since 1978.
Therefore, if this government is seriously maintaining that increased tobacco taxes are a health measure, then I ask them to move immediately to ban MMT from gasolines in Canada.
The medical evidence continues to accumulate. The substance I speak about, MMT, has to be dealt with very quickly if we are going to protect the lives and health of our nation's children.
As I look across the country and see the alternatives for those engaged in agriculture continuing to diminish, I have to ask this government to stop and examine where it is going and to make sure that those farmers who do wish to take advantage of the REDUX program are given an opportunity through continued funding to get into other areas of production that is acceptable to society and will not affect the health of this nation.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lambton- Middlesex for his intervention earlier in this House today when he voted against this bill on behalf of his tobacco farmers. He was willing to stand up for them on this, as he has stood up for fanners across this country, not only when he was Minister of Agriculture but since then when he has led this party in the debate in the House of Commons regarding the GATT and the effects on our supply managed commodities.
I spoke earlier in the day on this bill. Madam Speaker, I want to let you know that I will not be repeating what I was saying earlier. What I want to point out to this House before we wind up the debate is the impact this legislation has on our fanning communities, especially the farming communities in my area of Haldimand- Norfolk.
When a government puts on a tax such as this, a burdensome tax that in my belief and in the belief of many people throughout Canada is something that is just a tax grab, unfortunately the impact of that on people in their day to day lives does not seem to come up as often as we might want to expect.
What I have here are some letters from some of my constituents outlining the impacts that this taxation and excessive taxation have on their lives as tobacco farmers. I want to read from a few of these because I think it is important that the House understands, that this government understands, the impacts that some of the decisions have on common people.
I will not reveal any names, but I want to read this letter which outlines the real impact that the taxation has on this one farm family. It states: "My husband and I purchased the farm in 1974 for $140,000 with rights to 37 acres. We had good crops every year and slowly built up our farm from our profits. We bought other rights. All this was possible because of the money we made from our crops. Unfortunately, in 1981 my husband passed away. I was 38 years old with four children. I did not want to sell the farm because I was considering my children's future. When my husband passed away we owed $30,000 because of the blue mould program".
This is just one of the problems, the blue mould problem, faced by tobacco fanners, a disease affecting their crop. These are problems that Canadians in a day to day life do not understand that farmers face. Cana-
Govemment Orders
dians on a day to day basis look out and see either a sunny day or a rainy day. They feel either they can go down to the beach or cannot go down to the beach.
Unfortunately, for the farmer it depends on what the day is like, whether he is going to have a proper crop and whether he can actually survive. If we do not get the amount of sun, if we do not get the amount of rain as required, not only in tobacco but other crops, it makes it difficult for farmers just to get by.
The letter states further: "In 1986 I grew 20 acres of tobacco with my children with an operating loan from the bank. The farm at that time was valued at $850,000. Now it is valued at $125,000".
Just over a few short years the value of that farm fell. What Canadian business person could go on after a business such as that loses the value that it did? This person is directly relating that to excessive taxation.
She goes on to say: "I have had a hard time making my living off of $350 a week. I am writing you this letter to make you realize how hard life is after I have sold my quota. Sometimes I feel like I'm going to have a nervous breakdown.
Even my children are suffering. They are nervous because they see all my hardships and problems. Last year, my 19-year old son underwent terrible surgery for a bleeding ulcer and the specialist says he could not understand how such a young person could get a bleeding ulcer. Without surgery, my son would have died".
The letter goes on to say that the doctor felt that this was a direct result of the stress that had been created within that family because of the troubles that it was having in the farming sector.
Another one I have here is from another family regarding the question of whether the decisions made by the government with regard to excessive taxation have actually been constitutional. He feels that they are against the Charter of Rights. He says: "What happened to the Charter of Rights which Canada and the government are supposed to adhere to? Our life as Canadians has definitely been a tremendous struggle. We have been put out of business, not treated as equals to our tobacco neighbours who were lucky enough to be able to wait one day or six months longer than us and therefore get three times the money".


Government Orders
This person is talking about the group of tobacco farmers, a little over 100, who got out before the REDUX program actually came in.
As I am talking about REDUX, I really want to take to task the Minister of State for Finance when he questioned me today on whether I was, I suppose he challenged me, misleading the House on the question of REDUX.
The fact of the matter is that there is no money now in the hands of the farmers for REDUX. The government says that I should know that it is planning to give money for REDUX. The planning or possible promises have been broken by this government in the past as they have by a number of governments.
Tobacco farmers are not satisfied with the promise from the Minister of State for Finance that there is going to be a solution. I know he is having problems now. He is correct when he says that the NDP provincial government is balking on funding.


An hon. member:: They are worse than the Tories.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I cannot judge that yet, because I have not really been in long enough.
To continue on, this gentleman says: "We purchased over 123 acres for 179,000 pounds of quota for our farm in 1984 for $600,000. Within four years, our acreage went from 45 acres to 20 acres."
That answers the question for the people who say: Why can tobacco farmers not get into other forms of farming? You cannot farm anything in Canada on 20 acres or 45 acres and make any sort of living.
There are areas in which tobacco farmers have moved, some of the areas are peanuts, melons and a whole wide range of products. Basically, a lot of the markets for those products have already been taken up elsewhere in Canada.
There has been a lot of success by farmers helped by programs by the government such as AEI, Alternative Initiative Programs, and also other government funding to help them move in. There have been some success stories. I am not saying there have not been.
Unfortunately, now it has cancelled that program.
It has cancelled the Alternative Enterprise Initiative and the government has not given any indication at all that it plans to bring that initiative back.

It has given a commitment because Bob Rae did give a commitment during the election campaign that he would fairly compensate farmers. Unfortunately, this has not come to task yet, but I hope that within the short term the provincial government will get involved in this REDUX program if there is funding from the government. I hope too that it will be able to provide some answers for our tobacco farmers.
Again, we have had promises. We have had the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Agriculture, come right through my riding, the riding of Elgin and Oxford, and make a commitment prior to the last election that he would help the tobacco industiy. Unfortunately, in my mind and in the mind of most tobacco farmers, they do not feel that that help has been forthcoming.
As I said before, promises have been broken. Also, governments have gone on their own in programs to assist farmers and to assist other industries without provincial involvement.
I would call upon the government and the minister of state because he knows he has the power to do this on his own. If the provincial government goes back on its word to help compensate tobacco farmers, I would expect that the federal government here would go along on it. I would hope that my hon. friends on the government side from tobacco producing areas would be making that point to the government.
I mentioned earlier in the day a group of over 1,000 farmers who banded together and who have put a suit forward to sue the federal and provincial governments for what they say is excessive taxation. They say they have been damaged by this and are asking recourse from both the federal and Ontario provincial governments.
Unfortunately, both governments decided at that time that they would challenge this court decision. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for tobacco farmers, they lost out on that challenge. The judge decided that yes, the tobacco farmers did have a right to sue the government on that fact and that is going on now.



This is a letter from the president of that group of tobacco farmers. It is a fair compensation group. He writes that there is no rationale, no sense of impact and no provision for compensation for those affected by this and previous excesses in government taxation. The only clue we have is a statement from the Minister of Finance on budget day, February 26, 1991, that the huge tax increase was intended to reduce tobacco use and if that tax produced a net revenue decline it was the kind of revenue erosion he would be pleased to accommodate. It says, as stated by the finance minister, it is a tax increase to reduce consumption of tobacco which will result in the item not being purchased and no tax being paid. He says this is illogical. There is no regard for personal liberty. Of about one-third of adult Canadians who enjoy tobacco, a legal product, it has ignored their millions of protests.
There have been millions of protests. These protests have gone in to the Prime Minister in those little cards that you might have seen in your package of tobacco. Those cards were addressed to the Prime Minister. They called upon the Prime Minister to stop his excessive taxing of tobacco products.
There were well over 3 million to 4 million of these tax cards that went in to the Prime Minister's office. I am sure the Prime Minister would not have read them all, but I hope that he would have at least looked at a few of them to get a sense of the outrage smoking Canadians have to excessive taxation. I am saying excessive taxation because I am sure that a majority of these smokers would be willing to pay fair taxation on their tobacco products. I have no doubt about that.
Look at the situation in the United States. I am sure the Americans have the same concern for their health as does the Canadian government. They feel that some form of taxation on their tobacco products is enough to help deal with the adverse health effects that they find in their country due to smoking. They have nowhere near the amount of taxation on their tobacco products that we do. It leads one to believe that somewhere along the line there is something wrong, that one government is going wrong somewhere if it feels that taxation does stop smoking and stops these adverse impacts on its economy and on our economy.
I would suggest that it is the Canadian government that has gone way overboard. It knows it has gone overboard and the only reason it is continuing to increase taxation on tobacco product is in order to get revenue in
Government Orders
a way that most Canadians would not notice. Only one-quarter of all Canadians, six and a half million or so, smoke. I feel that it is this government's intention to continue to increase this taxation and continue to get its revenues in the future from this increased taxation.
I want to finish there because I have said most of what I really wanted to say on this matter this morning. However I want to leave you with one thought. I feel this government, through this taxation policy and through other policies, is driving Canadian agriculture south of the border because if we do not grow tobacco it is going to be grown anyway and people will continue to smoke.
This government is not going to stop other markets from smoking, other countries in the world. Essentially we will lose the business. Canadians will continue to smoke but they will just get their cigarettes from south of the border. That is just another industry that this government, provincial governments and other Canadian governments have been forcing south of the border.
I thank you for the time, Madam Speaker, and I think that is all on this side from those who were going to speak.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would put a question to the hon. member. I listened very carefully the very convincing arguments of both the member for Sarnia-Lambton and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk on behalf of their constituents. The plight of those who are tobacco farmers is certainly not missed. Quite a number of them find themselves in tragic circumstances.
I intend no partisan comment here but I am confused. I would think the House favours attempting to reduce or idealistically eliminate the use of tobacco. The government has argued that one of the quickest and most efficient ways of doing it is by increasing the tax to make the cost prohibitive. The argument on the other side of the House is that, yes, we agree with the objectives of the bill, but if it is anything other than a cash grab give us a signal. Let us give relief to suffering tobacco farmers who find themselves in this predicament through no fault of their own. Let us put some of that tax grab money, until it is used in some fashion that signals good intent, into helping people get off the product. Let us help farmers. Let us help workers trapped innocently in the production thing. Let us help people get off it in whatever way we can: time off work and compensation for the cost of the programs.


Government Orders
There are two messages that seem to be coming in the defence of the tobacco farmer. First, they grow a very fine product. I think that signal sends out a mixed message that maybe this House and the two speakers did not intend. I recall the comments of the Philip Morris company marketing executive who when speaking to a sales group said: "Look, let's understand one thing. We sell a drug. We are not selling tobacco or we are not selling smoking. That is just one method by which this drug is administered and it is a very powerful drug". To make an argument, I think it could easily be misunderstood by the population to say that we make the best drug available.
If I understand the will of the House, it is that we want to do something clearly for the tobacco farmers to ease this enormous burden that came upon them, without the problem that I think both of the previous speakers have articulated very clearly. But the second thing is that we want some of that cash tax grab put into relieving the burden in a committed way, and arguments have been made that that should be cost shared by Ontario. The health care system will be the beneficiary. Canadians will be the beneficiary.
I wonder if the comment on the fact that Canadians make the best tobacco should be clarified that it should not be allowed to continue on that basis. As for the other argument that somehow the additives to gasoline were a serious health problem, that is acknowledged. There is no contest on it. The health minister basically said in one of his reports that lifestyle changes had to be made. It was the surest way to change the health care system. Motor vehicles, tobacco and alcohol were causing tremendous lifestyle drains.
To make an argument that we should not move on tobacco unless we move on the motor vehicles seems again to be moving us away from the critical point that this House basically backs what the government has done. The government, in a show of good faith, should reciprocate by clearly and strongly addressing the problems those farmers face, that the workers in the production and distribution face, and that Canadians face trying to get off tobacco.
I wonder if that might be clarified by the previous speaker.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for North Island-Powell River for his question. I listened intently. It was a little bit confusing near the end. I was not really quite sure whether you were asking if I supported the banning of tobacco totally as an illegal drug and thereby there should be compensation for farmers once it was banned. I believe you will find that most tobacco farmers would be just as happy if the product was banned altogether and they were compensated for doing that.
In terms of what my hon. friend for Lambton- Middlesex said earlier, the point he was trying to make was that the government was being-and I do not want to put words in his mouth-somewhat hypocritical by claiming on the one hand to be doing something for the health of Canadians by taxing a legal product and on the other hand doing nothing to ban the use of MMT as an additive. I would agree with him. I believe these are areas that the government should continue to look at.
The point being made by my hon. friend for Lamb-ton-Middlesex is that there are a number of these products used within Canada. In the last few days he said that during the free trade debate there was a promise by this government that there would be a level playing field, that Canadian farmers would be able to use certain products that American farmers were able to use.
The practice in Canada is that we ban products, one of which is MMT. We ban other pesticides and other herbicides in Canada and say we cannot have them on our products. Then we import them from other countries including the United States.
The point my hon. friend for Lambton-Middlesex has been trying to make is that we should have a level playing field and that Canadian farmers should have the same access to these products as do Americans. It is hypocritical of the government to claim on the one hand to be doing something for the health of Canadians by overtaxing tobacco and on the other hand doing nothing to ban the use of MMT which, as he says, is a real danger especially to the health of young Canadians.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is truly convoluted and a little difficult to follow, but I think from the careful explanation of the previous speaker that both he and the member for Lamb ton- Middlesex do in fact support the initiatives of the government that would lead to a reduction in the use of tobacco in Canada. They make a very strong argument that farmers should be compensated. I guess by extension others should be compensated as well for losses through the support of this House of the government's initiative to increase taxes on tobacco.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. member. I guess my point is that this government has been unfairly taxing tobacco products in Canada.


An hon. member:: It is unfairly taxing everybody.


Robert (Bob) Speller: "It is unfairly taxing everybody", as my hon. friend says. This is nothing but another tax grab by the government, and Canadians are really fed up with paying such high taxes. This is nothing more than a tax grab. Canadians will let this government know at the end of things, in the next election, what they feel about these high undue taxes.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
Mr. Vincent:: Madam Speaker, I think that you would have the unanimous consent of this House to call it six o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for us to call it 6 p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion to adjourn the House now is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, in the very brief time I have tonight I would like to raise on the adjournment motion a question that I put to the government, in particular to the minister of trade, on June 10, 1991. It was on a very important issue of concern to the country and in particular to my home province of British Columbia and my riding including the Prince George and northern interior area of the province. It was in regard to the softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding.
I guess it is a good example of how the world does change. At that time the issue that was very important to us was the thousands of jobs that were being lost in the forest industry basically because this government, along with the former Social Credit government in British Columbia, signed an agreement essentially with the Americans that allowed the imposition of a tariff on softwood lumber products from Canada into the United States.
At the time my question was put to the government to see what it was doing to tell Washington, D.C. that Canada wanted to manage its forests on its own.
Subsequent to that the government moved on September 3, 1991 to terminate the softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., which at the time I applauded with some reservations. Of course the reservations were such that it had taken some time and many thousands of jobs had been lost in the meantime.
In going in to some new negotiations, what assurances could the government give us that it would stand firm and would not sign another deal like it did in the later part of 1986?
That is essentially the stage we are at now. To whoever is going to respond on the government side, I think there are two points I would especially like to hear tonight. The first is an assurance that the government can give, in having the ongoing discussions on this issue with Washington, D.C., that it will not cave in like it did under the previous provincial government and this government. Second, I would like some detail on the assurances the Minister of International Trade provided to me by way of


Adjournment Debate
letter that any Canadian forest producers would be protected, watched out for or taken care of in light of any threats of retaliation from the United States.
That is what I would like to hear from the government tonight. It is a very important issue for lumber producers across Canada.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, the Canada-United States softwood lumber memorandum of understanding (MOU) was negotiated to avoid the imposition of countervailing duties on exports of Canadian softwood lumber to the United States. The softwood lumber MOU was intended, first, to end a bitter and highly politicized bilateral trade dispute over Canadian lumber exports to the United States, and second, to provide time for Canadian provinces to implement planned changes in provincial forest policies, which included increases in stumpage and other charges to the Canadian industry.
Madam Speaker, conditions have changed significantly since the MOU was signed. A large portion of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the United States are no longer subject to the export charge. The charge has been replaced entirely in British Columbia and partially in Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces are exempt. In all, changes in the application of the MOU's provisions have served to reduce export charge collections for Canada to roughly $40 million from a level of $400 million in 1987, the first year of the MOU.
Madam Speaker, market conditions have also changed since the MOU was signed in 1986. Canada's share of the U.S. market has fallen from a peak of 32.8 per cent in 1985 to 26.8 per cent in 1990, its lowest level in 13 years. The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, combined with increased log costs to the Canadian industry, have significantly enhanced the competitiveness of U.S. producers compared to Canadian producers.
The memorandum of understanding has therefore served its purpose, and Canada exercised its right to terminate the agreement on October 4. Canada-United States softwood lumber trade can now be put back on a normal basis, subject to the rules of the Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Madam Speaker, in response to domestic pressure, the U.S. Administration has decided to launch a new countervailing duty case against softwood lumber from Canada and has also imposed an interim border measure requiring importers to post bonds on shipments of lumber from those producers that were subject to the export charge.
The government has objected strongly to this U.S. action and is seeking the immediate establishment of a GATT panel which will be asked to rule on whether the price which a government charges for the right to cut timber is a countervailable subsidy and whether the Section 301 bonding requirement is consistent with U.S. obligations under the GATT.
There is no basis, Madam Speaker, for a countervailing duty investigation. There is no subisdy to Canadian lumber producers. The government will be working closely with the Canadian industry and the provinces in mounting the best possible defence in fighting these allegations of subsidy.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, Canada is in a better position to fight the U.S. countervail action than we were in 1986. In addition to the changes in provincial stumpage policies and market conditions, Canada now has access to binding dispute-settlement provisions.



Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the four minutes or so available to me to discuss a question that I posed to the government benches on October 4 and 5. It is in regard to the government's lacklustre commitment, or failure to endorse in strong language, the continuation of the success story that has marked the de Havilland Corporation of metropolitan Toronto.
We on this side of the House have tried to convince the government of a number of realities. The first is that de Havilland happens to be the flag ship for our Canadian aerospace industry. It also happens to be the largest single industrial employer in metropolitan Toronto. There are currently some 4,900 workers directly employed at de Havilland, despite the fact that Boeing has announced that starting January 1,300 of these individuals would be laid off. The other important factor is that for every direct job at de Havilland there is approximately four created in the small business sector


which feeds in both contracts and supplies in terms of aerospace parts for de Havilland Corporation.
De Havilland is very crucial economically to metropolitan Toronto and indeed to the province of Ontario and to the country so far as employment in contracts across Canada, including the province of Quebec, in very significant measure, but also the aspect of a federal government being able to promote a national aerospace industry like any other country of the western world.
In response to our questions the minister of industry actually suggested that the ball is in the provincial court. If there is an initiative for assistance and promotion it ought to come from the provincial governments. We find on this side of the House that that is a complete abdication of any national responsibility to support and sustain our aerospace industry.
We have already gone down the path of the Avro Arrow. We know what that did to the industry back then in terms of employment, in terms of research and development, in terms of morale. What we want to avoid is a repeat of history under the same Tory administration in 1991.
What we on this side of the House have been seeking is a clear, unequivocal assurance, not of passing the political buck to the provinces or the municipalities but clearly to say to the people of Canada that the federal government will endeavour to continue to support de Havilland. If no private interests come together to assist de Havilland, then this federal government must certainly carry out its responsibilities to the fullest to ensure that jobs, that research and that technology related to the aerospace industry remains in Canada for Canadians.
I am looking forward to the answer from the government benches this afternoon.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that the aerospace industry in Canada is a highly significant component of Canada's industrial base employing 64,000
Adjournment Debate
and generating $8 billion in sales, of which $6 billion is exports.

Canada's aerospace industry has performed better than other companies throughout the world even if it has been performing in a highly competitive environment. The reason is that the aerospace industry in Canada counts on sales of about 30 per cent to the military while it is not the case in other countries throughout the world.

This government recognizes the aerospace industry not only for its economic benefits but also as an engine for technology development with spin-off benefits for other domestic industries. To this end, Industry Science and Technology Canada has for years supported, and continues to support, the R&D activities of the industry through cost-sharing in the range of 30 per cent to 50 per cent, which is generally repayable through royalties.

De Havilland in its early years after privatization achieved considerable market recognition and success with the Dash 8 product line. Now there are 286 Dash 8 aircraft operating world-wide as compared to 20 in early 1986. I fly in one every week coming and going to my riding.
De Havilland received support from Industry, Science and Technology to develop and enhance the Dash 8 product line which improved the technical attributes and attractiveness of the product.
Boeing decided to sell its interest in the company in 1990 and shortly thereafter the economic recession and dramatic downturn in airline travel resulted in a severe slump in demand for commuter aircraft. The effect of the slump was a weakening of de Havilland's order book which may necessitate production rate cutbacks as we know involving employee reductions. We are confident that with the upturn in the economy de Havilland will regain its place as a high technology company and as a dynamic enterprise that will continue to provide a major economic impact in the Toronto area and also on the Canadian industry scene.


Adjournment Debate
We feel confident that de Havilland can bounce back and the government is prepared and committed to support any moves that are made in order to maintain de Havilland as a effective and strong company.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, on September 24,1 asked the Minister of Agriculture a question on joint plans for the Canadian dairy producers. I got an answer from the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. It was far from satisfactory anyway.
Basically, the problem is that dairy producers in Quebec have decided that it is extremely important that production costs be included in the formula according to which the actual production costs of 70 per cent of the most productive farmers be used as a basis or basic criterion applied to all Quebec dairy producers.
There seems to be a concern within the Quebec farmers union, and rightly so, since the advisory committee has learned through the office of the Minister of Agriculture that the rate of $43 per hundred weight of milk was going to drop by about 5 per cent.
In other words, our farm producers, particularly our dairy producers, are under pressure because of this drop in the hundredweight price. At present, a farmer with 35 to 45 dairy cows earns around $26,000 a year. This is not much, as you know. In fact, that is barely more than minimum wage if you factor in all their hours of work.
What are the Quebec farmers and dairy producers most concerned about? They are concerned about the pressures exerted, and this must be pointed out, by the Agriculture Department to take into account the US daily production, the world cheese price and maybe other factors, so that the price of milk in Canada may drop by 5 per cent. You cannot operate that way. We have a supply management system which has proven very beneficial. Quotas are valuable because we have a fair and equitable system to maintain milk prices, and dairy producers who abused the system were penalized, as we know.
That is why basically our fanners are worried about these negotiations, and rightfully so. When we look at dairy production in Canada since we know that 48 per
cent of it comes from Quebec, its 13,500 producers, they have every reason to be concerned. This sector of the agri-food industry is very important for us. Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure them through the hon. parliamentary secretary, if he could deal with the criteria applicable to dairy production.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to the concerns the hon. member has just raised.
In particular, with regard to the pricing of milk, about two and a half or three years ago there was a dairy task force that was established by the then Minister of Agriculture, the present Minister of Finance, to try to make sure that we keep a very competitive up-to-date dairy industry in this country. Whether it was in Quebec or any other province, it would not matter, it would make sure that it is a competitive industry across this nation.
Our consumers and the people of Canada have become very used to a good quality, wholesome product which we expect and should expect. They have met that standard. They have met the challenge of doing that. They have provided very, very good products to us.
Pricing of the product has been taken over through a recommendation by the task force. The government does not set the prices for that milk as I understand it today, if I understand the member's question properly.
I know this past summer the pricing of milk was changed from a different way of measuring the fat content or the skim milk part of the product to a different system. If there has been any reduction it would be because of the different way of pricing but fair, I believe, right across the country.
The most important thing is the negotiations we believe that are taking place at the GATT because this is where article XI allows us to control imports of dairy products into this country, and poultry products as well. This is very important to us, and we are vigorously supporting article XI. We have support from other nations around the world, but that is a very strong and important element to the continuation of our supply managed sector.


Our position has not changed since it was developed and has remained steadfast. We hope that with that and with all the stakeholders being involved we will give the dairy producers the confidence they need to continue the fine work they have been doing.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, in September I had asked the minister of housing, and the parliamentary secretary got up and answered, my simple question: When is the government going to introduce its 5 per cent down payment for new home buyers?
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has had a proposal before this government that would reduce that insurable limit of a home's value to 95 per cent. Currently we have a minimum of 10 per cent down payment which is required for a mortgage. The proposal that the government has been studying, and has before it, is one that would call for a 5 per cent down payment. It is supported by everyone from the Canadian Real Estate Association, Canadian Home Builders, to the potential new home buyer. Everyone is supporting this proposal except this government.
I think the federal government has failed to understand the importance of what the recession has done to the housing sector. Hundreds of thousands of construction workers have been laid off and construction companies have even gone bankrupt. Surplus inventories in new houses will ensure that the new work will be slow in coming and the supply of materials and workers will shrink continually as the recession lingers and consumer confidence remains low.
A 5 per cent down payment is a tried and true mechanism that will encourage housing construction and the 95 per cent NHA insured mortgages were the benchmark financing mechanism between 1960 and 1982.
A study by CMHC indicates that a 5 per cent down payment would open up the housing market to some
200,000	families. About 10,000 to 15,000 this year alone would be able to take advantage of this new proposal.
Adjournment Debate
Studies have also indicated that in the current economic environment the lower down payment would result in only marginal and easily manageable risk to the mortgage insurance fund managed by CMHC.
In other words, there would be no cost to the treasury.
The recent stability of housing prices and the decline in interest rates make it an ideal time to introduce the 5 per cent down payment program. Currently the oversupply of housing, high unemployment in the industry, the stabilizing of high house prices, decrease in interest rates, the fact that it will not cost this government treasury any money, and the 5 per cent down payment should provide a stimulus to the housing sector which is so badly needed.
The government in its answer to my question in September said that simply lower interest rates would be enough to bring the buyers back into the market. That simply is not going to be enough. The housing industry now is faced with an interesting dilemma. Consumers are waiting for this announcement. The word has been out that the government will announce it soon and therefore there has been a hesitancy on the part of home buyers to want to purchase that home. The government needs to answer the industry's claim that the time has come for this 5 per cent down payment and it can finally announce this program so that it can get on with putting people back to work, putting people in new homes, and essentially getting people off the unemployment roles.
I would again urge and ask this government if it is prepared to announce today the initiation of the 5 per cent down payment for first time home buyers.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question concerning the creation of housing construction jobs through the introduction of a 5 per cent down payment for first time home buyers.
We have to recognize that today's generation of homeowners often remembers the level of down payment as the single most important obstacle it had to overcome when it purchased its first home.

Adjournment Debate
Many of those who became homeowners in the 1960s and 1970s would not have been able to purchase a home had they been required to provide a down payment of more than 5 per cent.
Ninety-five per cent of the NHA-insured mortgages were the benchmark financing technique from 1960 to 1982.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is looking at a variety of ways to help Canadians everywhere access home ownership. One possibility is by once again offering a government-backed mortgage insurance for down payments as low as 5 per cent.
CMHC officials estimate that reducing down payments to 5 per cent would allow up to 200,000 Canadian renters with a reasonable opportunity for home ownership. Of these, there could be some 10,000 potential first-time home buyers in the first year.
The support of the Canadian Home Builders Association and its affiliates for 95 per cent NHA mortgage insurance is very much appreciated. CMHC recognizes that the home building industry is a vital factor in the Canadian economy providing jobs for many skilled tradespeople.
CMHC is encouraged to note that on a national basis housing starts are expected to rise 21 per cent to 178,000 units in 1992.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation wants to help first-time home buyers weigh all their options and make sound decisions. Ninety-five per cent mortgage financing is certainly one of the options being considered.
We will be pleased to advise this House and the hon. member as soon as a decision has been reached on this important matter.


ILLICIT DRUGS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, today in The Toronto Star a report was published on the preoccupation in the mind of municipal voters in metro Toronto. From that study, we learn that the most important problem in the mind of municipal electors on metropolitan Toronto is crime, law and order to an astonishing degree where it peaks in the city of Scarborough, and to a very close second, I believe, in the city of Toronto.
Evidently we have here a preoccupation that is deeply felt in the heart of every neighbourhood across the city.
This brings me then to the issue of illicit drugs and the anti-drug enforcement which in the past five weeks I have raised in this House by way of a Standing Order and then by way of a question of the Solicitor General who sought to give me quite an encouraging answer on September 24. At that time, to my question as to whether the federal government would refund or return a share of the funds seized by the RCMP in drug arrests, the answer by the Solicitor General was that he knew that this bond had been made previously by various police officials and mayors across the country and that he, having acknowledged that this is a valid point, would look into this matter. I am quoting here from page 2636 of Hansard'.
-we are looking at the possibility of returning funds spent on
investigations to the various jurisdictions.
The Solicitor General went on to comment on the fact that the National Drug Strategy announced by the Prime Minister is a five year preoccupation which expires in 1992. While we appreciate the complexity and the difficulty of this issue, even the best friends of the Prime Minister could not claim that this National Drug Strategy has been a resounding success. In the last four years the issue has deteriorated and, as shown in this survey conducted by The Toronto Star, it is now so deeply felt that it tops the polls, so to say, in metro Toronto. I suspect that this is not an isolated occurrence. In conclusion, I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether she could tell us when the minister will make a decision on this request made by politicians of all parties in this House, I presume, and also by mayors and reeves across the country on returning a portion of the funds that accrue from certain RCMP initiatives to which the various police forces have contributed as well in the course of their investigations and seizures and the like. Also does the government have a specific plan in mind to strengthen the national drug strategy which, at the present time, seems to be rather weakly implemented when it comes to the regional and the local level.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Davenport for his particular interest in public safety. He is, of course, concerned about an article expressing the concerns of the people of Toronto, but I think every memberof this House would agree that these concerns are shared by all Canadians.

A number of police forces, particularly in Metro Toronto, have been calling for the return of a portion of the assets forfeited as a result of their investigations. It is suggested that these forfeited funds could be used to enhance their drug demand reduction activities through education, and prevention.
The Solicitor General fully supports the balance of supply and demand reduction efforts by the police. Police forces across Canada have done an exceptional job in this respect, and I am confident that they will continue to do so. I am also aware that many departments are feeling the effects of fiscal restraint. They must do more with less. To their credit, by working smarter, police forces have met this challenge well.
Proceeds of crime investigations can be costly. The recovery of forfeited proceeds is certainly one possible way to finance these complex and time-consuming investigations. However, careful consideration must be given to the question of whether asset sharing can be implemented without jeopardizing the impartial administration of the criminal justice system and the delivery of
Adjournment Debate
policing services in particular. This issue is being reviewed by the Department of Justice.
In the interim, as a partner in Canada's Drug Strategy, the Ministry of the Solicitor General will continue to work with police departments across Canada to reduce supply and demand for drugs. Federal dollars will continue to be used to assist police at all levels through contributions to research and development.
Specifically in the area of proceeds of crime legislation introduced under the Strategy, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, in consultation with the RCMP, is exploring ways to facilitate co-operation in anti-drug profiteering law enforcement. The ultimate goal of these efforts is to address the difficulties created by the time and labour intensive nature of proceeds investigations and to encourage the participation of all police forces.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House now is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 22, 1991