CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 16, 1994
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7847
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7847
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 7848
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 7850
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7850
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7851
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7851
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7851
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7852
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7853
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7853
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7853
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7853
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7853
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7854
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7855
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7855
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7855
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7855
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7856
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7856
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7856
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 7859
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7859
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 7860
Bill C-288. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 7863
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7863
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 7865
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7867
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7868
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7874
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7878
Bill C-249. Motion for second reading 7881
7847
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 16, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the students of my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur
have benefited from a unique partnership of the government and
three of North America's multinational software firms.
Organized by Industry Canada the computers for schools
program is allocating hundreds of pieces of used government
computer equipment to schools all over Canada.
[Translation]
My riding of Restigouche-Chaleur has already received 20
new computers. This is recycling in the 1990s. In addition, the
major computer companies allow old computer programs to be
transferred in order to benefit students. This is understanding in
the 1990s.
[English]
A partnership between the public and private sectors is
benefiting New Brunswick students and helping nurture a
culture of learning and innovation. I would like to congratulate
all those involved.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, 109 years ago today, Louis David Riel, the Métis
hero, was hanged, an event that caused turmoil and indignation
among French Canadians. A crowd of fifty thousand gathered on
the Champ-de-Mars, in Montreal, to hear Honoré Mercier
speak his now famous words of tribute.
The prime minister of the day, John A. Macdonald, was
careful not to have Riel tried in his native province, where he
had led the struggle to have the fundamental rights of Canadian
Métis respected.
In order to redress this historic injustice, the Bloc Quebecois
is today tabling a bill to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel.
Louis Riel was hanged because he was a Métis, because he
was a francophone, because he went to the defence of his nation.
His execution by hanging is one of the darkest moments in our
history. A refusal to acknowledge it is a refusal to understand the
present and a refusal to build a future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this House today to congratulate the student athletes of Barrie's
North Collegiate.
The junior boys Nordic ski team has been awarded the
prestigious honour of representing Canada at the 1995
International Schoolsport Federation ski event. They will be
travelling to Italy in February to compete with other student
athletes from around the world.
It is encouraging that these young people have chosen to
channel their energy and pursue athletic endeavours. They are a
source of pride to their parents, their classmates, their teachers
and their community.
I believe it is important to recognize that the vast majority of
our young people are hard working and want to be involved and
committed citizens of Canada.
The team is raising $15,000 for this trip from private sources
and I encourage their efforts.
I congratulate the team members: Clayton Parent, Joe Tuck,
Matt Goodman, Doug Smith, Chris Hogan, and Jason Van
Noortwyk, and their coaches Ann Scully and Cathy Cudmore on
receiving this honour. I wish them all the very best in Italy.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many Manitobans and Canadians remember Louis Riel today.
7848
This morning in my riding the Manitoba Metis Federation
held a ceremony to mark the 109th anniversary of his death, to
recognize Metis Week and proclaim November 16 as Louis Riel
Day.
[Translation]
On March 10, 1992, in response to a government petition, I
applauded the government's gesture of recognizing Louis Riel
as the founder of Manitoba and his contribution to Canada. That
same day, I requested that we go one step further and recognize
him as one of the fathers of Confederation. This is still my
position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the
co-operation that exists between corporations and high schools
in Scarborough.
(1405 )
Recently Novopharm, a Scarborough based pharmaceutical
firm, announced a partners in excellence project with Sir John
A. Macdonald Collegiate Institute. The program will promote
the study of science at the high school level.
The company will sponsor science related events such as the
junior science olympics. It invites students to participate in a
corporate environment. Students will gain hands on experience.
The school will have the opportunity to undertake exciting
new and bold initiatives. Together Novopharm and Macdonald
Collegiate will be able to offer the highest quality educational
opportunities.
I would like to take this opportunity to compliment and
congratulate Mr. Leslie Dan of Novopharm and Mr. Glen Tarver,
principal of Macdonald Collegiate for their initiative in
establishing this program.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put forward a
proposal to help the Minister of Finance combat the deficit. This
idea evolved from a town hall meeting at the Green Briar Senior
Citizen Community Centre in Alliston.
These constituents suggested the issuance of a deficit bond
which would enable the government to buy back foreign owned
debt. This would be similar to the war bond concept used during
World War II.
These senior citizens expressed their concern for the deficit
and the impact it will have on future generations. They have also
expressed their willingness to help the government in deficit
reduction.
I urge the Minister of Finance to seriously consider this
constructive suggestion as a means to curtail the deficit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
study commissioned by the Quebec health and social service
council shows that the past four years have been particularly
hard economic times for Canadians. Everyone suffered from the
recession, but the hardest hit were the disadvantaged who were
unable to re-enter the labour force.
Commenting on the social reform and emphasizing the fiscal
restraints imposed by governments, Pierre Fortin, an economist,
sums up the situation as follows: ``There is no need to turn
everything upside down on account of a temporary slump. The
danger is that a system that our parents and grandparents took 40
years to build will be destroyed''.
We must not do away with our social security system at the
first sign of trouble. In such circumstances, the role of
government must be to help the disadvantaged, not to crush
them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just completed a series of town hall meetings in my riding
about the desperate state of Canada's social programs.
Constituents were dismayed to learn that in just 15 years
current social safety nets plus interest may consume 100 per
cent of federal spending. But what upset them most was the fact
that they are getting ripped off worse than they thought by the
federal government.
They thought they were paying into the Canada pension plan
as an investment for their retirement. But because of
government mismanagement, the CPP fund is short hundreds of
billions of dollars which means that contributions are little more
than a payroll tax.
Constituents want to know why the Minister of Human
Resources Development did not address the CPP problem in his
discussion paper. They wonder why the minister is not moving
away from the present debt ridden social welfare state.
7849
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): It is,
as you can no doubt understand, Mr. Speaker, with great
pleasure and pride that I rise in this House to announce that, on
Monday, my son Michel, a young lawyer aged 27, was elected to
the municipal council of Ottawa-Carleton.
With a population of three quarters of a million, the Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is made up of 11 local
municipalities, including the Municipality of Gloucester, where
Michel was elected. I join his wife, Nathalie, as well as our
entire family and his team in applauding this great victory.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our culture is our identity. It instils in us a pride and enables us
as Canadians to define ourselves and our place in the
international community. Our arts, sports, languages, natural
parks, heritage sites and multicultural heritage all contribute to
the diversity of Canadian culture.
With the globalization of trade and the rapid expansion of
information technology Canadian culture will play an integral
part in driving our economy. Agencies such as the CBC, the
Canada Council, the National Library, our museums and
archives support the culture of a smaller population living in a
vast area of land.
With growing competition from our American neighbours it is
now more important than ever for our government to ensure
adequate Canadian content in television programming, radio
and books. We must continue to develop policies that make our
unique culture accessible to Canadians.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to bring this news to the attention of the
House of Commons.
The news is that the Regina Rams, our Canadian junior
football league team, has captured their 12th Canadian title by a
52 to 6 victory in Saturday's Canada bowl in Montreal. This is
the second straight Canadian junior football league title for the
Rams who won their first national crown in 1966.
Special recognition should go to coach Frank McCrystal. He
has been a part of nine championships, four as head coach, two
as an assistant coach, and three as a player.
This team of energetic young Canadians has been outstanding
and hard working all season. The fans in Saskatchewan are very
proud. I want to congratulate the team and wish them well in
their next season as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its
majority report tabled yesterday on Canada's foreign policy
review, the Liberal majority shows an incomprehensible
mistrust towards the United States, which is still our main
trading partner. Instead of noting the continentalization of our
economy, the Liberal majority has adopted an unhealthy attitude
towards the U.S.
The report is very eloquent in this regard. When dealing with
Canada's trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region, it talks
about challenges, but on the subject of trade with the United
States, it talks about problems. These very different terms
reflect the Liberals' mental block towards our southern
neighbours. The existential problem of Canada, torn by a double
identity, will not be solved through this stubborn refusal to
accept the American reality. Obviously, the Liberals have not
managed to extricate themselves from the vicious circle in
which the Canadian establishment has been caught for decades.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
is an important day in the Peace River country of Alberta. In 95
days, beginning February 19, 1995, the Canada winter games
will be held in Grand Prairie.
I along with the people of the Grand Prairie area would like to
take this opportunity to welcome everybody across Canada to
the 1995 winter games. I would also like to congratulate all the
volunteers for all their hard work and dedication to this national
celebration of amateur sport.
Grand Prairie is ready to host the best ever Canada Games and
is looking forward to welcoming all Canadians from February
19 to March 4, 1995.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): While the reduction of the deficit remains one of the
7850
most important objectives of the government, it is imperative
that it should not be done at the expense of the education of our
young people. Today's student demonstration on the Hill
underlines this principle.
More than 900,000 full time post-secondary students could
be directly affected by the government's proposal to cut back on
transfer payments earmarked for post-secondary education to
the provinces. The present level of funding for post-secondary
education must be maintained to academically and technically
equip young Canadians as they head into the 21st century.
As the red book states, the government has a direct interest in
ensuring that our young people have the best possible
opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge needed to lead
productive and self-sufficient lives. This noble principle must
be followed through.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 12 years
ago the United Nations law of the sea treaty was adopted. Today
that treaty comes into force.
This treaty, which took over 10 years to negotiate, provides
Canada with sovereign rights for exploring and exploiting the
natural resources of approximately 1,500,000 square kilometres
of continental shelf off our Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
The treaty also gives Canada jurisdiction over the living
resources within a 200 mile limit.
Although the treaty is now in force and many of its provisions
have been implemented in state practice and accepted as
customary international law, over 70 countries including
Canada have yet to ratify it.
Over the past year Canada has taken steps beyond this treaty
to protect its fish stocks. Perhaps now we should consider
playing a leading role in calling for and participating in the
widespread ratification of this treaty.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, six weeks have gone by since the green paper on social
reform was published. Canadians are fully involved in the
debate.
(1415)
The Department of Human Resources Development has
received 12,000 telephone inquiries. One hundred and fourteen
thousand copies of the green book, including 33,000 in French,
and 210,000 summaries have been distributed. Since late
October, 190 members of Parliament have held public
consultations in their ridings and 80 national organizations have
appeared before the parliamentary committee.
Canadians know that changes are needed. They want to get
involved and they want to debate ideas. The government is ready
to listen to all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals' review of social programs is
giving every indication that funding to universities and colleges
throughout Canada will be cut and the individual cost to
post-secondary students will increase.
Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow said of the federal
government: ``From our point of view the federal government is
saying that debt is no good for government but it is okay for
students''.
Yesterday my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona reminded
us that as a nation we are expecting Canada's young people to
pay off a national debt not of their making and now it seems we
encourage them to accumulate personal debt as well in the
process.
If education, knowledge and skills are required to provide the
basis for a healthy economy, the role of government must
include ways to increase accessibility to the institutions that can
make education, knowledge and skills available.
_____________________________________________
7850
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is a big demonstration today of students who
are rightly concerned about the impact of social program reform
on the funding of post-secondary education. By cutting
transfers to the provinces, the federal government will force a
substantial rise in tuition fees and seriously restrict access to
university education.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Since the students' concerns are well founded and
given the extent of the criticism of his reform, does the minister
promise today to reconsider his government's intention for
financing post-secondary education?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
in the green book we present several options. One is to continue
with the existing status quo, a formula that was put in place by a
government of which he was a member which reduced transfer
7851
payments to Quebec alone of a quarter of a billion dollars. He
was a member of that government. I know the hon. member is
well versed in this matter, and that is one of the options.
Another option we are presenting is a way of finding a
formula that would add an additional $10 billion to the funding
of higher education, $10 billion that would go for funding
laboratories and libraries and increased accessibility.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this is a government which definitely intends to cut
transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and
thinks that it can hide behind a government which I was proud to
quit.
Do the minister, the government and the governing party
realize that by cutting federal contributions to the provinces, the
reform of social programs will add to students' indebtedness
and transfer part of the federal debt problem onto them?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the
Opposition had so much pride that he did not dare open his
mouth or leave a government at the time when the Conservative
government cut transfer payments to Quebec by a quarter of a
billion dollars. That is how much pride he has. Why did he not
speak up then if he is so strong now?
I will simply point out one fundamental fact. There is nothing
in our proposal that says we will cut the transfer payments to
provinces. The provinces today receive over $6 billion in
transfer payments. Ten years from now they will receive $6
billion in transfer payments. All this talk about a reduction of
$2.6 billion is pure rubbish.
(1420 )
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I had so many reasons to leave that government I
did not have time to express them all when I left.
How can the minister claim that the acquisition of knowledge
is a primary goal of this government and the main method to
encourage economic development when at the same time his
reform will block access to university for thousands of
Canadians and Quebecers?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first time I have ever
been in a agreement with the hon. chief of the opposition is when
he said there were so many reasons to leave the past government.
The only question I have in return is why did he leave it so late?
I said in my answer to the previous question that we clearly
have stated we will continue the transfer payments based on the
formula in place now.
What we want to do, and this is why we are simply putting a
proposal out for serious discussion and debate, is to find a
formula that will add an additional $10 billion over the next 10
years, an additional $10 billion that can be used to provide
further access for students who cannot get there now.
There are a quarter million Canadians in today's workforce
who want to go back to college and university. We have to find a
way of funding them. We have to find a way of improving the
spaces, the facilities and the services.
That is the reason we have to find more money for the system
and we want to do it on the basis of finding a fair allocation
between government, the private sector and the students.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
also for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister persists in denying the negative impact of his
reform on Canadian students' indebtedness and on accessibility
to post-secondary education. By cutting transfer payments to
provinces for post-secondary education, his reform will have
the effect of at least doubling tuition fees in the very first year,
according to the Association of Universities and Colleges of
Canada.
How can the minister continue to claim that access to
post-secondary education will not be reduced, considering the
unprecedented increase in tuition fees triggered by his reform?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never made those
claims. What I have said in fact is that under the system we have
now tuition fees have been rising at a rate of 10 per cent a year.
I want to point out, particularly to the member of the Bloc
Quebecois, that is not our decision. That is a decision taken by
provincial governments. They make decisions on education, not
the federal government. It is the federal government that
transfers the money. Unfortunately a lot of the money we
transfer never ends up in the hands of the universities.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
says he has never made such claims, but this is what he wrote in
his green book.
How can the minister remain so insensitive to the current
problem of students getting into debt? Indeed, by triggering a
twofold increase in tuition fees, his reform will result in heavier
debt loads, to the point where many will no longer dare to pursue
7852
the goal of a post-secondary education, for fear of incurring an
uncontrollable personal debt.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims
that we have been insensitive to students' concerns.
I would remind him that in this year alone we have allocated
over $700 million for student employment strategy which is
providing spaces for thousands upon thousands of students to
get work experience. We are signing agreements with business
to bring new private sector investment into our colleges and
universities. We have increased by 20 per cent the amount of
money going for student summer employment. We have
provided for a youth service corps which will provide
employment post-secondary education.
We have substantially increased today's student loan
program. We have doubled the loan limit. Today I announced a
series of amendments to that program that would enable and
allow students to get access to those funds on much easier terms.
(1425)
We listen to students, respond to them and we want to have
debate and dialogue. We do not urge them, as the hon. member
has done, to go with barricades and protest when what we really
need is a serious debate about something that concerns us all.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister of immigration spoke in
glowing terms about the quality of his recent appointments to
the immigration and refugee board.
However, some of these appointments have been high priced
advocates of the employees of the immigration industry, people
with a vested interest in high immigration and refugee levels and
complicated administrative procedures. Coupled with a
patronage based appointment system, this creates the potential
for continued and systemic conflict of interest.
What if any guidelines are in place to protect the IRB process
from conflict of interest on the part of IRB members?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only does the IRB have
guidelines with respect to its own board members but it also has
the Immigration Act concerning which the chair of the board has
recommended certain action to me and on which I will render a
decision this week.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to hear that the board has guidelines.
I would like to follow this up. We are not concerned just about
conflict of interest but also whether these guidelines cover
influence peddling.
I have a 1992 memo written for Mr. Schelew and other
members of the refugee lawyer's association by Greg James in
which sitting IRB members are tracked and rated on the basis of
the percentage of refugee claims they have accepted. This is the
type of raw material required for influence peddling and both
Mr. James and Mr. Schelew are now on the board.
What guidelines, if any, are in place to protect the IRB process
from influence peddling by immigration insiders?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code of Canada
takes care of influence peddling and if you have any
information, you should put it to the right authorities.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would remind you to please
address your questions and answers to the Chair.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister likes dealing in facts. Here are some facts
and a question.
The first fact is the minister appointed an illegal immigrant to
the IRB. The second fact is the RCMP is investigating influence
peddling in immigration. The third fact is the IRB has dissolved
into two warring factions based on whether they were Tory
patronage appointments or Liberal patronage appointments.
Will the minister face the fact that the IRB is in an absolute
mess and order a judicial inquiry into its conduct?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those are not facts. Those are
rumours and innuendo. That is what you are dealing in.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister to please address
his answer to the Chair.
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the member has any information
that anyone on the IRB is influence peddling, then the onus is on
him to provide our relevant officials under the Criminal Code
with such information.
Second, with respect to the allegations of the conduct of one
individual, a process is in place. The chair has given me a report.
The person in question has been asked to respond and he has.
We are weighing both sets of documents and under due
process this week a decision will be rendered. Those are the
facts. They are open and I am afraid to disillusion the member
but we do not deal in innuendo and slurs or any other empty
attacks.
7853
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development insists on
trivializing the negative impact his social reform will have on
all students in Canada.
He is cutting transfers to the provinces for post-secondary
education, while suggesting an option that is likely to increase
debt levels among Canadian students.
Does the minister realize that what he is offering Canadian
students in his reform package is the prospect of leaving
university with an average debt of $50,000 and having to make
monthly payments of $600 for ten years, to pay back a debt that
thanks to the minister will have increased 100 per cent?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accused
me of trivializing. I would say, to counter what the hon. member
has said, that he has certainly been guilty of seriously
misinforming people about what the facts are, more than once.
In fact I would say his entire question was based on a totally
false premise.
First, we are not cutting the transfers to the provinces. They
are being held at the 1993-94 level of about $6.1 billion. That
continues. That is not a cut. Because the hon. member is one of
the great exponents in the House of provincial rights, he should
know that increasingly the transfer is through tax revenues to the
provinces. They make decisions about tuition. They decide what
the increases will be. They decide what the curriculum will be.
They decide what the universities will do.
If the hon. member has any criticism about what is happening
in universities, it would seem to me he should turn around and
talk to his counterparts in the provinces and ask them why they
do not spend the federal transfer money, which accounts for 50
per cent of all funding for universities, effectively on behalf of
higher education.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows perfectly well that the presidents of universities
and community colleges in Canada intend to double tuition fees
very shortly, as a result of the minister's reform package. He
cannot deny that.
No government in the past has hit students as hard as the
Liberal government intends to do now. There is still time for the
government to reverse its decision.
Will the minister make a commitment to the thousands of
students standing in front of Parliament that he will withdraw
these proposals that would doom students to poverty?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member
and his colleagues who have from day one taken a totally
negative attitude toward any reform at all, we are saying to the
students today, as I offered their leaders in the meeting this
morning and as I offered student leaders across the country when
I met with them: ``Let us come together and look at this problem.
Let us reform the situation. Let us examine the facts. Let us get
the proper things on the table''.
[Translation]
Let us see what we can achieve by working together to
improve the post-secondary education system.
[English]
The fact of the matter is that every person in the country
except the hon. member in the Bloc Quebecois knows that
change or reform is required.
The more we invite our students, our faculty and our
administrators to become part of the process of discussion, the
better the reform will be, as opposed to the position taken by the
hon. member.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last month in the House the Minister for Human Resources
Development said he supports a system of broader, wider grants
for students to use as a way of replacing federal transfers to
provinces for post-secondary education.
Will the government adopt yet another Reform Party
proposal, namely the advanced education voucher system which
would transfer greater control from bureaucrats to individual
students?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a
participant in the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development. That committee is now holding hearings across
the country and receiving a wide variety of ideas.
If the member has a particular proposal on behalf of her party,
certainly I would welcome looking at it as part of the report of
the committee. We have an open, democratic, parliamentary
process able to enlist all the good ideas and even get some of the
bad ones as well.
7854
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform has advocated an advanced education voucher system to
shift federal transfers for post-secondary education into the
hands of those most concerned about educational requirements,
the students themselves. This would make educational
institutions more responsive to students' needs.
(1435)
Will the government consider providing Canadians with the
choices that such a voucher system would provide?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
when we amended the student loans program last spring we
brought into the formula a series of grants available for women
to go to graduate programs, a remission of loans program, and
the ability of students who have income needs to receive certain
assistance.
What we have proposed in the green paper, I want to reiterate,
are simply proposals. They are not government policy. We
suggest that there could be a combination of loans and grants, in
effect a voucher system for individual students that would
enable them to tailor their financial requirements according to
their needs without the same kinds of complication and means
test that now apply to student loans. There could be much easier
funding not only for students who are presently in educational
institutions but for the many Canadians who are in the
workplace now and want to go back to school.
If that is in some way complementary to what the Reform
Party is proposing, we would certainly be glad to look at it.
However I would suggest the hon. member should introduce
those ideas into the committee report because the government
will take the report very seriously.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
unfortunately dismissed the constructive proposal made by the
mayor of Saint-Jean.
According to this proposal, which is more than just a
moratorium, the Collège de Saint-Jean would be allowed a
period of transition, during which it would gradually be turned
into a civilian institution. The mayor's proposal has the
advantage of reducing the negative impact that an immediate
shutdown of military training activities at the college would
otherwise have, if the federal government were to proceed as
planned.
How can the minister be so reluctant to be more open-minded
and flexible about considering the proposal made by the mayor
of Saint-Jean, a proposal that would meet the objectives of all
parties while providing for a gradual transition?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the mayor's proposal contains some very useful
clauses which I looked at a few hours ago, and I will certainly
give them some thought.
However, it is wrong to say that the proposal meets the
conditions set by the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada. From the financial point of view, in
particular, the mayor's proposal would mean that the federal
government would have to spend an additional $23 million over
three years to maintain the moratorium, while at the present
time we have a compromise solution reached by the Government
of Quebec and the federal government, a solution that ensures
the survival of the college, maintains a military presence at the
college and provides for the transition from a military college to
a co-ed civilian university over the next few years.
The present solution, an agreement signed by the Government
of Quebec and the federal government, is a far more successful
response to the conditions set by the Government of Quebec and
by the federal government. Those who want to-
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to see that the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is thinking about the proposal, which means we can
expect the situation to evolve.
As my supplementary, I would like to ask the minister how he
and the Minister of National Defence can repeatedly maintain
their excuse that closing the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean will
mean a savings of $23 million, when it is public knowledge that
the real savings will not be more than $10 million, and that only
a few years from now, because of the reduction in the number of
cadets?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an exaggeration, to put it mildly. For months
we have known that by closing the Collège de Saint-Jean, we
would achieve very substantial savings, because due to military
downsizing, we will no longer need as many cadets as we did
before.
We now have an agreement that provides for maintaining the
Collège de Saint-Jean with a military and a civilian component.
We have a compromise solution. We reached a compromise and
have an agreement that was signed by the Government of
Quebec, under which the objectives of both parties can be met.
7855
Those who want to break this agreement are the people who will
be responsible for the college being closed.
* * *
(1440)
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Military police notes from the Shidane Arone murder
investigation indicate that the order to abuse Somali prisoners
came from senior officers. Now Major Barry Armstrong, a
senior medical officer with the unit, has revealed that on April
18, 1993 there was a general order at Belet Huen and he was
ordered to destroy evidence, specifically all pictures of Somali
patients. Major Armstrong says that some of these pictures still
exist.
It has now been a year and a half since these events. Would the
minister agree that since there are these continued allegations of
cover-up at the highest level these allegations and this evidence
should be turned over to a public inquiry?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to remind the hon. member and members of the House that an
inquiry was established by the previous government. However it
was suspended once charges were laid against certain
individuals.
The judicial process is currently ongoing, the court martials.
There is one to go I believe in January or February. After the
judicial process is complete I have said publicly that there will
be a resumption of the inquiry. The terms of reference for that
inquiry will be broad enough to answer any concern raised by
members of the opposition about the individual in question who
was a military officer and was involved.
With respect to the actual events surrounding the
circumstances in Somalia, as I have said they are subject to
judicial proceedings at the moment and, as I have said in the
House before, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
There is an additional allegation on March 4, 1993. Major
Armstrong performed an autopsy on Mr. Ahmed Affrah Aresh,
another unarmed Somali civilian who was shot in the back and
killed execution style. No charges were ever laid and I am told
there is no investigation proceeding on the matter.
Will the minister agree that this should be investigated? Will
he also agree that the whole process of military justice in this
case should be submitted to an investigation? We have a
corporal alone, sitting in jail, the man who provided the initial
evidence for the investigation.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the last
point first, the military justice system has been upheld as
constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.
On the second point with respect to the allegations made in
print this morning, there are two police investigations ongoing.
If the individual in question has evidence which he has a duty to
report as a member of the armed forces, he should make that
evidence available to the police authorities undertaking the
investigation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Wanting to look like Robin Hood, the Minister of Human
Resources Development pretends that his reform will attack the
wealthy unemployed so that more can be given to the poor, by
taking from households earning over $60,000 the right to collect
unemployment insurance benefits while requiring them to
continue to pay premiums.
Does the minister recognize that his proposed reform of
unemployment insurance will force 2.6 million households
earning over $60,000 to pay UI premiums without being able to
collect benefits?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I remind the hon.
member that the green paper is simply a series of proposals.
There is no program; there is no policy. It is out for discussion. It
is out for an important dialogue among Canadians.
When the hon. member speaks about the need to help those
who are chronically unemployed, I point out that the whole
purpose of the paper is to find ways in which we can get the
resources to help those who have been unemployed for long
periods of time, to get good literacy programs, to retrain, to help
self-employment programs, and to develop a variety of ways to
give them a chance to get back to a job. It is a way of trying to
turn the safety net into a springboard. It gives an awful lot more
opportunity and an awful lot more hope to those who have been
unemployed.
That is the purpose of the green paper. It is a purpose that I
think the hon. member should endorse.
7856
(1445)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I wish to ask a
supplementary question. Does the minister realize that his
reform making family income a condition of eligibility for
unemployment insurance will penalize mainly women, reducing
them to unacceptable financial dependence on their husbands?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon.
member to look more carefully at the technical paper that was
presented. I think it does explain.
First, it points out that under the proposal for a two tier
system, 70 per cent of those who receive unemployment
insurance would not be affected in any kind of way, but those
who receive basic insurance would have the same formula
attached. It is only those who are basically using unemployment
insurance every year.
This is an important difference. What is really happening and
has happened is that 40 per cent of UI users are frequent users.
That means it is no longer an insurance program. It has become
an income benefit program. Perhaps it is very much needed,
perhaps it is very much necessary, but it is no longer based on
the fundamental insurance principle. It has become an income
benefit program. As the hon. member would know, every
income benefit program has some test applied to ensure that
those who are very wealthy, those who have a lot of money, do
not use the system as it is not supposed to be used.
That is simply the proposal to which we are asking Canadians
to respond. I will welcome the hon. member's response to that
question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
All kinds of false rumours are circulating about social program
reform and about the green book which, by the way, is a
discussion paper. Some say that the federal government wants to
cut up to $2.3 billion in contributions to post-secondary
education. Some even claim that the federal government wants
to centralize student loan programs.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development set the
record straight on this?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true that false
rumours are circulating, particularly in publications by the
members opposite, about the changes we will make to the
post-secondary education system.
First of all, we do not want to cut federal assistance; we want
to invest it. As I said earlier, if the status quo was maintained,
$61 billion would be spent on education. But, if the federal
proposals are adopted, the combination of transfers, taxes and
loans would produce $70 billion for this period, or an additional
$10 billion for the education fund in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister has challenged Alberta private medical clinics to a
showdown at high noon. Alberta's health minister has given me
the authority to refute these allegations. Where would the
minister suggest we have this debate?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very serious issue. I have expressed my
concern on numerous occasions. There is no quick solution as
the Reform Party would have us believe.
I have been systematically working over this past year to
address some of the very serious issues to ensure that Canadians
get the kind of care they need when they need it and that we do
not create a system that benefits the healthy and wealthy at the
expense of the sick and the average Canadian.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest we
have this discussion outside in the lobby today. Too busy? Let's
do it on ``Newsworld''. Not ready? Let us debate this in the
minister's office with all her bureaucrats-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1450 )
The Speaker: It is a good thing we left our guns at the door
today. The hon. member for Macleod, his question please.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): The straightforward question is this: Is
this health minister afraid to debate me on the issue of private
medical clinics?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been talking about health in this House for a
year. I am certainly not afraid to talk about health to anyone in
our country.
I know exactly where the members of the Reform Party are
coming from. It is not the policy of this government, nor is it the
policy of this minister.
7857
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
federal-provincial conference of fisheries ministers held in
Victoria on November 1, the government of Quebec formally
requested jurisdiction over fisheries management. You will
recall that, in 1983, the Liberal government had unilaterally
decided to centralize fisheries management in Ottawa.
Can the Minister of Fisheries tell us whether or not he intends
to make changes to administrative jurisdictions with regard to
Canadian fisheries? And, if so, does he intend to do so along the
lines of what Quebec is asking for?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Indeed,
several governments in Canada in recent weeks and months have
expressed an interest in greater responsibility in the area of the
administration of the health of the fisheries.
Among those is the Government of Quebec, which made its
position clear at a meeting of federal and provincial ministers in
Victoria a few weeks ago. The Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador expressed an interest in fisheries management in a
proposal it calls joint management. The Government of British
Columbia expressed an interest in seeing licensing and
allocation boards established in the province of British
Columbia.
It is good to see that the new Government of Quebec, and on
this I congratulate it sincerely, and I have congratulated the
minister who is in tune with his fellow colleagues, understands
the need to build efficiencies in this country given our fiscal
restraint, to find ways to avoid duplication and overlap and to
have better administration of fisheries policies by working
together, all 10 provinces and the national government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thought I had
put my question clearly, but I am not sure that the answer I got
was clear.
Here is my question: Does the minister intend to reorganize
fisheries management in Canada? Information was leaked to the
Globe and Mail three weeks ago to the effect that cuts would be
made. Quebec has come up with a proposal.
I would like to know if the minister is planning to make
changes to fisheries management. If so, will these changes be in
keeping with Quebec demands?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend working with my
colleague, with others in the House interested in fisheries
matters and with all of the provinces to respond very directly to
reorganizing the fishery. The bottom line is that we look after
the resource for conservation and for enforcement. That means
sharing greater roles and responsibilities with all of the
provinces, including the province of Quebec. I am quite open
and willing to take a look at it.
The member is asking me whether or not the proposal of any
one province is going to be accepted in its total form without
amendment or without discussion. That is not the nature of
federalism. Federalism is based on mutual respect, mutual
interest, dialogue and discussion.
I look forward to continued good dialogue and discussion
with all of the provinces, including Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in March of this year the House was informed that the
RCMP was involved in an ongoing investigation into the
activities of Hockey Canada and Mr. Alan Eagleson.
Since then a U.S. grand jury has brought down a 34 point
indictment and the Law Society of Upper Canada a 41 point
complaint against Mr. Eagleson.
The RCMP in this time has not even contacted the primary
source of information to the FBI and the Law Society of Upper
Canada, Mr. Russ Conway of Lawrence, Massachusetts.
(1455 )
My question is for the Solicitor General. Why has the RCMP
not even interviewed Mr. Conway and why is the RCMP not
pursuing this investigation with vigour and commitment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not customary for a Solicitor General to comment
on ongoing investigations. However, I can confirm that the
investigation continues. I am sure it will be carried out with the
professionalism that we associate with the RCMP.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the House has been hearing the same answer to that
exact question from this Solicitor General and previous
Solicitors General since 1992.
There is a concern that the minute U.S. authorities request
extradition the RCMP will lay a charge of jaywalking or some
7858
other charge to prevent or preclude the extradition of Mr.
Eagleson to face United States authorities.
When American authorities request the extradition of Mr.
Eagleson to face charges in the United States for racketeering
and embezzlement, will the minister allow those proceedings to
have priority over any charges laid by the RCMP subsequent to
an extradition request?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member makes an interesting point and it is
that the U.S. authorities have not yet sought the extradition of
Mr. Eagleson. If and when they do this matter will be for the
Minister of Justice to deal with, not the Solicitor General.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday I was advised by a representative of Inglis Limited
that its parent company, Whirlpool Corporation, will be closing
its manufacturing facility in my riding of Cambridge.
Given that my riding has had both very good and very bad
news in the course of one week, does the minister have any
words of advice for those workers at Inglis who will be losing
their jobs and of course for my people in Cambridge?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is regrettable that Inglis has decided to close its
facility in Cambridge, Ontario. It is a loss of jobs. It represents a
restructuring that is occurring within that corporation as it
moves its production to its main plant.
The good news of course is that in the last week or so Toyota
Corporation announced that it would be investing $600 million
in a major expansion to its facility in Cambridge, Ontario,
creating 1,200 long term jobs in the community.
I think that represents not only a very important endorsement
by one of the world's major corporations of Canadian
competitiveness but it is also a clear win for Canadian workers
in the auto sector who have proven that they can be productive
and competitive and that they can make automobiles as good as
anyone else in the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
After pressure was exerted by the Official Opposition, the
review of appointments to the IRB has shown that the minister is
continuing the same system of patronage as the former
government. The only difference is that now the open conflict
between the various factions is further undermining the board's
credibility.
Following the resignation of the executive director and the
indefinite suspension of the vice-chairman, when will the
minister restore some order to the board?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very
unfair to simply take the one person under question this week
and draw the conclusion that every one of the IRB members, all
211, are going to be painted by the same brush.
Instead we should recognize that it is an important federal
institution. We should be seeking reforms and modifications on
how we can build up the institution and not seek to politically
exploit the difficulty and tear it down.
It would be unfair to simply say that the appointment process
is one that was there years ago.
(1500)
We have gazetted all the appointments, all of them are
evaluated under the same standard by the IRB. I think we should
continue to seek reforms. We have put some reform proposals
before the agency and program review. If the hon. member has
additional recommendations we would be more than pleased to
entertain them.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry will be aware that the government's
competition bureau has finished its investigation of the defence
department and the way it contracts household moves. The
competition bureau has now directed the defence department to
open up the bidding process beyond the four big van lines.
Will the minister make public a summary of the report so that
parties who want to bid on future projects will know what the
new rules are for bidding on household moves?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the director of investigation and research under the
Competition Act, as the member indicates, has provided advice
to the interdepartmental committee which is responsible for
government moves. He has also indicated that from his point of
view he is satisfied that letter of advice can be made public.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
7859
Last week the Prime Minister announced in China his support
for the Three Gorges dam and the sale of Candu reactors to
China. In view of the strong opposition by this minister and
other Liberals to Canadian involvement in Three Gorges,
described as an economic, social and environmental disaster,
and in view of China's continued nuclear testing and dumping of
waste in Tibet, how can the secretary of state justify this massive
betrayal of the Liberal government's earlier promises on Three
Gorges and Candu reactor sales?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister was in
China and did speak of the Three Gorges dam project with the
president of China. China has decided to go ahead with the
development of the Three Gorges dam project despite what any
of our views were with regard to environmental and human
rights issues. We will remain concerned about those issues
whether they are in China or anywhere else we are involved.
However, the Chinese government is asking for Canadian
co-operation in the development and we hope that in providing
our management and technical expertise we can have an
influence on those potential negative impacts.
I think it is also important to recognize that the Yangtze River
is a very important resource to China and it poses both a threat
and an opportunity. The river has caused thousands of deaths but
there is great potential in that river for electrical energy
formation and the possibility of navigating, allowing ships to
get to interior cities, which is important.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
point of order follows the tabling in the House yesterday of two
documents by one of the co-chairmen of the Special Joint
Committee reviewing Canada's foreign policy, the hon. member
for Ottawa-Vanier.
The first document includes the report of the committee and is
signed by the two co-chairmen. The second document includes
the dissenting opinions and the appendices to the report. For
several reasons, we feel that to include dissenting opinions in a
document separate from the report signed by the co-chairmen of
the committee goes against the parliamentary rules governing
the committee and this House.
First, we want to point out that Standing Order 108.(1)(a)
allows committees to report on issues submitted to them. That
provision, which is on page 63 of the Standing Orders of the
House of Commons, also authorizes committees, and I quote:
-to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chairman,
containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or
supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members.
The decision to annex such a statement must be made by way
of a motion concurred in by committee members. As confirmed
in the minutes of the committee included in the second
document tabled yesterday, such a motion was agreed to at the
hearing which took place on the evening of November 2, 1994.
(1505)
The text of the motion, which is found on page 102 of the
second document, reads as follows: ``On motion of Bill Graham,
it was agreed,- That the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and
other members of the Committee, be authorized to append to the
report their dissenting or supplementary opinions or
recommendations, such opinions or recommendations shall be
in the discretion of the dissenting members themselves relevant
and proportionate to the length of the report''.
Mr. Speaker, we respectfully submit that the documents
tabled yesterday do not comply with the terms of Standing Order
108(1)(a), since the dissenting opinions are not presented after
the signatures of the joint chairs, which are found at the end of
the report in the first document. On the contrary, this statement
is in the second document, separate from the first, which
contains the report of the committee signed by the joint chairs.
The dissenting opinions are in no case appended to the report
as required by Standing Order 108(1)(a) and the motion adopted
by the committee on November 2, 1994. Some might be inclined
to say that the dissenting opinions follow the joint chairs'
signatures in the second document, which is part of the
committee's report.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot support such a claim because we think
that such a procedure is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of
Standing Order 108(1)(a). Indeed, what is the point of
appending the dissenting opinions of certain members to the
committee report, if not to let readers of the report judge the
validity of the opinions and recommendations that it contains by
comparing them with those of the dissenting members?
The most basic logic requires that these dissenting opinions
follow in the same document. At no time should someone be
able to refer to this report without immediately having the
recommendations of the minority report included therein. That
is why Standing Order 108(1)(a) requires appending the
dissenting opinions to the report, following the signature of the
two joint chairs; otherwise such a statement is quite useless.
Economic or practical reasons cannot be invoked to justify
tabling two separate documents in the House, since this was not
founded on a committee decision. The committee must adopt a
motion consistent with parliamentary rules for the committee
7860
report and the statement of dissident opinions to be divided into
two documents.
According to citation 552 in Beauchesne, every matter is
determined in the House of Commons upon a question put by the
Speaker on a proposition submitted by a member. Since
Standing Order 116 provides that a committee must obey House
procedural rules, the committee should, in accordance with
parliamentary rules, adopt a motion to publish the dissident
report as a separate document, if it decides to do so for economic
or practical reasons.
The motion adopted by the committee on November 2, 1994,
which authorizes Bloc members on the committee to append
their dissident opinions to the report, does not provide in any
way for the report to be split into two documents. In fact, the
committee minutes reproduced in the second document do not
reflect such a decision.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that the committee had full
discretion to include dissident opinions in a second document.
Again, such a decision should have been the subject of a motion
duly adopted by the committee, but the minutes do not contain
such a motion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, we respectfully
submit to you that tabling the report and the statement of
dissident opinions in two separate documents, as was done
yesterday, goes against the rules of parliamentary procedure
governing the House of Commons and the committee.
Parliamentary jurisprudence clearly establishes that the Chair
is free to rule on a report's admissibility at any time after the
report is tabled. Indeed, citation 893 in Beauchesne, on page
244, says this: ``A committee report may be ruled out of order
even though it has been received by the House, and a motion to
concur therein cannot then be entertained''.
(1510)
On January 28, 1991, the Chair ruled, on page 2824 of
Hansard, that part of a report previously tabled in the House was
inadmissible and even null and void. Therefore, we urge you,
Mr. Speaker, to exercise the powers invested in you and rule out
of order the reports tabled yesterday in the House by one of the
committee joint chairmen, to order that the report of the Special
Joint Committee Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy be
reprinted so that the dissident opinions appear after the joint
chairmen's signatures within a single document, in accordance
with the parliamentary rules governing the House and the
committee, and finally to order that the reprinted report be
tabled as soon as possible.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a co-chairman of the committee which has now been
dissolved-still, I feel a responsibility-I would like to explain
why the co-chairman from the Senate and myself decided to
produce the report in two separate volumes. This was one single
report which was tabled only in this House and the other place,
and not two separate reports.
The committee report, dissenting opinions, appendices,
position papers, documents and summaries added up to a total of
1,126 pages. This was rather bulky. So, some thinking was
required. We sought advice and gave the matter some thought
and, finally, decided to publish the report in two volumes, both
of which were put in a white folder marked ``Committee
Report''. This is how it was tabled in this House and distributed
to the media.
We would have liked the printer to tie them together with
something like this to make things easier, but time was short and
it would have been too costly. The point is taken, but it is not
really fair to say that there are two reports. There is only one
report. It was decided to produce the report in two volumes. The
first volume is 181 pages long and contains the majority report,
while the second volume, with 202 pages, contains the
dissenting opinions of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party
as well as the appendices.
In addition, we have put together in another volume the 250
pages of position papers prepared by experts, experts
recognized by the committee that is. A 483-page summary was
also made available in loose-leaf format to limit costs. It can be
obtained on request. Since it was impossible to tie the volumes
with a plastic or paper tape because the printing deadlines were
too short, the two volumes that make up the report were
distributed yesterday, as I indicated earlier, in a specially
designed folder marked ``Report of the Special Joint Committee
Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy''.
Positions papers and summaries on the other hand are
distributed on request. The index of Volume I indicates very
clearly that the report has two volumes and lists the contents of
Volume II. This is clear proof that the dissention opinions are
part and parcel of the committee report. The Bloc should see in
this format nothing more that an effort on the part of both
co-chairmen to provide the readers with practical and easy to
handle documents.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that none of the parties in this House have
tried to do anything to offend members who today, apparently,
feel they have been treated unfairly. That was not the case, it was
not our purpose, and that is not what happened.
Furthermore, without wishing to get into a debate with hon.
members opposite, it is obvious that both volumes are part of
one and the same report.
(1515)
Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is perfectly clear from the
Standing Orders that if there was only one tabling, of course
there was only one report.
7861
[English]
Reading from page two of volume one it says: ``Volume two
contains dissenting opinions, appendices, minutes of
proceedings''. In other words, Mr. Speaker, when you read the
first volume there is reference to the second volume, both of
them being part of one report as the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier has described.
On behalf of my colleagues I have offered, and I wish to state
this to Mr. Speaker, that in the event there is a reprint or printing
of additional copies should members require additional copies
for the House, the committee, or indeed for anyone for
distribution purposes, I would not object to having both reports
joined in one volume, if that is manageable for those who print
these kinds of documents.
I would not of course advocate that we destroy the copies that
have been printed. As I said previously, nothing wrong was
intended and nothing wrong was committed. Therefore there
would be no reason to redo the present copies. However, if it
would please members across the way I would certainly have no
objection should further printings of the report be necessary to
join both volumes together.
[Translation]
Some say it may be too late. No, it is not too late, although
there is nothing wrong with the reports we have here. All I want
to say to hon. members opposite is, that if it makes them feel
better, if that would satisfy them, we are prepared to co-operate
in the event additional copies are needed. It is not too late. There
was no malicious intent, and there was no harm done.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, according to informal
discussions held yesterday, two of the three parties in this House
agreed to keep the report as is.
[English]
Finally, in the unlikely event there would still be someone
who mistakenly believed these two volumes constituted two
reports, the committee chair went out of his way over the
weekend to have a special jacket printed. Both volumes are
contained inside the one jacket so that no one could possibly
even inadvertently consider these two volumes as being two
reports.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, speaking to this point of order I concur with my
colleague from the Bloc that this report was not handled or
distributed properly.
There are two volumes but there is nothing on the outside of
either of the volumes to indicate which is number one and which
is number two. You have to look into the contents to find that
there is a second volume. Even at that you would have a difficult
time knowing whether it was volume one or volume two.
Being concerned about the cost of a complete reprinting of
this I would suggest that those copies that have not yet been
distributed should be clearly labelled with a stamp or a sticker
indicating volume one and that volume two is available with the
dissenting reports in it.
It is important to make it very clear to all readers of the report
who happen to get volume one that there were two dissenting
reports, one by the Bloc Quebecois and one by the Reform Party.
If it is not handled properly, the Canadian public and those who
receive volume one may never know other options were put on
the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of
order. Perhaps I may provide some additional clarification. It is
clear that the procedure was somewhat less than satisfactory.
Considering the size of the report, the committee could have put
everything together in a document of about 400 pages, which is
common practice, or it could have published a complete report
in French and complete English version. That would have been
fair to everyone.
It seems to me that the reasons invoked by the government
party were entirely unacceptable and the government also failed
to prove that the Standing Orders had been observed in this case.
(1520)
I was able to demonstrate, however, that the Standing Orders
had been totally ignored, that the report did not meet the
requirements of the Standing Orders and that, if the chairman of
the committee had wanted to show he was acting in good faith,
he could have called a meeting of his committee and put to a vote
the requisite proposals for proceeding the way he did.
Consequently, I would ask you to hand down a ruling on the
matter as requested earlier.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the remarks made by the chief government whip
and by the member for Ottawa-Vanier ought to be more than
sufficient to put this matter to rest.
They indicate very clearly that while there may be a complaint
there is not any basis for a point of order or indeed a question of
privilege arising out of the publication of a report in two
volumes. I think it is commonplace that reports are published in
more than one volume. Here we have a report that with the
appendices comes to five volumes as I count them. That is what
is available from distribution if members ask.
There is one further technical point I invite Your Honour to
consider in reviewing this matter. Standing Order 108(1) which
permits dissenting opinions and which was a change in the
standing orders made during the last Parliament largely at the
behest of members of this party applies only to standing
committees.
7862
This is the report of a special joint committee. The fact there
was a dissenting opinion was thanks to the good graces of the
hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the members of the
committee who agreed to apply this rule to the special joint
committee because it would not otherwise apply.
The changes to the standing orders were made in respect only
of standing committees. It has never been applied beyond that.
This was a special benefit, if you like, conferred by the generous
hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and his co-chair of the special
joint committee.
I am surprised there would be complaints today when we have
very lengthy dissenting opinions. I may say that the dissenting
opinions as I see it are almost as long as the report. Here we have
a second volume that is thicker than the report itself.
I am not surprised that the report has been divided into two
volumes. I think a satisfactory explanation as to why that was
done has been given both by the chief government whip in his
very able argument and by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to thank the hon. member for Roberval
for raising this matter.
[English]
I also thank my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier, the
government whip and of course the parliamentary secretary, as
well as the House leader for the Reform Party. I am sure that you
will all agree to give your Speaker some time to review
everything that has been put in front of me. If it is deemed
necessary I will come back to the House with a decision.
I will review all of the information that has been supplied to
me. I will inform myself also of the rules. With your permission
I will get back to the House if it is necessary as soon as possible.
_____________________________________________
7862
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments which were made by
the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
five petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, to the
House a report concerning the 40th Commonwealth
Parliamentary Conference which was held in Banff, Alberta,
October 4 to 18, 1994.
* * *
(1525 )
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has
considered the documents entitled: ``Draft Amendments to the
Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff, Crime Cards and Board
Games'' and your committee has agreed to report it with three
recommendations.
The study was prompted by concerns about the glorification
of violence through the format of a board game and trading cards
depicting serial killers. Many petitions were received in the
House.
The committee studied draft legislation. The committee now
recommends a broader scope dealing with the glorification or
exploitation of horror, cruelty and violence through expanded
obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code as a more inclusive
legislative effort. Also suggested were the utilization of a
preamble together with appropriate safeguards and special
defences.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
dissenting opinion to the report of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs, the Bloc Quebecois points out that the
exploitation of violence cannot fail to be of concern to all of us.
There is no doubt that trade cards and board games (black series)
fly in the face of our fundamental values and shamefully defile
the memory of the battered and murdered victims.
7863
Witnesses indicated that they had been unable to have a look
at these board games and serial killer cards until the committee
gave them samples. The same was true of most MPs who
opposed importing and manufacturing serial killer cards. They
acknowledged they had never seen any.
Therefore, one must wonder how such a marginal issue could
keep committee members occupied for several months.
Obviously, this is not very responsible.
We firmly believe that this committee should deal more with
issues related to real violence rather than hypothetical violence
due to the action of some shady publishers.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, an Act to revoke the
conviction of Louis David Riel.
She said: Mr. Speaker, 109 years ago today, Louis David Riel
was hanged. On November 22, 1885, in reaction to his
execution, a crowd of close to 50,000 people gathered on the
Champ-de-Mars in Montreal and heard Honoré Mercier speak
his now famous words of tribute.
Today, I am tabling a bill entitled ``An Act to revoke the
conviction of Louis David Riel''. Some facts are worth
recalling. In order to ensure a unanimous verdict, Prime
Minister Macdonald had Riel tried in Regina rather than in
Winnipeg. The jury was composed exclusively of
English-speaking Protestants. In order to justify its actions, the
Cabinet, in a report to the House, went so far as to falsify Dr.
Valade's report, which stated that Riel was not responsible, by
reason of insanity.
The trial was marred by irregularities and Riel was sacrificed
by Macdonald to the powerful Ontario lobby. Riel was hanged
because he was a Métis, because he was a francophone, and
because he went to the defence of a distinct society.
It is important to remember-
The Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. member and indeed
all hon. members will respect the Standing Orders and keep it
brief. Otherwise, we will be here all afternoon. One more
sentence.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): A refusal to
acknowledge it is a refusal to understand the present and a
refusal to build a future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
(1530)
[English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions today. The first petition pursuant to Standing Order 36
is on behalf of my constituents who call on our government to
say the same thing in power that we said while in opposition,
namely that we support a world class domestic ethanol industry
that is renewable, sustainable and environmentally friendly,
creating jobs and helping our rural areas.
A $200 million dollar ethanol plant in Chatham awaits a
federal decision of support. It would be 20 times larger than any
other plant now in Canada.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition from my constituents states that human life at the
preborn stage is not protected in Canadian society. Your
petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
My last petition from the constituents of Kent states that
whereas human life at the preborn stage is not protected in
Canadian society, your petitioners pray that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions to be presented under Standing Order 36 from my
constituents in Egmont.
The first one is on sexual orientation and the petitioners pray
and request that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Act or
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend
to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is with regard to euthanasia. The petitioners request that
Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code
of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously
and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would
sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or passive or
active euthanasia.
7864
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last
petition the petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following petition which comes from all across Canada and
contains 2,340 signatures. It is quite a fat document.
The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a
6-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of
Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of
Parliament.
The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to
change the justice system to provide greater protection for
children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of
offenders.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition on
behalf of 51 Albertans, many of whom are my constituents.
These petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Am I pleased not only to present this petition but to endorse it
as well.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions today. The first petition contains 61
signatures from citizens and residents of the town of Frankfurt,
Ontario.
(1535 )
They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is from the same community concerning
what is being shown on television.
The undersigned pray and call on Parliament to ensure that the
CRTC recognizes that Canadians do not need to be shocked to be
entertained. Foul language, excessive violence and explicit sex
are not necessary to provide quality entertainment.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition is from Lanark and Perth, Ontario. The
petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I would
ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that the notice of motion for the production
of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the notice of motion for the
production of papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with sadness yet with serenity that we learned yesterday of the
passing of the Hon. Eugène Marquis, who represented the riding
of Kamouraska in this House at one time.
Mr. Marquis was born in St. Alexandre, Kamouraska, in 1901.
He was the son of Joseph Marquis and Eveline Michaud. Upon
completion of his classical studies, Eugène Marquis received
his law degree from Laval University. Upon being admitted to
the Bar, he was appointed susbstitute to the Attorney General of
Quebec.
In 1931, Eugène Marquis married Véronique Chabot -who
happens to be my aunt as she is my mother's sister- in Ste.
Claire de Dorchester. Destined for politics, he ran in the 1945
general elections as a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada,
when the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime
Minister of the country, and the voters of Kamouraska put their
trust in him. They did so again in the next election, in 1949,
when the Right Hon. Louis Saint-Laurent was Prime Minister of
Canada.
7865
On August 24, 1949, on the recommendation of the Prime
Minister of Canada, the Hon. Eugène Marquis was appointed to
the Superior Court of Quebec, of which he would eventually
become the associate chief justice.
Mr. Marquis's legal career spanned both criminal and civil
law, and whether on the bench or in private practice, whether
representing the State or the Attorney General, his great
humanity was recognized by all.
I have the honour of having four parishes in common with Mr.
Marquis, parishes that were in his riding when he was a member
of Parliament and have now become part of the riding of
Bellechasse: Saint-Damase-des-Aulnaies, Tourville,
Sainte-Perpétue and Saint-Omer. Eugène Marquis was also an
active member of the Knights of Columbus, making a valuable
contribution to the furtherance of this organization's social
mission.
To his children, Monique, Louise, Yves, Michel and Jean, I
offer my deepest sympathy, as well as to his colleagues from the
Barreau du Québec and all those who worked with him in the
judicial system in Quebec and Canada.
(1540)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to express the sorrow of members in
our party on the death of Mr. Marquis. I do know that the hon.
member for Bellechasse is that gentleman's nephew. I am sorry
for him, his family and the family of the deceased that this event
happened today. I extend to the hon. member all the respect
which members of this House have for former members and that
certainly applies to this member for Kamouraska who served his
country well a long time ago. I offer the sincere condolences of
all members on this side of the House to his family.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on behalf of my colleagues in
the Reform caucus to also express our sympathies to the family
on the passing of a former member of the House of Commons,
Mr. Eugene Marquis.
Although no one from our caucus has known him, I do know
that Mr. Marquis was a farmer and those of us who are farmers
share a kindred spirit. We do express our sympathies on behalf
of our caucus to the members of his family. We also know that he
was committed to Canada, a strong united Canada, before we
perhaps got entangled in some of the more recent concerns in
Canadian history. We all salute the former member for his
contribution to the country and his commitment to it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I too would like to convey my deepest
sympathy to the family of one of our former colleagues.
_____________________________________________
7865
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 15 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to resume debate on Bill C-53, an act to
establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Although the proposed legislation will officially establish in
law this new department, more than a year has gone by since the
department was formed from the components of no less than five
different federal departments. This exercise we are going
through is part of this government's effort to streamline the way
the federal system is organized.
That interim period between the practical establishment of the
new department and the present regulatory establishment of it
has, to say the least, proved to be very interesting and
challenging not only for the new department but for the
government and for the entire country.
The different sectors of Canadian heritage have had to get
used to their new organizational relationships. In many cases
this has meant breaking established links with their former
organizations and forming new ones with the various entities
brought together to create the new Department of Canadian
Heritage.
To take one example which interests me, let us look at Parks
Canada. Formally a part of Environment Canada, Parks Canada
is now a vital and active member of the new ministry. Parks
Canada is the steward of our national parks and our national
historic sites which collectively represent some of our most
precious natural and cultural heritage resources.
Some have questioned the move of parks to Canadian
Heritage. In my view it makes good sense to have the program of
Parks Canada housed in a department devoted to our heritage.
(1545 )
The historic sites and national parks are tangible expressions
of our culture and the geographical realities that have helped to
instil in Canadians a unique perspective on the natural
environment.
7866
It seems to me there is a special relationship between
Canadians, aboriginal Canadians and immigrant Canadians, and
the environment. This is expressed through Parks Canada and so
it is part of our heritage.
In listening to various speakers regarding this bill, both those
on the government side and colleagues in other parties, what has
struck me is the fundamental nature of feelings that have been
expressed. Truly this new department, the Department of
Canadian Heritage, has responsibility for areas that strike a deep
and resonant chord in all Canadians.
The Department of Canadian Heritage-I must admit it is a
new name, but a new name that I like-is a department that is
concerned about all those things that make us what we are, those
things that set us apart in the global community. Anyone who
takes the time cannot fail to be impressed by the range and
diversity of the new department's program areas.
I do not intend to list each of these areas of endeavour, but I do
want to note some of the major sectors for the benefit of those
who have been following this debate. I have already mentioned
Parks Canada. In addition the new department has responsibility
for the arts, broadcasting, heritage conservation, cultural
industries including film, video, sound recording and book
publishing.
It is also responsible for the federal programs dedicated to the
promotion of official languages; the pursuit of excellence in
amateur sport, Mr. Speaker, which interests you and me greatly;
the promotion of our cultural diversity and the encouragement
of the full and open participation of every Canadian in society.
In short, the Department of Canadian Heritage is active in
areas that have as their common objective the promotion of
Canadian identity. I think everyone listening to this can relate to
one or another of those areas of interest which this new
department has that I have mentioned. In my riding of
Peterborough, and I have only been a member of Parliament for
a short time, I have already had personal discussions with
constituents about virtually every one of those areas of heritage
activity that I have mentioned.
As one can see from the proposed legislation we are
discussing here, this bill will give sanction to a federal
department that has programs that touch each and every
Canadian. The department is a rich amalgam of sectors. Indeed I
believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the privilege
to direct one of the government's most exciting and challenging
new portfolios.
The word heritage means different things to different people.
To me one thing is clear. Particularly this year at this particular
time in this House one thing is clear: Our heritage matters and
the department dedicated to it are necessarily of great
importance at this time, at any time, to this country. I have no
doubt whatever that the new Department of Canadian Heritage
will prove to be an able and vital player in the federal arena as it
goes about carrying out the responsibilities conferred upon it by
Parliament.
Although the bill before us says a technical purpose,
confirming as it does the creation of the department in statute, to
me it nonetheless represents a far-sighted and enlightened step
on the part of the government, a step that will benefit our
children and for which I think they will thank us. In my view this
department will help ensure that Canada remains a country that
others will look to as an example, a nation built on its aboriginal
foundations that is confident enough in its identity to embrace
the peoples of the world, not only accepting their cultural
differences, but welcoming and acknowledging them for what
they are, living examples of human expression that link us to the
past, link us to the rest of the world and provide us with the
foundation and certainty necessary to face the future with
confidence.
(1550 )
I have taken note of concerns expressed by some members
about the rationale for placing responsibility for broadcasting
within Canadian heritage while the telecommunications policy
will reside in the new Department of Industry. These members
pretend to worry about whether the government will be
hamstrung by this arrangement and therefore be incapable of
action in these two vital fields. I can only say the truth is far
from that.
Canadians can be assured that both departments are
co-operating, teaming their efforts and finding innovative and
effective ways to satisfy their respective mandates.
We need look no further than the recent joint announcement of
my colleagues the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
Minister of Industry regarding the government's request to the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission, the CRTC, to seek input and report on a number of
regulatory and policy matters relevant to the development of the
information highway.
Both ministers recognize that the interests of all parties,
consumers, business, creators, in short everyone, will best be
served by an open and transparent information gathering
process.
Accordingly the government has asked the CRTC to consider
such issues as the regulations in new services, the contributions
to the objectives of the broadcasting act that these new services
would be required to make, and the transition to fair competition
between the various players on the information highway,
particularly the cable television and telephone companies.
It is all too easy to sit and wring our hands and worry that the
two departments will not be able to deliver on their mandates.
Those that do so have their blinders on and refuse to see what
can be done or accomplished if the will and effort are there.
7867
We have heard many speakers on this bill talk about the
dawning of the so-called information age and what that will
mean for you and me today and for our children tomorrow.
Although no one can be sure about the future we can all be
certain that adaptations will be the prerequisite for success.
With respect to the future viability of our cultural sector this
government is committed to ensuring that Canadian content
services have a strong visible and audible presence on the
information highway.
For me, debate at second reading has proved both interesting
and telling in this matter, interesting because of the breadth and
scope of the issues discussed and telling because it has pointed
out the fundamental differences in the perspectives of this
government and members of the opposition parties.
The negativism expressed by those in opposition to this bill is
in stark contrast to the confidence shown by the government in
tabling this legislation and in the various pieces of legislation
that will establish the other large new departments.
Never has our national heritage and its expression been more
important than at the present time. The government's actions in
this regard are founded on a sense of optimism for the future,
yes, optimism in continuing ingenuity, skill, and energy of our
fellow Canadians toward ensuring a thriving and prosperous
future for this country.
I want to assure each and every Canadian that they have an
elected government that is committed to serving them in the
most effective, efficient way possible.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this time and I
look forward to early passage of this legislation.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak again to Bill C-53 which establishes the
Department of Canadian Heritage. In my first address to the
House on this bill I discussed the issues of multiculturalism and
copyright. Today I wish to address the issue of the national parks
system. Yes, these inherently different areas all fall within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of Canadian heritage.
(1555)
I continue to be puzzled as to why Parks Canada is now part of
the Department of Canadian Heritage. While it is very true that
our national parks provide educational opportunities to all
Canadians to learn about Canadian history and culture, our 36
national parks and national park reserves across the country
seem to me to have greater environmental importance. Prior to
the introduction of this bill by the previous government, Parks
Canada had been part of the Department of the Environment.
Parks Canada states in its ``Guiding Principles and
Operational Policy'' that it contributes to ``an understanding
and collective sense of Canada's identity as well as a shared
sense of pride. We celebrate this rich heritage through national
historic sites, national parks and park reserves, heritage
railways stations, historic canals, marine conservation areas,
heritage rivers, federal heritage buildings and historical
markers''.
Parks Canada has redefined its purpose in the following
manner: ``To fulfil national and international responsibilities in
mandated areas of heritage recognition and conservation and to
commemorate, protect and present both directly and indirectly
places which are significant examples of Canada's cultural and
natural heritage in ways that encourage public understanding,
appreciation and enjoyment of this heritage while ensuring long
term ecological and commemorative integrity''.
In 1930 the National Parks Act proclaimed that: ``The parks
are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit,
education and enjoyment and such parks shall be maintained and
made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations''.
Over time the mandate and purpose of Parks Canada has
moved toward the greater emphasis on environmental protection
and less emphasis on public enjoyment. By its placement in the
Department of Canadian Heritage, I have to ask the question:
Will the environmental concerns of Parks Canada become lost
within the heritage issues?
Throughout its history, Parks Canada has been faced with the
same challenges, balancing development while protecting and
preserving the ecosystem and funding, administration and fiscal
accountability of the parks system.
I wanted to know more about the concerns of the people who
live in the townsites and earn their livelihoods from parks. Our
mountain parks are world renowned and people travel from the
four corners of the globe to visit them. The economic value of
this tourism is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and impact
directly on hundreds of jobs.
This summer I met with people from Banff, Jasper and
Waterton National Park. The single largest challenge facing
parks today is balancing development of parks while protecting
the parks' ecosystem. There is no question that Parks Canada
contributes to Canadian culture and heritage. Development of
the park resources ensures that visitors to the parks are able to
fully understand and appreciate our natural and cultural
heritage. This development also ensures the livelihoods of those
who live and work there. Since their business is based on
visitors' appreciation of the natural wonders of our parks,
protection of the sensitive ecosystem is as important to business
people in the parks as it is to environmentalists.
7868
This government is continuing its inaction by stating that it is
consulting the Canadian public on many issues. This is also true
of parks. Currently in Alberta and B.C. mountain parks alone
there are numerous reviews including the four mountain parks
five-year plan update which separates studies for Banff, Jasper,
Yoho and Kootenay. There is also the Bow Valley study in Banff,
including a two-year moratorium on development. There are
operational reviews for the townsites of Waterton, Jasper,
Wasagaming, Waskesiu, Field and Lake Louise; a study
concerning the closure of the Jasper and Banff airstrips; an
action plan update for Lake Louise and a study concerning the
twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through the parks. This
is symptomatic of a government wrapped up in reviewing,
discussing and studying. But is it really listening? I ask this
question over and over. The focus of all of these studies is
directed at environmental concerns, not the cultural benefits of
our national parks.
I would like to address another major challenge facing Parks
Canada: funding, administration and fiscal accountability.
According to figures obtained from the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, Parks Canada 1993-94 budget shows expenditures of
$170.2 million and revenue of $32.5 million. According to the
mathematics I learned in school, this leaves a shortfall of $137.7
million. In these economic times it is impossible to understand
how Parks Canada can maintain its administration and
operation, let alone preserve our parklands for generations to
come. Without a strategic and long range plan sustaining the
parks at current levels it becomes more and more impossible for
a cash strapped government.
(1600)
As has been demonstrated time and again there is a lack of
access to information about specific parks expenditures. For
instance, the residents of Waterton National Park have been
invited to participate in an operational review. This review is
based on three suppositions. First, those receiving government
provided services should pay an appropriate and fair amount.
Second, Canadians should receive fair market value for the use
of their land and assets. Third, subsidies should be eliminated.
This sounds like more do nothing mumbo-jumbo from the
Liberal government.
At a public meeting in Waterton residents were informed that
the annual budget of their community was $750,000 while only
$75,000 was generated. It is astounding. The community is
willing to pay its fair share. In fact they welcome the
opportunity to be more involved in the decision making and
operations of their community. However they have not been
given access to examine the expenditures to determine where
the money is being spent and where it can be saved. The 85 year
round residents are being asked to make up a shortfall of nearly
$700,000 without full and detailed information. Isn't it a
ludicrous expectation?
These residents are questioning such things as the necessity of
having the equivalent of 59 year round employees within their
small park of 505 square kilometres and annual visitors
numbering only 330,000. Meanwhile their public school is now
closed, and I saw this. Their children will have to be bused out of
the park to get an education. Their swimming pool has been
closed and there are grass and weeds growing through the
cracks. This is stark evidence that community input has not been
heard.
Yet Parks Canada's vision statement clearly states:
``Stewardship of historic and heritage areas is a shared
responsibility. Canadian citizens must be more aware and
involved in decision making and in the delivery of heritage
programs''.
On August 3, 1994 the Minister of Canadian Heritage
announced that he was looking at the matter of user fees for
Parks Canada facilities. It is not clear from the documents I have
seen what exactly the minister is targeting with these user fees.
Parks Canada is already spending more than $170 million per
year on national parks alone, not including other heritage sites.
Raising visitors' fees should only be considered when the
government demonstrates its willingness to open its books and
show Canadians where their money is being spent. Anything
less becomes another unjustifiable tax grab and a government
that is casting its greedy eyes to the already empty pockets of
taxpayers.
In all my speeches to the House from the issue of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation to multiculturalism and other
heritage issues I have spoken of the need for fiscal responsibility
and sound management practices. In closing I would ask some
questions. Are we prepared to pay more to maintain our parks, or
will our government continue to fund the parks system blindly
and without accountability? How much more can the taxpayers
of the country afford?
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak on second reading of Bill C-53 to continue my
opposition to it.
In my first speech, I reminded this House of some important
considerations. First, I said that Quebec's problems are due to
the very nature of the federal system since the federal system in
Canada completely ignores the reality of Quebec. The original
intention of Confederation has been gradually replaced by a
strong central government in which one of the founding nations
no longer has anything but the status of a small minority.
7869
I also reminded this House that the existential questions of
English Canada in no way concern the Quebecois and even harm
the development of Quebec. We can only hope that English
Canada can solve its existential problems for the good of our
nations. Thus, the decision was made very unilaterally to spend
huge amounts on the search for this elusive Canadian identity
that supposedly supersedes the Quebec identity, which is very
much alive.
(1605)
In the same vein, I mentioned the harmful effects of the
federal government's immense spending power. For example, in
the referendum debate which is now just getting under way, we
can already see the real impact of this spending power on the
form and direction that the debate will take. For the sake of
Canadian identity and its promotion, as provided for in clauses 4
and 5 of the bill, the federal government will subsidize various
groups and organizations to defend the ``no'' option, directly
contravening the spirit of the Quebec law on referendums.
The newspapers told us again yesterday that the Council for
Canadian Unity was setting up three organizations for the
Quebec referendum. One of the means being used is the Terry
Fox Centre, financed-you guessed it-with federal funds. This
is just the beginning of federal money being wasted in
provincial jurisdictions.
Experience in Quebec has taught us that these well-financed
groups will grow rapidly in the coming weeks. As I already said,
all this is contrary to the spirit of the Quebec law. This shows
how much consideration the federal system has for Quebec's
distinct character. In my first speech, I mentioned that it is
important for the development of Quebec culture that the
Quebec government control this whole area.
Does the federal government care about this? Not in the least.
With this bill, they are getting ready for a systematic invasion of
all cultural areas, including the arts, the status of the artist,
cultural heritage and industries, conservation, exportation and
importation of cultural property.
I remind you that the federal government's cultural
investments will amount to almost $1 billion a year in Quebec.
That is what I mean when I say that the federal government's
spending power is harmful to Quebec. I put forward these
arguments only two weeks ago. Since then, new elements have
confirmed how important it is to reject the Canadian heritage
minister's bill.
First of all, we realized that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
sees no limit to his power to take action. That in itself is very
disturbing. We may well wonder how far the government would
be willing to go if it felt that the Canadian identity was
threatened. Would it be tempted to spend the money allocated to
the Department of Canadian Heritage and to other departmental
programs on promotion, without wondering at all if it is a
legitimate investment?
The Minister of International Affairs is about to promote
Canadian culture through his foreign embassies and his cultural
centre in Paris, which, incidentally, the Conservatives wanted to
close. The evidence given at the hearings of the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage raises similar questions. The
mandate of the CBC seems to throw the door wide open to an
extensive promotion of the Canadian identity. Curiously, except
for one or two well-known exceptions, after two months of
sittings, nothing has been said yet about Quebec culture.
Is it necessary to specify that the vast majority of those who
watch national television live in Quebec? What culture other
than Quebec culture are they trying to reflect? Another element
to be considered is the central government's attitude towards the
new Quebec government's legitimate practices. Following an
old tradition, the Parizeau government is working to revitalize
the relationship with France and promote Quebec products in
that country.
As we know, Quebec has felt for a long time that it enjoys
exclusive educational and cultural powers at the international
level. Cultural products are an important part of these
international exchanges. How can Quebec protect and promote
its culture, when the central government is making laws such as
the bill before us today that would give it control over Quebec
culture, which is unacceptable?
(1610)
Once again, Quebec's specificity and autonomy are being
denied. The right to control Quebec's culture belongs to the
Quebec government, not to a government controlled by a
majority representing English Canada. This is not a whim: It is a
necessity. In fact, this is what the Bloc Quebecois reaffirmed in
its dissenting opinion on the report tabled yesterday on
Canadian foreign policy:
Successive Quebec governments have always rejected this argument of
indivisibility and developed distinct international policies and relations that
aim to serve Quebec's national interests and promote its influence and
development, particularly in commercial, cultural, economic, political and
social fields.
Since she was sworn in, the new Quebec Minister of Culture
and Communications has been asking for the patriation of
Quebec's control over the electronic highway and
communications, which is essential to the development of
Quebec's culture. In so doing, the minister reflects the
collective will of Quebecers.
It is imperative that the federal government withdraw from
Quebec's cultural sector and that it gives fair compensation to
the Quebec government. For all these reasons, we oppose Bill
C-53.
7870
[English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me much pleasure to take part in the debate
concerning legislation that will establish in law the Department
of Canadian Heritage.
As an opening comment I must say I am astounded by the
determined attempts to turn a transactional piece of legislation
into a seemingly complicated bill. The legislation before us is
simply intended to give legal effect to a department that has
been in effect for well over a year.
The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together the
various elements that define us as a diverse and vibrant nation
with a rich and bounteous cultural and natural heritage. The
department's activities range from cultural development to arts,
broadcasting, national parks, historic sites, amateur sport and
multiculturalism. The department also administers social
languages, state ceremonial and native programs, all of which
contribute in a significant way to what makes uniquely
Canadian.
The mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage which
states ``building our future together: strengthening a shared
sense of Canadian identity which respects the diversity of the
land and the people'' reflects the broad range of activities that
define the Canadian society. Direct support to our cultural
industries, protection and preservation of our national parks and
historic sites and the promotion of Canadian excellence in sports
and culture are just a few examples.
Each and every part of the department is connected in some
way to what we could refer to as the spirit and soul of Canada.
Together these units form a striking panorama of our past
accomplishments, our current reality and our aspirations for the
future.
As the chief custodian of natural and physical heritage, Parks
Canada commemorates, protects and presents both directly and
indirectly places of significance to Canadian cultural and
natural heritage as a means of encouraging public
understanding, appreciation and enjoyment. The economic
activity and tourism, generated by the department's operations
make a substantial impact on the growth of many local
economies. As well the parks service is setting new trends in its
approach to the forging of innovative partnership arrangements
with private and not for profit enterprises as a means of carrying
out the responsibilities that fall within its mandate.
The Department of Canadian Heritage also plays a key role in
the enhancement and development of English and French
linguistic minority communities. Respect for Canada's two
official languages, for the traditions and contributions of our
aboriginal peoples, for our cultural diversity and for basic
human rights makes Canada stand out among other countries as
a nation that truly values and appreciates its diversity.
Multiculturalism is essential to Canadian society. Countries
throughout the world are trying to find the formula that will
allow them to create a real sense of national identity among
groups of different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and racial
backgrounds. Many of these countries are now taking a serious
interest in the 100 per cent Canadian model we have created.
(1615)
Members will note that in the act creating the Department of
Canadian Heritage the government undertakes to advance the
equality of all Canadians in their country's social, economic and
cultural life. It recognizes the need to eliminate obstacles that
divide Canadians and to forge bonds based on confidence and
respect. The goal of multiculturalism is after all to create social
cohesion and to strengthen national identity.
The Department of Canadian Heritage also focuses its efforts
on the enhancement of culture and the development in Canada of
a means of communication. Both are crucial to the future of our
country not only in maintaining the uniqueness of Canada but
also in acting as a powerful instrument of economic
development.
No one will argue that we live in challenging times. At this
particular juncture in our country's history unfortunately there
are forces working to dismantle the entity that is Canada. Within
this context it is imperative that government foster an
environment in which Canada's rich cultural heritage can
flourish and that all Canadians have access to their own
products.
Moreover the march of technology is relentless, changing and
in many cases erasing traditional borders. We are also
witnessing changes which are taking place on a dramatic scale
and are affecting the economies of our established trading
partners throughout the world.
Within this backdrop and keeping it in mind now more than
ever Canadians will benefit from the creation of a department
such as Canadian heritage. I believe that the minister of the
department has the privilege to direct one of the government's
most exciting and challenging portfolios.
The legislation to create the department presents a far sighted
and enlightened step by our government. This department will
help ensure that Canada remains a country others look to as an
example. It is a nation that is confident enough in its identity to
embrace peoples of the world not only accepting their cultural
differences but welcoming and acknowledging them for what
they are: Living examples of human expression that link us to
the past and provide us with the foundation and certainty
necessary to face the future.
I believe that as a nation we need a Department of Canadian
Heritage. I hope that the bill will receive speedy passage.
7871
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the
second reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department
of Canadian Heritage, which should be renamed the department
of government waste and overlap. Hon. members across from
me consider this bill nothing more than routine housekeeping
yet to us in the Reform Party it is much much more.
Canadians want change. The Liberals are finally beginning to
understand this and I commend them for it.
The Reform Party has been advocating decreases in
immigration levels since the early 1990s and now the Liberals
have adopted this idea. The Reform Party has been screaming
loudly about the inadequacies in the criminal justice system and
now the Liberals are reviewing the criminal justice system. The
Reform Party has been pleading for serious amendments to the
Young Offenders Act and the Liberals are also reviewing this
issue.
The Reform Party has been talking about the critical levels of
our debt and deficit. Our debt now stands at
$538,181,397,919.00. Just like magic, the Liberals are
beginning to think there is a problem in this area as well.
Although we are not the government, we can still be
extremely effective and proud to know that our policy directives
are beginning to be implemented by this government. I must
congratulate government members on their insight.
(1620 )
I mention these few examples of where the government has
been listening to us on the Reform side of the House. I hope this
trend will continue in the future. I hope this will continue
regarding Bill C-53.
As I alluded to earlier, Bill C-53 should be defeated in this
House and sent back to cabinet for a complete overhaul. This
overhaul should deal specifically with the notion of overlap and
duplication such as: overlap between the Department of
Industry and heritage; overlap between the Department of the
Environment and heritage; and we are now seeing the possibility
of overlap between the Department of Justice and heritage. The
list goes on.
We as a government are spending over $40 billion annually or
approximately $110 million every day. We do not have a revenue
problem in Canada but rather we have a spending problem. Last
week when I was back in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona
holding town hall meetings on social reform, many people
commented on how much money this government continues to
waste on needless or extremely low priority programs. The main
programs that were mentioned time after time were official
languages and multiculturalism.
First I want to say unequivocally that we are not anti-French
nor anti-Quebec in the Reform Party. However, we do feel that a
tremendous amount of resources is being wasted in areas in
which the numbers do not warrant service in both languages. We
do believe in implementing the policy of territorial bilingualism
which would see maintaining official languages in key federal
institutions such as Parliament, the Supreme Court and other
federal services where the demand is sufficient to warrant cost
effective minority language services.
Second, we have multiculturalism. It is here that I will focus
my attention today. It seems clear to me that anyone who is
critical of Canada's multicultural program is immediately
labelled a racist. That is far too easy a way to avoid an issue.
How can anyone debate an issue that from the onset has been
reduced from an intellectual discussion to name calling? It is for
this reason that I stand before my colleagues and challenge them
to discuss the issue not on an emotional but rather on a rational
intellectual level.
Proponents of the multicultural program have also begun to
view honest criticism as attacks, and critics as enemies.
Multiculturalism is a vision that proceeds from differences,
from that which separates, and disregards that which unites.
Furthermore, in a survey conducted in 1991 Canadians were
asked whether they approved or disapproved of government
cancellation of multiculturalism funding which would force
projects to be self-financed by the multicultural organizations
themselves. Over two-thirds of all respondents approved and 45
per cent of them strongly agreed that multiculturalism should be
funded by the multicultural organizations themselves rather
than the federal government.
Because of time constraints I will only point out one of the
measures in this act which is to provide support to individuals,
groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving,
enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada. It is
important to read a passage from a recent book written by Neil
Bissoondath, an individual who immigrated to Canada from
Trinidad. This book is called Selling Illusions. As Mr.
Bissoondath illustrates quite clearly, one of the problems with
the objectives of the multiculturalism act is:
-so it is with the ethnic cultures offered at the pavilions of Caravan and other
such festivals; all the colourful ethnics bowing and smiling in a mechanical
greeting gesture to all the tourists. They look like the real thing, but their smell
is synthetic. They have no bite. They are safe. Culture Disneyfied.
This is perhaps even more of a concern than the wastefulness
of the $30 million we are presently spending on
multiculturalism. In the divisive nature of this policy there is a
notion or idea that we are discussing the creation of different
laws for Canadians based only on ethnicity or culture. It is for
this reason that the concept of multiculturalism through
political cowardice and bureaucratic ineptitude and ethnic
pressure has distorted federal policy beyond recognition.
7872
(1625)
For example the Liberals are presently reviewing a cultural
defence which would allow someone whose culture or religion
provides an escape from prosecution for something someone
else of another culture would be prosecuted for. The cultural
proposal leaves open the question of whether wife beating,
violent discipline of children and polygamy are to be condoned
according to culture. This issue raises questions once again:
How do you define cultural background? Do you have to be from
this culture? Do both your parents have to be from this culture?
Another example would be the Ontario plan which would
divert black youths from courts to community service work.
Essentially this program would treat black youths differently
from everyone else, even though there is no statistical evidence
that black youths commit more crimes. The reason that data of
crime by blacks in Canada is scant is that police departments do
not generally keep race based figures. Why is that? Perhaps it is
because our justice system in Canada is blind and should be
blind to factors such as race or ethnicity.
What happened to equality before the law? What happened to
treating all Canadians the same regardless of race or ethnicity?
Both of these examples are classic illustrations of
multiculturalism run amok.
What Canada needs is a government to lead by example. So
give the people what they want. Scrap among other things the
funding for multiculturalism. Send Bill C-53 back and replace it
with a bill which has eliminated overlap and duplication as well
as government waste.
Multiculturalism works counter to unification. It pulls at the
very fabric of this great nation. What we need is equality, not
special treatment for different groups and individuals. There is
nothing fundamentally wrong with multiculturalism, provided it
is funded by the multicultural organizations themselves.
However, this is not the case in Canada and the reality is that
multiculturalism is nothing more than an abuse of our
generosity.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to my colleague from
Edmonton-Strathcona. I suppose I should assure him right off
the top that neither I nor my colleagues on this side have any
intention of adopting Reform policies nor their manners I do not
think.
It is interesting that the member speaks about this policy and
how it has been adopted from Reform and the next words out of
his mouth are why it should be defeated. I am here to tell my
colleagues and everyone else who are prepared to give me a fair
hearing on both sides of the House why the bill should be
supported.
Let me assure the member there is precious little in the way of
the philosophy of his party that we are interested in adopting.
Indeed that is why we ran candidates in every part of this
country, in every single province. We ignored no provinces to
field candidates. I think my colleagues opposite have realized
their error there and are about to attempt to rectify that.
Canadians know and realize what is their one truly national
party in the House. That was seen in the fact that there was only
one party which elected members in every province coast to
coast to coast.
I am interested in explaining why I feel this is a very
important bill that is worthy of support from those with open
minds in all parts of the House.
There are several purposes for Bill C-53. It seeks to establish
by law the Department of Canadian Heritage. It sets out the
powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. It would settle various technical matters relating to the
establishment of the department and it would put in place the
public service organizational structure formalizing the
transition of employees. It would bring under one roof
communications, cultural industries, official and heritage
languages, national parks and historic sites, voluntary action,
multiculturalism, state, ceremonial and amateur sport.
(1630)
In other words, the bill would provide a much better
co-ordination and integration of several important functions. It
would seek to streamline those functions and to carry them out
more effectively and more efficiently. I think that is a goal that
ought to be supported by members on all sides of the House, that
we provide the services of government more effectively and
more efficiently.
I would hope that we would share that philosophy in all parts
of the House. No, there are comments from members opposite in
which we can see that because multiculturalism is part of this
bill somehow it is not worthy of support. That is regrettable and
it is simply un-Canadian.
What does it mean to be a Canadian. I would encourage some
of the members from the Reform Party, who are hollering out
comments now during my speech, to take a look at the Canadian
Coat of Arms. The concept that somehow this nation has ever
been one sort of pure culture or one blended culture is absolutely
and patented nonsense. The very Canadian Coat of Arms has
emblazoned on it the symbols of four cultures. This nation has
four founding races.
I quite frankly think that many Canadians do not know that. I
regret to say I suspect that some of my colleagues opposite are
ignorant of the fact that there are four cultures that founded this
country and they are very well depicted on the Canadian Coat of
Arms.
7873
From 1867 by definition this nation has always been
multicultural. By definition we have always had more than one
culture. This bill seeks to recognize and to continue a very
important fact about this nation which is obviously not
appreciated by some of my colleagues opposite.
In a word, this country represented a new nationalism, a
blending of several cultures right from day one, with four
founding cultures, with two dominant languages, and since 1867
we have become even more multicultural. This is not something
that started recently. Those who think that ought to read some
Canadian history.
Multiculturalism is not something new. It has existed right
from the start of this country and it was enshrined in 1867 in the
Constitution. As I have said several times, for those who care to
look it is well depicted on our coat of arms. We are a polyglot
nation. We are nation which draws from the strengths of people
from around the world.
I hear members on all sides of the House speaking with
accents from various parts of the world. Although I may
disagree with their philosophy on certain things, I am proud to
hear their accents. Nothing shows more graphically that we are a
nation which draws from the peoples of the globe. There is no
country made up of as many cultures of this world as Canada.
That is something of which we ought to be proud. It is something
which makes us uniquely Canadian.
Frankly that is the Canadian identity, that we are a nation
which was founded with four cultures, two official languages,
but has been generous enough since 1867 to open its doors to the
peoples from around the world. They are literally flocking to
Canada and that is the strength of this country.
That is why my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona has no
fear that we are stealing the Reform policy. Unfortunately my
understanding of those members' policies is that they do not
recognize that as a strength. That is a very basic strength of this
country. Perhaps it is our greatest strength as a nation.
(1635 )
The fact that Canadian culture will continue to drive our
economy even more in the future as we enter an era of
globalization of trade ought to be something which is seen by
anyone who cares to take a look at the facts of the case.
A very dominant economic activity all over the world as we
enter the 21st century is tourism. I do not think as Canadians we
recognize that fact enough or that we do enough to capitalize on
it. We are starting to address that and this government hopes to
make it a key priority.
The fact that we can draw from people around the world to
come and visit their friends and family who are living in Canada
ought to make us a leader in world tourism if we are prepared to
see our multicultural character as a strength and not somehow as
a liability, which I hear far too often in this House. It
disappoints me to hear it no matter where it comes from.
Of course all of these changes are to be pursued within the
ambit of fiscal responsibility. Canadians know that this
government is committed to fiscal responsibility in all areas of
federal endeavour. They can be assured that Bill C-53 is
consistent with that objective and therefore with the
comprehensive review of the federal government programs now
underway.
Our government appreciates that there are some concerns
about the decision to divide responsibility between broadcasting
and telecommunications, between Canadian heritage and
Industry Canada. There are valid reasons for that. The inclusion
of telecommunications in the Department of Industry's portfolio
recognizes the increasing role of the economy.
On the other hand, broadcasting has a tremendous impact on a
country like Canada with the enormous geography we are
blessed with and yet with a population only 10 per cent the size
of that of our American neighbour. Broadcasting is vital in this
country. We have to be very vigilant to make sure that it
promotes Canadian culture at all times and that we not allow it to
be dominated by the American broadcasting networks.
Therefore it rightly belongs in the Canadian Heritage
Department where this bill will have it housed.
The department is active in promoting Canadian identity in
several major areas: natural and physical heritage, official
languages, amateur sport, community support and participation
and also the management of cultural development and means of
communication.
We have 36 national parks in this country, many of them
beautiful parks in our western provinces, but also in every
province one would care to name. Surely we want to promote
that. We have nine historic canals and four marine areas located
throughout Canada. We are a nation with three oceans.
We will soon be celebrating the 75th anniversary of Parks
Canada. Canada's parks generate an annual revenue of over $1
billion, providing jobs for roughly 30,000 Canadians.
In the area of official languages, amateur sport, community
support and participation, that in itself is a mouthful to say.
Obviously one can see what tremendously important areas that
encompasses. We are a nation of tremendous cultural diversity,
of multiculturalism. It is a strength and it ought to be built on.
I will refer to the area of sport with which I am most familiar.
When we send Olympic athletes to represent this country, they
represent this country. They are not hung up on whether they are
French Canadian, English Canadian, whether they are from
Alberta or Ontario. They represent Canada and they win medals
as Canadians. That is seen very clearly in the sport of ice hockey
where we have tremendous excellence and really lead the world
in that.
7874
I recall the very famous goal, probably the most famous goal
scored in hockey, the Paul Henderson goal; Henderson scoring
from a French Canadian named Cournoyer and from an Italian
Canadian named Esposito.
They are three Canadians who very proudly helped to defeat
the Russians and to show Canadian excellence in hockey. That is
the kind of teamwork we need in this country, all cultures
working together, our multiculturalism seen as an asset, not as
some kind of liability. Some groups get very hung up on the fact
that we may be encouraging these cultures to hang on to what is
important to them.
I am a father of three children and many of my colleagues here
are parents. It is possible for me to be what I am, a Canadian of
Irish extraction. I am very proud of it. I was raised to celebrate
that fact. Also I am very proud of the fact that I am a Canadian.
(1640)
It is equally possible to be proud of two things at the same
time. They are not mutually exclusive and I do not understand
the very narrow minded approach that I hear from members
opposite that somehow one cannot be proud of those two facts at
the same time. It is to be pitied.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53, whose
purpose is to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the mandate
of the future Department of Canadian Heritage, especially its
wording reveals something very disturbing about the future of
Canada. It says: the mandate of the Department of Canadian
Heritage, and I will read the entire text. My source is a document
released by the Liberal government, which means that we can
hardly question its authority. It says: the mandate of the future
department is to create and promote among Canadians a
profound sense of identity and belonging, based on bilingualism
and biculturalism. It also says a little further on that the
department's objective is to develop and implement programs
that support a very clear sense of identity among Canadians.
The first two words of this mandate raise some questions
about the purpose of, or even the need for this department, since
``susciter'' implies there is no sense of identity or belonging,
according to the text.
Before my speech, I checked the Petit Robert, a dictionary
whose authority one would also hesitate to question, and its
definition of the verb susciter is to give rise to a feeling or idea.
This is exactly the mandate of the Department of Canadian
Heritage. To give rise to something implies that it does not exist.
It is rather odd that after 125 years, we have a government that
creates a department of Canadian Heritage and admits in the
department's mandate that a sense of identity or belonging does
not exist. They are right, because what does exist in Canada is
two identities. We have the existence of a very special and very
obvious identity in Quebec, the francophone identity, which is
open to all communities and provides that everyone who so
wishes has an opportunity to develop his potential and live in
harmony with everyone else.
There is also the anglophone identity, which is found mostly
outside Quebec and which also is open to people of all
nationalities, respecting their own cultural identity, while
giving them an opportunity to grow in this country called
Canada.
So it is entirely correct that this mandate should say and admit
that a Canadian culture as such, of which all Canadians would be
a part, including Quebecers, does not exist.
(1645)
During this debate, I would like to see the Minister of
Canadian Heritage tell us which values are shared throughout
Canada, that is in Quebec as in the rest of the country. This is my
first comment.
On the face of it, I say that the mandate of the Department of
Canadian Heritage is in fact to promote the values of this
government, as opposed to the values of Canadians and
Quebecers. In my view, that makes it a department of
propaganda. We have known for decades that the federal
government views culture in Canada, and particularly in
Quebec, only in terms of bilingualism and multiculturalism.
Yet, there are dozens of countries where people are bilingual
but still preserve their own identity. If you ask French people
who can speak several languages such as English and Spanish
what is their primary culture, they will spontaneously say that it
is the French one. As well, I have yet to meet an American who
would question his identity. It is a clear and simple reality which
helps respect those who do not think like us and who do not share
the same cultural background.
I also want to say that, traditionally, the federal government
and other institutions such as the Supreme Court have always
reduced, if not eliminated, Quebec's power over its own culture.
Let me just mention communications, which is a vital sector for
culture. Over the years, three decisions have been made by the
Supreme Court which, as everyone knows and as former Quebec
premier Maurice Duplessis used to say, ``always leans on the
same side''. The first decision, in the late thirties, confirmed
that broadcasting fell under federal jurisdiction. The second
one, in 1974, had to do with cable television, while the most
recent one, in 1994, concerned telephony. The end result is that
Quebec is excluded from the communications sector, which is
an essential and strategic tool for Quebecers' future.
7875
I think I have one minute remaining on my speaking time. I
would like to conclude by taking a look at the people who head
these institutions, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in
particular, the hon. member for Laval West who, I think
everyone will agree, is a very nice guy, but does not hesitate to
impose his views on organizations under his jurisdiction. Just
think back to recent events; these past few weeks, in fact during
two weeks, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party have been
asking for the resignation of the heritage minister for having
interceded with the CRTC on behalf of his constituents.
During two whole weeks, during question period, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party raised repeatedly with the
Prime Minister the need for the Minister of Canadian Heritage
to resign for having interfered with a quasi-judicial
organization which is in fact the equivalent of a tribunal. One
can wonder what this minister will be able to do, in Quebec in
particular, with his propaganda department come the day when
the people of Quebec will decide their future.
(1650)
One last point. This minister will find strong support within
his caucus. Let me name two supporters. First, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who
is remembered in Quebec in particular for the statement he made
in 1977 about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which, to
my mind, is certainly one of the most prominent cultural
diffusion vehicles in Quebec. With the prospect of the 1980
referendum in mind, he said he did not want to see the French
network of the CBC take a neutral stand in presenting both sides
of the issue, adding that at the time of the referendum, CBC
employees would be expected to be unequivocally on the
pro-Canada side.
Recently, the Prime Minister himself said that the operation
of the CBC was governed by an act under which it was required
to make the benefits of living in Canada known. That is what the
CBC was established for, he said.
The message is clear, and we are perfectly justified in being
concerned about the establishment of this department.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Saint John- Veterans affairs.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Victoria-Haliburton.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to join the debate and
once again speak in support of Bill C-53, an act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
Bill C-53 must be recognized as part of a greater
reorganization of government. This reorganization will allow
for a more efficient organizational structure in the department
which in the long run will prove of greater benefit to the
Canadian taxpayer, something all of us should be in favour of.
Although this department had its beginning under the
previous government in June 1993, the current government of
which I am a member has improved the department markedly. I
am pleased to say these improvements are reflected in many
accomplishments of the department in the past year in the area
of heritage conservation, official languages, national parks and
amateur sports to name a few.
With this in mind, the government is now proceeding with the
task of confirming the reorganization of the Department of
Canadian Heritage to better serve all Canadians. I believe it is
important to remember that this department serves a large group
of Canadians, not special interest groups as some members
across the floor have criticized. The department serves national
parks across the country, amateur sports across the country,
heritage sites across the country and numerous cultural exhibits
across the country. It is truly a national department dealing with
Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
In my riding of Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario I think of the
Trent-Severn waterway system which has transported millions
of people in the last 100 years. It allows users to travel from
Trenton to Georgian Bay on a heritage waterway system. In
particular, each summer as a direct result of the commitment to
heritage by this department, I see the operation of a blacksmith
shop along the Rideau Canal system which stretches from
Kingston to Ottawa and contains numerous heritage locks. This
operation shows the importance of heritage and history in
Canada. Add to that the diligent work and commitment of the
department in the Trent-Severn and Rideau Canal systems and
its important heritage will be preserved for future generations.
Culturally, certain members opposite argue that if the free
market does not support certain types of art then they should not
be produced. There are many examples of experimental or
cutting edge art which appear on display in our National Gallery
here in Ottawa. Once again some members opposite see no
bottom line need for these pieces of art when in fact some of the
7876
art is worth considerably more now than the original purchase
price. Art cannot be judged quickly or haphazardly.
(1655)
Upon close examination and as a direct result of the
department Canadian cultural industries have grown over 40 per
cent from 1988 to 1992 when other industries saw their revenue
and sales drop. In large part this is due to the benefits of
programs like those for sound recordings, postal subsidies for
book publishers, as well as film and video departments. As a
matter of fact from 1987 to 1992 in Ontario alone the export of
critically acclaimed books by Canadian writers increased about
70 per cent.
In addition, because the cultural industries rely so much on
innovation and technology the jobs they create are of high skill,
long duration and high value. Award winning books and movies,
commercially successful theatre productions, million copy
selling records and production facilities that attract
international film producers are some of the areas in which
Canada has become highly successful. All of these successes are
signs of creative cultural industries that are increasing and
growing each year. With those increases have come successful
jobs and businesses for Canadians.
Canada's multiculturalism policy has the noble aim of
promoting equal opportunity for all Canadians to participate in
the social, cultural, economic and political life of our great
nation. I would also like to encourage some members opposite to
become aware and consult with those Canadians who are
grateful for the multiculturalism policy and its benefits.
Our multiculturalism policy is an effort by responsible
government to help Canadians understand one another and
develop tolerance. Diversity does not divide us; it can only
enrich our society. It is important to remember that if Canada
wants to remain competitive in an ever shrinking world, we must
pool our resources of diverse cultures and people.
I must commend the members opposite for their continued
efforts to find something wrong with the department of heritage.
It is apparent they cannot find anything. They cannot find
anything new to say about the department until they read it in
some newspaper. Perhaps they should concentrate on the fine
effort put forth by the minister and his department as well as the
policies and issues they manage. I believe if the members
opposite focused on this instead of their theatrics, they would
agree with me when I urge the passage of Bill C-53.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to address
Bill C-53, an act to re-organize the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
I must confess I learn fascinating things when I come to the
House and listen to some of the comments made by the members
across the way. It was fortunate for the hon. member, and I have
to be careful how I say this, that a couple of his colleagues came
in to give him some support, otherwise it would have been
worked pretty thin.
I found out that there are four founding cultures in Canada.
That is very interesting. I wonder if they all happened to set foot
on Canada's soil at the same time, or whether they came in from
four corners and met in the middle. It sounds rather odd. I found
out that if we did not have a massive Department of Canadian
Heritage we would not have heritage locks in the member's
riding. That was quite enlightening, I must admit.
What we really need to do is rethink the very reason for the
existence of this ministry rather than talk about some tinkering
or on some reorganization of the department and the ministry.
Earlier I believe my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona
referred to Neil Bissoondath and made some remarks on Mr.
Bissoondath's position on multiculturalism. I cannot remember
if he quoted from his book or not, but I came across an editorial
dealing with Mr. Bissoondath's latest book.
The editorial was written in the Vancouver Sun published on
November 14. I would like to bring this to the attention of the
House. To my knowledge this was not written by a Reform Party
member but it quite closely shadows the position taken by
Reform on multiculturalism. If I have some time remaining I
would also like to bring a few other issues to the attention of the
House, but the editorial in the Vancouver Sun reads:
Neil Bissoondath's latest book, a non-fiction examination of the federal
multiculturalism policy, is provoking timely discussion of both the merits and
the cost of the policy.
Mr. Bissoondath, a Canadian who originated in Trinidad, argues that the
policy does not promote understanding and acceptance but instead underscores
differences and thereby divides Canadians. Is he right? Is the multiculturalism
department of the Canadian heritage ministry doing more harm than good, and
would the $26 million spent annually on grants be better used to reduce the
deficit?
(1700)
It sounds a bit like a Reformer asking these questions but it is
the Vancouver Sun. It would be foolish to chuck
multiculturalism on the mistaken notion that it exists to finance
folk-dancing jamborees. Some money may still find its way
there but much of it provides substantial support to immigrants
trying to fit into Canadian society.
There is support for ethnic communities struggling with
intergenerational conflict for seminars to examine family
violence and for cross-cultural training for institutions like the
police.
While these aspects of the policy seem to attract support for
many immigrants and other Canadians, the downside worries
some of them. For Mr. Bissoondath, the downside is the
weakening of the Canadian fabric as newcomers are stuck with
hyphenated labels and end up neither simply Canadian nor
whatever they were before they came here.
7877
Some immigrants describe the downside in terms of stolen
dignity. Others argue that the policy ghettoizes newcomers
instead of encouraging them to develop loyalty to their new
land. On the basis of what immigrants themselves are saying, it
seems clear that the policy, now more than 20 years old, is due
for an overhaul. It does not say a reorganization. It says an
overhaul.
The financial crunch provides another reason for an
examination of the multiculturalism program just as it does in
the case of the Canada Council with its $98 million budget this
year, amateur sport with $64 million, Advocacy for Women $8
million and so on.
On a per capita basis, multicultural grants cost each Canadian
less than $1. Some of the projects seem worth much more than
$1 but in other cases $1 is too much. Why is any money spent on
poster and button campaigns against racism or on teaching
Armenian?
If Armenians or any ethnic group wants their kids to be able to
speak their language, they should find the money for it in their
own pockets. Government funding for this kind of language
training speaks to Mr. Bissoondath's point about the policy's
role in fragmenting Canadians by giving groups a heightened
sense of their own ethnicity.
It also confirms native Canadians in their disinclination to
embrace immigrants as full citizens. We do not suggest that
Canada should opt for the U.S. style melting pot, but our
cherished mosiac feels a bit battered. It is time to rethink
multiculturalism, its purpose, effects and costs in dollars and
cents.
Thanks to Mr. Bissoondath, whose foreign roots make him
uniquely qualified to debate multiculturalism, it is now on the
agenda along with everything else. I concur in the thought that
this ministry needs to be rethought rather than reorganized.
When I spoke to amendments to the bill I talked about the
dozens of agencies and organizations that answer to the Ministry
of Canadian Heritage. They range from the CBC to the museums
and multicultural programs. I cannot help but wonder if many of
these institutions could better serve Canadians from the private
sector or whether they should have their funding reduced or
eliminated altogether. Perhaps their functions could be better
performed within other departments and under other ministries.
For example, I believe we could seriously consider cutting all
the funding to institutions such as the status of women in Canada
and, as I mentioned earlier, multicultural grants.
Another area where federal spending is unnecessary is on
official languages. Why do we need an official languages
commissioner? By making this a responsibility of the provinces
and private organizations, more relevant service can be
delivered with considerable savings to the federal treasury.
Under the Department of Canadian Heritage we have a
National Battlefields Commission. I am sure that the forming of
that is necessary, but perhaps it could fall under the jurisdiction
of the defence department if there was no Canadian heritage
ministry.
Then we have the Race Relations Foundation. It sounds like
perhaps there may be some justification in that. It is hard to say
but if there is perhaps that would fit under justice. Certainly it
seems odd that we would want to indicate that race relations
were part of our Canadian heritage. It almost has a negative
connotation. It is not something we want to be part of our
heritage but if there is a problem, it is something we want to fix.
The Public Service Commission might more appropriately
fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board.
(1705 )
There are perhaps some things we should do with the CBC. If
you asked the average Canadian what they saw as the most
outstanding example of Canadian heritage I wonder whether
they might talk about our people and the qualities of our people,
or whether they might talk about our environment and the
wonderful land that we have. I doubt very many would point to
the CBC, especially to Telefilm Canada and the National Film
Board, which certainly could be merged and probably privatized
at a great reduction in cost to Canadian taxpayers.
I hate to even mention this because it has been mentioned so
many times, but the museums are funded by the Department of
Canadian Heritage. I wonder if they could not possibly be
privatized as well. Maybe then the people that enjoy these
museums would find things that would cause them to want to
come to the museum rather than be disturbed by what they saw
in some of these museums. It certainly would eliminate some of
the boondoggles like the current museum being built in the
Prime Minister's riding, I would add again, at great cost to the
taxpayers and a study indicating that this thing is doomed to
failure.
We find that after thoroughly and objectively reviewing all of
the current responsibilities of the agencies of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage that this minister may not be required at all.
It is possible that once all the unnecessary or obsolete spending
is removed there will not be enough left to justify a ministry at
all. Perhaps the remaining justifiable responsibilities could be
provided by other ministries. We believe that this would provide
some savings to Canadian taxpayers.
I will take just a couple of minutes in wrapping up to indicate
what they might be. There could be one less car and driver for a
minister. There could be one less big office with minister's staff.
There could be one less multimillion dollar MP pension plan to
pay out, topped up by taxpayers. There would be less chance of
letters of intervention to the CRTC if we removed the Minister
7878
of Canadian Heritage. There would be less chance of conflict of
interest. The smaller the cabinet the less chance there would be
of conflict of interest. There would be one less typical Liberal
bigwig to worry about.
I close by again saying let us rethink whether we even need a
Department of Canadian Heritage, whether we would be better
off in this country and have a better heritage if we had no
Minister of Canadian Heritage. Let us rethink this whole thing
rather than reorganize it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the reorganization proposed in Bill C-53 to make
the Department of Canadian Heritage a promoter of Canadian
culture from coast to coast is in fact a direct attack by the federal
government on Quebec's specificity, in terms of its culture,
language and cultural institutions.
This is evidenced by the inclusion of the Canadian culture in
Canada's new foreign policy and it demonstrates once again the
growing desire of the federal government to marginalize
Quebec's specificity by imposing an all encompassing Canadian
multiculturalism. This desire was very clearly expressed by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage in his speech on Bill C-53, when
he said: ``We hope to rally the mighty forces of multiculturalism
behind a cultural identity that is uniquely Canadian''.
The objective is clear. Since the only references made in that
speech to French culture in Canada concern the official
languages and TV5, we have to conclude that the government
feels it must absolutely manage to bring not only Quebec culture
but also native culture into the supposedly ideal context of
multiculturalism, considering the ever present and ever
powerful American culture.
In such a context, you can easily imagine that the Official
Opposition feels it would be suicidal to support Bill C-53.
In spite of the noble statements made by the minister, a man of
letters if there ever was, how can the Canadian Parliament not be
concerned to see today's culture, including our authors and
creative artists-what I would call heritage in the making-be
considered like an industry such as steel, footwear or poultry?
(1710)
For example, who will have the last word on the review of the
Copyright Act? The Minister of Industry or the Minister of
Canadian Heritage? Chances are that the Minister of Industry
will keep the powers already vested in him, since nothing in Bill
C-53 clearly states how responsibilities are to be divided
between the two departments.
Here is another example that should ring an alarm bell in this
House. Thanks to the information highway, communications
will soon reach a speed of Mach 2. Is it reasonable to reduce the
whole issue to the marketing of fibre optics?
Yet, that is the conclusion we must reach since the Minister of
Industry will be the one in charge. They are thus refusing to
admit that the major technological revolution generated by the
information highway will no doubt transform global culture
quickly and dramatically.
It is often said that war is too serious to be left to generals.
Could it be that a society's culture is too precious to be left to
technocrats and businessmen?
I think that Quebec culture is too precious to be left in the
hands of the federal government. The state of Quebec must be
the only authority responsible for Quebec culture.
Quebec's historical demands in the field of culture have
always been based on the recognition of its specific identity and
on the desire of the Quebec government to be the only one in
charge of promoting and defending Quebec culture. Examples of
this political will are not lacking. In 1966, at a meeting on
Canada's tax system, Premier Johnson said that Quebec must be
the master of its decisions concerning cultural development.
In 1969, Premier Bertrand said that cultural affairs were in
Quebec's jurisdiction. In 1973, under Robert Bourassa, Quebec
wanted to take back control of all cultural policy, including the
federal funding for it. In 1976, Quebec proposed that each
province alone legislate on issues concerning the arts, literature
and cultural heritage.
More recently, in 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission
mentioned the need for Quebec to have exclusive jurisdiction
and responsibility for social, economic and cultural
development. The same year, the Arpin Report, commissioned
by the Quebec government at that time, said this: ``We can
conclude that overlap between the two levels of government
clearly exists in terms of structures, programs, target groups and
even legislation and fiscal measures. . . Harmonizing the action
of the two levels of government has always been difficult. The
federal government never wanted to recognize Quebec's
precedence in cultural affairs''.
For more than thirty years, the federal government, on the
strength of its spending power, has meddled without any
scruples in culture. The purpose of these incursions was clearly
to downplay the impact of Quebec culture. The result has been to
7879
promote duplication and overlap, while making the arts
community dependent on federal largesse.
The federal cultural offensive reflected in Bill C-53 is only
the tip of the iceberg. Consider the report of the Special Joint
Committee reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy, which confirms
Ottawa's resolve to subject Quebec culture to federal standards.
The dissenting report tabled by the Official Opposition
condemns this attempt by the federal government to dilute
Quebec's distinct identity by stirring it into a Canadian sauce of
bilingualism and multiculturalism. Clearly, the sauce makes the
dish.
The Official Opposition maintains, and I quote: ``Where
culture is concerned, the direction of Canada's foreign policy, as
prescribed in the majority report, is based on the theory of a
single nation, one single culture (so-called Canadian culture),
and the resulting requirement that all the provinces must have
equal status''.
(1715)
To the Official Opposition, it is clear that ``the principles of
bilingualism and multiculturalism, which form the political
bases for defining so-called Canadian culture, have the effect of
denying the existence of Quebec culture, which is original and
which developed essentially from its French origins, with
contributions from the British, the aboriginal peoples and, more
recently, the various immigrant communities''.
Quebec will never let its culture be beholden to the federal
government. The Official Opposition vigorously condemns this
blatant attempt to make Quebec subject to federal dictates.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to address Bill C-53 once again. It is my pleasure to
talk about the various aspects of the Department of Canadian
Heritage and to suggest that what is really needed when we talk
about this department is not just a superficial streamlining of the
department but a complete overhaul starting with many of the
departments that reside within the Department of Canadian
Heritage, including specifically departments like
multiculturalism, the Canada Council, the National Film Board,
status of women, CBC and many more.
Let me talk about some of these different departments on an
individual basis and suggest that in some cases we could do
completely without them.
Let me talk first about the department of multiculturalism,
something many Reformers have talked about already. Hon.
members from across the way have suggested that if there were
not a department of multiculturalism somehow there would be
no multicultural diversity in Canada. That is a crazy notion.
I remind members across the way that when we settled the
west in this country we had cultures from all over the place. We
did not need a department of multiculturalism. Those people had
their own cultures, they preserved them with their own money,
which is a new concept for Liberals. It is something that is still
done today. People do not need the government to tell them they
need to preserve their culture. They will preserve their culture if
they see fit with their own funds. That is what makes sense to
most Canadians.
For some reason this government has decided that some
cultures are more deserving than others, that there should be a
list of priorities in terms of cultures and that some groups should
get money and others should be shut out. I think that is very
divisive.
I point out to the members across the way who have often said
that Reformers offer no solutions on cutting spending, here is an
area where we can cut spending, something like $21 million. We
could cut it today, I would argue, and most Canadians would be
very much in favour of it.
I want to talk for a moment about some of the other problems
with the department of multiculturalism. A minute ago I said
that sometimes I think having a department of multiculturalism
creates division. As an extension of that, not all behaviours are
equal. Some cultures advocate types of behaviours that are
clearly not supported by most Canadians. For instance, some
cultures suggest that women should be somehow subservient
and that they should play a lesser role. I do not agree with that.
I think when we start to fund cultures and give people money
to support cultures, it stops what has become a standard in
Canada, sort of an ethical or moral standard from spreading into
these other cultures where sometimes they do not treat people
with respect on the basis of gender. That is something I very
much oppose and I hope the government across the way would
oppose as well. We can make the argument that the department
of multiculturalism has outlived its usefulness.
I would also argue that when we see things like what the
justice minister proposed on the weekend or what came out of
his department, that there be something like a culture defence in
law, I think we can see the danger of this whole attitude toward
setting up special status for certain cultures and what it can lead
to, possibly opening up a Pandora's box.
(1720 )
Thankfully Reformers were on guard for Canadians and
quizzed the minister about this immediately. He backed away
from it, and well he should have.
It is not because they saw this was flawed from the outset. It
was only because Reformers jumped up, raised the point and
forced the minister to back down and hopefully we will always
be there to do that.
In the meantime we would certainly encourage the
government members across the way to take another look at this
whole department of multiculturalism and to acknowledge that
this approach to governing can lead to division, can lead to some
of these strange ideas in the justice system.
7880
Another departmental organization that should be looked at in
the Department of Canadian Heritage is the Canada Council.
The Canada Council provides grants for all kinds of Canadian
artists and people who should be and would be producing art
anyway. We spend tens of millions of dollars through the Canada
Council every year to pay people to produce what they at Canada
Council call art.
I would argue that before there was a Canada Council and in
spite of the Canada Council people still create art. I know in my
own riding there are many people who are painters, writers, who
are thrilled to try to produce art not because they get paid to do it
but because it is a creative impulse that they have. In order to
satisfy that impulse they produce art and all of society is
enriched for it.
What I really like about it is taxpayers are not expected to pay
for it. They are not expected to either fund the artist or to buy the
art. Contrast that with the Canada Council where we have tens of
millions of dollars going to publishers so that they can produce
books from writers who are also funded and then of course they
sit on shelves forever. I read a book actually that was funded by
the Canada Council about the abuses in the Canada Council,
believe it or not. It is a great irony that it is almost impossible to
write a book in this country without it being funded by the
Canada Council because those funds go directly to Canadian
publishers. That is one of the strange ironies.
This particular writer talked about a warehouse being devoted
to all these volumes of Canadian literature that people simply
would not buy. They could not even give it away.
When they proposed to send packages of Canadian literature
around to schools, even to prisons, they were rejected. I suspect
rightfully so because at the end of the day beauty is in the eye of
the beholder and people have to make these judgments for
themselves.
I think that is the best argument of all for not having an
organization like the Canada Council that completely distorts
the marketplace and really cheapens the product because many
very good Canadian writers are lumped together with the ones
who are not very good. In the eyes of people who try to follow
this they get a jaundiced view of Canadian culture because so
much stuff comes out that is not good. It is funded by the
government and people get a jaundiced view and at some point
say perhaps all Canadian culture is not very good. That is very
unfortunate. There is a lot of good stuff out there. Because of
organizations like the Canada Council people get a prejudiced
view of what we can produce in this country. That is very
unfortunate.
Another institution that causes people to wonder about the
government's spending of tax dollars is the National Film
Board. My colleagues from the Reform Party in this House have
raised the issue of a series of videos funded by the National Film
Board on lesbian love. They were restricted videos, ones that
contained very explicit scenes. This causes us to pause and
wonder whether this government is serious really about cutting
spending at all.
There are many millions of dollars spent by the National Film
Board every year. Should there not be some strict guidelines that
that say anything that is pornographic in nature or is x-rated
should not be produced particularly with taxpayers' dollars
when so many taxpayers would reject that?
(1725 )
That is not what the Liberals think. It begs the larger question
of whether there should even be a National Film Board. It seems
to be largely unaccountable.
I would argue that many private producers of films would love
to step in and provide films for schools as is done actually in the
United States. I had a lady in my own riding who came to me and
said she would like to show National Geographic films in the
school. She wanted to know how she could go about getting the
rights to them. As it turns out it actually offers these to schools
for free. The National Geographic Society is a society that is
funded by individuals, not by taxpayers. Why could that not
happen in this country? I would argue very strongly that it could.
Let us talk for a moment about the department for the status of
women also under the aegis of the Department of Canadian
Heritage. One of the jobs it has it seems unfortunately is to fund
private interests including the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, a group that is highly politicized, very
narrow in its focus and absolutely and completely does not
represent the views of all Canadian women no matter what it
tells us. If it is so certain of its position, if it really does believe
that it represents Canadian women then it should go to Canadian
women and get its funding from them directly. I would
absolutely support it in doing that.
At this point in this country when we are in such a terrible
fiscal situation I encourage the government to take a look at the
complete Department of Canadian Heritage to seriously
evaluate whether we need great gobs of that department and to
really finally get its fiscal house in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I realize
I have only a few minutes. I have the pleasure to rise to speak for
the second time on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
7881
When I first spoke on this bill, I pointed out that this
department was a ``grab bag'' with a hodge-podge of programs,
as a result of dividing up responsibilities and bringing together
parts of federal departments.
I also stressed the very relative political say of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage as compared to the real power of the Minister
of Industry who would hold the purse strings.
I ended my remarks by denouncing the fact that the existence
of Quebec's culture was completely ignored since the bill was
totally silent on it. And finally, I noted the unfair treatment
given by management to the French network of the CBC as
compared to its English counterpart, mentioning that many
regional stations had to shut down.
In this respect, in a brief submitted to the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage, Mrs. France Dauphin, from the coalition
for the defence of the French network of the CBC, raised a
number of issues. For example, investment in programs per hour
of broadcast time has increased by approximately $7,000 as far
as the English network is concerned, but only marginally in the
case of the French network. In just five years, from 1987 to
1992, investment rose from $30,500 to $37,500 at the CBC
while rising from $17,500 to $18,300 at SRC. In other words, a
mere five per cent increase for the French network, as compared
to a 20 per cent increase for the English network.
I want to go back to an important aspect of this bill, namely
the sharing of responsibilities. In our opinion, this legislation
reflects a firm desire to make this department a tool of
promotion, if not propaganda, for Canadian multiculturalism.
As for the management of this new department, I agree with
the comments made by the member for Calgary Southeast to the
effect that there is no management strategy or plan. However, I
would say that the Liberals are ``seemingly'' giving the
Department of Canadian Heritage very extensive powers, and in
that sense we have every reason to question the rather
mysterious mandate of this new department.
For example, why maintain this artificial sharing of culture
and communications technology? This dichotomy was created
by the Conservatives with culture and the management of the
cultural industry.
The fact is that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is only left
with responsibility for cultural content, while the Minister of
Industry is responsible for the means of communication. In
other words, he is the one who has real control.
Moreover, the Minister of Industry managed to set up a
consultative committee on the electronic highway. This is
another example of overlapping, duplication and lack of
co-ordination within the federal administration itself. The
telecommunications and cable television industries are
converging on this new department of Industry and this is a
source of concern to us because it may have a bearing on the
Canadian content, which falls under the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The fact is that real power over Canadian culture is in the
hands of the Minister of Industry. Moreover, by granting the
CRTC exclusive power to set the rules governing
telecommunications in Canada, Ottawa downplays Quebec's
interests and puts them on a par with those of the industry and
consumer groups, which goes totally against Quebec's
traditional claims.
Finally, let us not forget that Quebec was excluded from the
broadcasting and cable television sector in 1974, and then the
telephony sector in June 1993, at the expense of the CRTC which
was granted extensive regulatory powers, thus confirming
Ottawa's control over the whole telecommunications industry.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7881
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-249, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (right to
citizenship), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in
the House today to speak on behalf of my private member's Bill
C-249, an act to amend the Citizenship Act concerning the right
to citizenship.
The bill amends the Citizenship Act so that a child who is born
in Canada after December 31, 1994 will not have Canadian
citizenship if at the time of his birth neither of his parents is a
citizen or a permanent resident. However such a child will be
granted citizenship when one of his parents becomes a citizen or
a permanent resident and an application to that effect is made by
the authorized person on behalf of the child.
This matter relates to concerns from my own constituency of
Port Moody-Coquitlam and was further underlined in
discussion as a member of the citizenship and immigration
committee. Current events and policy descriptions made me
increasingly aware of the weaknesses of and the necessity for
change within the immigration system in Canada. Along with
many other Canadians I can no longer passively accept the
choices made for us by governments whose agenda for
establishing policy in this area is dictated not by the realities of
our country but too often by political and special interest
agendas.
7882
Canada's immigration and citizenship policies must work for
the benefit of both the country and the new Canadian. It is of
utmost important that both interests be served. Policies that hurt
the country hurt the future of all citizens of that country.
It is from this conviction that Reform's policy springs. In
order for the country to best serve the interests of both new
Canadians and the Canadian born, the economic needs of the
country must be given highest priority when setting targets and
policy for immigration. We must come down hard on criminal
abuse and put the safety of the Canadian community as the
uppermost priority. We must deal with the reality that Canada
has one of the most open immigration policies in the western
world, in fact all the world, and that very openness has led to
some of the worst abuses.
Where does the issue of my private member's bill fit into all
this? Because of our open and subsequently abused immigration
policy, especially in the area of visitors' visas and refugee
claimants, the pride of citizenship in Canada may be the
casualty. We have developed a category of citizenship by
convenience for those who can easily circumvent the system.
Visitors can take advantage of citizenship of convenience.
They can arrive with the sole purpose of having their child born
in Canada to have Canadian citizenship. On our present visitor
applications no questions are asked about such medical
conditions. Visitors can stay in Canada for up to six months and
need only legitimize their stay by naming a contact they wish to
visit, or even the fact they have travelled before and have not yet
visited Canada. There is an agreement that they will not work
and must guarantee that they will return to their home country.
(1735)
The system is established on the basis of trust and honesty and
in turn Canada's hospitality has been abused. The possibility for
an actual citizenship by birth industry becomes obvious where a
fee for service is demanded for accommodations and
arrangements for childbirth in Canada.
Under the present rules for a visitor who has a child born in
Canada the child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. Let
us take, for example, the issue of the so-called passport babies
reported in the Vancouver Sun in November 1993. They reported
that the number of babies born to non-resident mothers in B.C.
has been between 246 and 333 a year for the last three years
according to B.C.'s vital statistics division. These numbers may
be much higher as they do not take into account those maternity
cases that only appear to be resident because of a B.C. address
on their hospital records.
The Toronto Sun in January of this year reported that there
were about 400 such births of non-residents last year in Canada.
It reported that immigration officials find the trend disturbing
and are now calling for changes to ensure the parent is either a
citizen or a landed immigrant. The United States and Britain are
clamping down on the practice and are tightening up their
citizenship laws. One immigration worker was quoted in the
article as saying that it was like buying Canadian citizenship
when these mothers came here for the sole purpose of having
their children born here.
The potential for abuse is wide open on this issue. It concerns
all of us who place pride of ownership in the citizenship we hold
so dear. The citizenship of convenience is available to those who
are able to afford it by personally paying the cost of $1,500 a day
for hospital coverage as well as the cost of staying in Canada for,
say, a month previous to the birth. In other words Canadian
citizenship can be bought for the price of $30,000. Here is yet
another privilege for the wealthy and their provision for the
future of their children. Might I add it may not have been such a
great coincidence that the first child born in Vancouver in 1994
was to a mother without any permanent status in Canada.
I conducted a telephone poll in my riding of Port
Moody-Coquitlam this spring on the issue of whether or not
legislation should be introduced. Over two-thirds of the
respondents said that the act must be changed to stop this type of
abuse and the trivializing of Canadian citizenship.
Why is it important that Canadian citizenship not be given out
so freely? Why should those who are born here, regardless of
their parents' status or their intention to stay in the country, be
deemed Canadian? As I have examined the issue it has become
increasingly clear to me that there are very real consequences
that relate to the very rights and privileges of citizenship we as
Canadians hold dear.
Citizenship should come not only with a list of rights. It
should also come with responsibilities which help make us
better citizens and our country one of the very best to live in.
This sentiment was repeated time and time again in the spring of
this year as the citizenship and immigration committee
conducted hearings on possible amendments to the act. It was on
my initiative that the committee pursued the issue of citizenship
of convenience by birth, and the committee unanimously agreed
with the proposals.
New Canadians seldom take their place in Canada for granted.
The freedoms we enjoy and the wealth and beauty of the land
should make us all uniquely proud to be Canadians, but the pride
in the land comes from participation and shared responsibilities
for the future of our families and our communities.
As another witness so eloquently put it, nationhood is built
around shared values, a shared history, indeed a shared
commitment to the country. This calls for responsible
interaction and a commitment to being in this country. It is a
willingness to become part of the community and to be
committed to the pursuit of learning together what it takes to
make the country great.
7883
In the case of passport babies there is no commitment to the
country and there is no fulfilment of the responsibilities of
citizenship. There is no growing up in the country or
understanding what it takes to be a good citizen. There is no
commitment to the country until the child possibly chooses to
return at, say, age 18. Is the original motive simply to sponsor
their parents when they arrive? The whole essence of the
intrinsic value of citizenship is rendered meaningless and in the
long term society is not strengthened or furthered in its
advancement in terms of the contribution of its members.
(1740)
Furthermore at any point in time as a citizen that child is
entitled, after a minimal residency requirement, to complete
medical coverage and full education rights as well as all other
Canadian social programs. In the extreme case these children
could grow up to a life of crime in their home country and then
decide to come to Canada. Because of their birthright
citizenship, there would be nothing we could do to prevent them
from coming here even though it would be obvious they would
not share the values or responsibilities we cherish.
For those whose parents use our freely given citizenship as
only a means of security or convenience in the future there is no
shared contract or demonstration that they are committed to our
country. It is a convenient and easily obtained commodity for
the future value it may hold. This is a flagrant abuse of the
generous visitor system.
Preservation of the integrity of Canadian citizenship became
part of another consideration within the refugee determination
system. The complexity of the system in our country has led to
abuse by those who make refugee claims as a means of
circumventing the immigration system. We have created an
inland refugee system in Canada where the process of
determining the claim of status can take up to three or four years
before a final decision is rendered. During that period life goes
on and of course babies are born.
How can a rejected refugee claimant be asked to leave in a
final determination when one or two children born here in
Canada have citizenship? Those rendering the decision must
take into account the fact that the children are Canadian and are
entitled to all the accompanying rights and privileges of
Canadian citizenship.
Let us examine for a moment the process so we can appreciate
the factors that go into the delay that creates the dilemma. First,
let us consider a bogus refugee claimant, an individual with
absolutely no right to legal status but with intent to use the
system. He or she is interviewed by a senior immigration officer
to assess grounds for a claim. They are given at least one month
to supply supporting data and more time is often requested.
Most would have no such original documentation with them so
they must create it.
They are also entitled to legal representation. On request legal
aid will be provided to them. At that stage those claimants who
fall into predefined categories are given an expedited hearing.
All applicants are provided with a scenario for the qualifying
categories of expedited hearing. The claimants then can tailor
their claim according to what the government has given them as
an outline.
A full hearing is held for others. There is usually a two to three
month wait before the hearing can be convened. To this point the
claimant has usually been in Canada for at least six months. The
hearing takes place before a two-member board and both must
agree on a decision not to grant refugee status, that is only one
member must be convinced to grant refugee status.
If the claim is rejected a written statement of reasons must be
given and these reasons will be examined by the Federal Court
of Appeal. If rejected by the Federal Court there is a further
review by the department on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds. The entire process can take two, three or even four
years.
It is a fact that almost 80 per cent of refugee claimants
eventually end up staying in Canada, even though only 35 per
cent of claimants fit into the UN definition for convention
refugee. Upon inquiry it seems impossible to garner data on how
many of the 80 per cent are affected by the added consideration
of having had children born in Canada.
It is unfortunate there are those who choose to abuse the very
system designed to protect them. The vast majority of visitors
and refugee applications are not seeking to use the present rules
to their own end. The bill fully recognizes the need for provision
for children born to bona fide participants in the due process of
our refugee system. They will be fully recognized as citizens
upon application after their parents have obtained their
permanent status.
One consideration remains to be addressed. Some
accommodation in law, perhaps through a simple amendment to
the bill, is necessary to avoid a condition of statelessness for
those born on Canadian soil. In conclusion, the present system
that grants automatic citizenship to all those born in Canada
regardless of their parents' residency status invites the
intentional abuse of a shrinking and unpredictable world.
(1745 )
Immigration should provide access to those who choose to
strengthen the fabric of their new home. The value of our
citizenship and the value of our great country will be the sum of
the values and the sense of belonging of its proud and
prosperous people.
7884
The practice of citizenship of convenience of birth must be
addressed by this House. To thus raise the integrity of our
citizenship process is to impute added pride and purpose to all
Canadians, past, present and future.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam indicated before the debate began that she
wished to share her time. Approximately seven minutes remain
in the hon. member's time but I do not see the member who was
going to share this time with her. Shall the Chair assume the time
is not going to be shared?
Very well, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam has
roughly eight minutes.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I might ask you to help me out a little and let me known
when my conclusion time approaches so I can maybe finish the
sentence I am speaking.
I rise today to speak in support of my friend's private
member's bill which deals with the growing problem of people
coming to Canada just in time to give birth, their babies
therefore gaining Canadian citizenship.
This bill would eliminate the conferring of Canadian
citizenship on the baby unless one of the parents became a
Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada and an
application is made on behalf of the child for it to become a
citizen. The automatic conferring of citizenship would cease.
When I first was made aware of the situation of people coming
to Canada to occupy our maternity wards to have children and
then go back to their country of origin, I thought this to be an
unusual state of affairs. It could be argued that Canadians should
be flattered that people from other countries thinking so highly
of Canada and the benefits which flow from Canadian
citizenship that they will actually come to Canada to give birth.
As well, I understand that in the majority of cases people who
are doing this pay for the medical care they receive. Therefore,
what is the harm? The health care system is compensated. We
should be flattered that people from around the world want to
give their babies Canadian citizenship. It is difficult to argue
that this is a method to ensure that 18 years hence the child will
sponsor his or her parents into Canada as immigrants because
the child, now 18, is a Canadian citizen.
I suppose there is a good chance this would eventually
happen. I do not think this is the most grievous flow with the act
as it is presently written. The Citizenship Act should be changed
to that this practice of using Canada as a birth place of
convenience stops. This practice should stop because to
continue it is to make a mockery of the system we presently have
in place by which people become Canadian citizens.
People come to Canada from all over the world. They come
here for many reasons, but for the vast majority they come
because Canada is a land of opportunity, a land of fairness and
equality, a land where all are to be treated alike.
If this is true, and I believe it is, how do we reconcile the
complicated procedure which immigrants and refugees have to
go through to become Canadian citizens with the fact that a
mother can come here for a few days, have a baby which
automatically assumes Canadian citizenship and then leave? To
my mind these two procedures cannot be reconciled and the
latter must be eliminated.
Those who make a conscience decision to come to Canada and
then to apply for Canadian citizenship do so because they have
certain expectations about citizenship, what it is, what it means
and what flows from it. These people understood what it means
to be a Canadian citizen. They each must take an active part in
building this country we all share.
A sense of being Canadian is something that can take time to
develop. It means being part of a large family and as such it
means assertion of certain rights and responsibilities that are
based on our traditions and shared values.
Under the charter of rights there are certain guarantees that all
Canadian citizens have: the right to vote in the federal and
provincial elections, the right to be a candidate in federal and
provincial elections, the right to enter, remain in or leave
Canada, the right to earn a living and reside in any province, and
minority language education rights.
Canadians also have other rights as citizens. They may have a
Canadian passport. They may be considered first for some jobs.
Along with these rights come responsibilities to strengthen our
communities, participate in a political process, obey Canada's
laws, eliminate discrimination and injustice, respect the rights
of others, respect private and public property, care for Canada's
heritage and support Canada's ideals.
(1750)
Canadian citizenship today is I believe about all of us as
citizens participating fully and equally in our national life. It is
about promoting our national symbols and values and building a
Canada where all of us can feel at home.
It is my belief that those who practice active citizenship
strengthen our democracy, our national identity and our sense of
responsibility for Canada, strengthen our relations with another,
improve the quality of our institutions, help us deal with
society's problems.
The oath of Canadian citizenship is taken by many people
every year. It is a solemn declaration which places
responsibilities on the person who takes it. It can only be taken
after the applicant meets the following standards: is at least 18
years old, is lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent
residence, has
7885
lived in Canada for a total of three years in the four years
immediately before applying for citizenship, can speak one of
Canada's official languages, has enough knowledge about
Canada including the rights and responsibilities of citizenship,
is not under deportation order or in prison, has not been
convicted of an indictable offence within the last three years and
is not considered a threat to the security of Canada.
Even after meeting these standards, an interview must be held
by a citizen court judge. I therefore urge all members of the
House to support the bill to end the standard by which
citizenship is dealt with in Canada.
Citizenship in my opinion should be used as a vehicle to
promote an active critical participation in public affairs on the
part of Canadians. Passage of this bill will show the world how
seriously we value Canadian citizenship and all the benefits that
flow therefrom.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I regard this private members' bill as a very serious bill and one
on which I am very pleased to speak.
Yet I cannot help feel that I have heard from Cassandra's
prophets of doom and gloom who see conspiracies under every
bush. One would swear that our shores are about to be invaded
by pregnant women, plotting to have their babies on Canadian
soil so that these cunning infants can somehow steal their
Canadian citizenship and thereby threaten our national security.
It is really surprising to hear what I regarded as a very serious
private members' bill treated so flippantly and lightly. I am
surprised at that and I am really disappointed. I just hope that
this invasion is not imminent of these pregnant women.
During the election campaign our government called on
Canadians to examine our policies in the red book, to look at
what we consider to be our priorities and commitments as a
party. They responded rather clearly coast to coast to coast in the
endorsement that they gave to this party.
The Reform Party members opposite who are interrupting and
do not want to hear this, that is fine but Canadians are looking
for that new decorum they speak of and it is interesting that it
does not apply when they are hearing ideas with which they
disagree.
Be that as it may, we acknowledge the importance of building
a nation in which citizens view themselves not as isolated
individuals or rival interest groups but rather as a mutually
supporting community. Fundamental to such a vision is the need
to build a Canada based on mutually held privileges and
obligations.
It is difficult to promote the acquisition of Canadian
citizenship without conveying a sense of the fundamental values
that are inherent in that commitment.
At the present time our security is undergoing fundamental
changes, serious changes. Canada is confronted with a variety of
economic, cultural and social challenges and one of them is not
this perceived invasion by pregnant women to have their babies
on our shores.
We are faced with a serious need to integrate a population that
is more culturally diverse than ever before into a society that is
more complex than ever before.
As I said earlier today in this House, Canada is more than ever
a polyglot nation. We draw from virtually every single culture in
the world. The members on this side and the majority of
Canadians regard that as one of our fundamental strengths,
regard that as what it means to be Canadians, the essence of the
Canadian identity.
It is not something to be feared, not something to be cut down
and sliced down into a much more limited vision of what it
means to be Canadian.
(1755 )
We need to develop a clearer sense about what we can expect
from our new citizens and what this nation has to offer. To
achieve this we need new citizenship legislation. We agree with
that. We need a new Citizenship Act that will reflect the times.
Within the year this government will introduce new
comprehensive citizenship legislation. It will provide a
blueprint for Canadian society as we enter the 21st century.
I agree with the hon. member that Canadian citizenship is
precious but it is not something to be hoarded and hidden away
in some sort of xenophobic fear of those people who want to
come here from these other countries.
It is something that should never be taken for granted.
Citizenship encompasses civic rights, duties and
responsibilities. It means defining the principles underlying our
citizenship and democracy, including equality of opportunity,
informed participation, respect for the Canadian rule of law,
non-violence and mutual respect.
Such a vital issue is not something to be tinkered with lightly.
Frankly I fear that the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is
doing that. The hon. member spoke about not trivializing
Canadian citizenship. Then I heard and could not believe the
latitude that was taken in the remarks she made and the litany
about the perceived refugee problems. I think we ought to be
very careful not to lump in problems real or perceived around
the issue of refugees with citizenship and granting citizenship to
new-born babies. I was frankly surprised to hear those remarks.
7886
One cannot and should not make changes to citizenship
lightly in a bit by bit, chip away at it fashion. It is much too
important to be done in that manner.
It would be premature in my view if not irresponsible for this
House to pursue in isolation just one small aspect of the
citizenship question at this time. It would seem that there are
members in this House, thankfully not on this side, who are
obsessed with these perceived problems, almost seeming to me
at times to border on xenophobic fear of people coming here
from other nations. I am surprised to hear that.
Despite the protests from the members opposite at this time I
am very surprised to hear this initiative repeated time and again.
Our government has undertaken a review process which will
help us to create stronger, better and more efficient citizenship
legislation. A new bill will soon be tabled.
I accept the fact that the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam
probably means well in her initiative but it is at the wrong time,
it is far too small in its scope and it is simply something that
needs to be done in a more comprehensive way.
When this occurs the appropriate time will come to address
this issue more fully in what I say must be a comprehensive,
responsible manner.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to take part in this debate on Private Member's Bill C-249
to amend the Citizenship Act. The motion tabled on May 11,
1994, by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will
ensure that a child born in Canada after December 31, 1994, will
not have Canadian citizenship if, at the time of his birth, neither
of his parents is a citizen or a permanent resident.
This issue was barely touched on in the consultation process
carried out by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration in June. At present, the Citizenship Act states that
every person who is born in Canada is a citizen, except children
of foreign diplomats and diplomatic staff. The existing
Citizenship Act is 20 years old. It was not until November 1993
that the daily newspaper Vancouver Sun came up with figures on
the number of children born in Canada to parents who were not
permanent residents.
(1800)
No scientific study has been carried out on the issue yet. The
story was based on information provided by nurses at Saint-Paul
Hospital in Vancouver. It was reported that the majority of these
children were born to parents originally from Hong Kong who
wanted to become Canadian citizens. There was a lot of
controversy about this news story in the Vancouver Chinese
community, but community leaders dismissed the issue as a
minor problem.
A Citizenship and Immigration official vaguely mentioned
something about some 400 children having been born to foreign
nationals in Canada in 1993 and not all of these births being used
to secure a Canadian passport.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration does not
have any statistics on Canadian-born children whose parents are
not citizens or residents of Canada. There is a very simple
reason for that: birth registration is a provincial responsibility.
The federal government has no authority in this area.
Is the bill proposed by the Reform Party based on exact
figures showing a large-scale conspiracy from abroad, an
endless flow of foreigners knowingly taking advantage of the
Canadian government? Some parents are here legally, like
students, temporary workers or refugee claimants.
[English]
Clearly the situation is not serious enough to call for radical
changes to the law at this time. The motion aims at creating a
new category of people living in Canada. Children born after
December 31, 1994 whose parents are neither Canadian citizens
nor permanent residents would not be given automatic
citizenship.
[Translation]
One of the principles behind the Citizenship Act is that of jus
soli or law of the soil. This fundamental principle is applied by
most countries. The motion put forward by the hon. member for
Port Moody-Coquitlam rejects the territorial principle out of
hand.
In my opinion, this bill reflects the biased feeling that
immigrants abuse the system. However, it must be pointed out
that Canadian-born children will grow up as Canadians and will
not need language training or other reception services involving
government expenditures. They will integrate more easily into
the Quebec or Canadian community.
If this bill is adopted in its present form, a child born in
Canada may run the risk of becoming stateless. According to
article 3 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child,
proclaimed by the UN General Assembly on November 20,
1959, the child is entitled, from birth, to a name and a
nationality. I stress the word nationality.
This motion will create a legal vacuum for these children.
And this is supposed to be the International Year of the Family!
We know that visa officers in this country and in various
Canadian embassies are very reluctant to issue tourist visas to
pregnant women. So there are really no figures to support
allegations of abuse in this respect.
I agree with the previous speaker who said there had been no
invasions of pregnant women in Canada.
7887
(1805)
[English]
The declaration of the rights of the child signed by Canada
stipulates that children are in need of special protection and
care, especially appropriate legal protection before and after
birth. This country owes to our children the very best we can
offer.
[Translation]
Governments must recognize these rights and ensure they are
observed by passing the appropriate legislation. These rights
shall apply to all children without exception and without
distinction or discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social
origin, income, birth or any other situation, whether it applies to
the child itself or to its family. The child must grow up in an
atmosphere of love and moral and material security.
The figures we have so far on children of non-residents born
in Canada are very tentative and there have been no major
problems. If there is any abuse, it is certainly minimal.
In any case, we will wait for the text of the bill to amend the
present Citizenship Act which the minister has promised to table
this fall, before we make a definitive statement. For the time
being, I am against Bill C-249.
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to stand here and speak to Bill C-249 from my colleague
on the other side of the House, the member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam.
In doing my research starting yesterday in preparing myself to
speak to this today at first blush I thought the bill had merit but
on getting deeper into the subject material I discovered that it
probably was premature. The bill before us today represents a
very small fraction of a much larger debate concerning the
direction which Canadian citizenship will take in the future.
Bill C-249 does draw our attention to the important
citizenship questions which will be coming into play in the
coming months and I agree there is a need for change in the way
that Canada addresses its citizenship issues.
It is unfortunate that Bill C-249 does present an ad hoc
approach to dealing with citizenship issues. Something as
important as changes to the citizenship act should not be
tinkered with one small piece at a time.
In April this government committed itself to the development
of a new citizenship act. We recognize the need to amend the
current legislation and we recognize that we must remove
anomalies in access to citizenship and to reinforce citizenship
integrity. Right now the key to reinforcing this integrity lies not
in the introduction of an individual specific legislation, it rests
in the development of a broad citizenship strategy. We must
have a clear sense of the direction we wish to take before we can
even begin discussing the specifics.
We must develop a plan which reflects the will of the people.
It must also encourage those seeking Canadian citizenship to
obtain a knowledge of and commitment to this country. It must
call for new citizens to become actively involved in community
life. This is the essence of the government's approach. Yes, it
will be a complicated process. It is a process we have already
started and is one we are committed to seeing through.
A standing committee was formed in April to review ideas
which would enhance the visibility and value of our citizenship.
This group tabled its findings in June. I might add that the
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam was a member of the
standing committee that did produce the report ``Canadian
Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging''.
The report on page 17 does state that it appears some women
may be coming to Canada as visitors solely for the purpose of
having their babies. However, the committee recognized that it
was a very small problem and that children born in Canada
should not automatically become permanent residents. In so
concluding the committee considered testimony of those who
supported this position.
(1810)
In this same report there are 28 recommendations of changes
to the citizenship act. Of the 28 the one the member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam mentions is number 12. It is one of the 28
recommendations in this booklet. The minister I believe will be
tabling a new citizenship act in the new year and I think all of
those 28 recommendations can be addressed and spoken to. It
certainly will come before the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration at that time. This is probably when
I changed my mind in that I think it is a bit of ad hockery to be
dealing with this one particular aspect of this report.
These recommendations by no means stand alone forever. Ten
months ago the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
launched a process of consultation with Canadians. From
February to September in town hall meetings and study groups
thousands of Canadians told the government what they thought.
More than 10,000 Canadians from communities across the
country and from all sectors of the economy and society
expressed their views on the important bonds between
citizenship and immigration and how these values linked to
form their visions of Canada in the next century.
We have heard from Canadians and we have already taken
action. These consultations have been invaluable for several
reasons. First, they have let us know how the Canadian people
feel. Second and just as important, the consultations have
prompted Canadians to reflect on their hopes and dreams
concerning what it means to live in this great nation.
7888
The government's citizenship legislation will seek to achieve
a range of goals. It will strive to promote among all Canadians
the exercise of civic rights by strengthening citizenship
education and promotion. We must consider the mutual
privileges and obligations ingrained in the relationship between
Canadian citizens and our society.
A new citizenship act will also modernize the technical
apparatus presently in use. Too many people who are currently
entitled to become citizens and desperately want to are delayed
by an administrative system which has become cumbersome and
awkward. There are blockages in the system. There must be a
better way.
Through consultation and thoughtful action we will find it.
The minister has already decided that the new system will no
longer include citizenship court judges. This duty will in future
be performed by distinguished Canadians drawn from the ranks
of the Order of Canada.
The issues discussed in Bill C-249 are important, far too
important to be dealt with on such a basis. The standing
committee has addressed the subject before us today.
Recommendations have been made, but it would be premature to
cut off one issue from the body of work done until it can be
properly placed within the context of a comprehensive
citizenship plan. Such a plan is being developed. Let us have the
good sense to wait for it.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Reform Party's critic for citizenship and
immigration I am very pleased to support the member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam and her proposed changes to the citizenship
act in Bill C-249.
I would like to begin by saying that this bill was tabled on May
4 of this year, almost two months before the committee's report
was produced. When the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration was formed it was given five general goals to
accomplish. Among them was the goal to find ways to enhance
the value and visibility of Canadian citizenship.
During the committee's proceedings members of Parliament
were told many times that the value of Canadian citizenship has
become trivialized. As one witness said, to be a citizen of this
wonderful country all you had to do was pass the tests, pay the
taxes and that is it. Others expressed concerns over how
Canadian citizenship has become little more than a convenient
commodity for foreigners or an insurance policy that can be
cashed in during times of trouble.
The committee heard stories of women coming to Canada for
the sole reason of having their babies here. Under current
Canadian law any child born in Canada is automatically granted
Canadian citizenship without question. It would appear that the
word has spread around the world about this Canadian
generosity.
(1815)
According to recent Vancouver Sun reports, upwards of 300
babies a year or more have been born in British Columbia over
the past three years to non-residents. That is over 900 children
in British Columbia alone. Some of these births were of course
the result of unusual circumstances.
Hospital staff claim however that the vast majority of these
babies were born to Hong Kong residents hoping to either queue
hop into Canada or at the very least offer their child or
themselves an insurance policy in case the transfer of Hong
Kong from British to Chinese rule does not proceed smoothly.
In time these so called passport babies will be eligible for all
the benefits that Canadian society has to offer: subsidized
college and university schooling, access to social programs, job
training programs, old age security, and on and on. All of this for
people who may not have a single connection to this country
aside from a piece of paper saying they were born in Canada.
As well, at the age of 19 these children will be able to sponsor
their own parents into Canada even though the children
themselves have spent little or no time in this country. This in
my opinion amounts to little more than an insurance policy for
the parents involved and makes a mockery of our citizenship.
I admit that the passport babies issue is a minor one,
especially when compared to other issues in the Citizenship and
Immigration portfolio. It is however an obvious loophole that is
being abused and therefore must be closed.
I believe the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has struck
an excellent balance between taking a firm stand against abusers
of the system and showing compassion for newborn children.
She advocates that a child born in Canada will only be granted
Canadian citizenship if at least one parent is either a permanent
resident of this country or a Canadian citizen.
Parents such as these have clearly shown a commitment to
Canada by becoming residents or citizens and should therefore
be rewarded for this commitment by granting their children all
the rights and privileges that come with citizenship.
Children born in Canada to refugee claimants will
automatically receive their Canadian citizenship as soon as at
least one of the parents becomes a permanent resident or a
citizen. On the other hand passport babies will be required to
take on the citizenship of their parents.
This bill if passed by Parliament will in my view have a
two-sided effect. First, it will send a clear message to the rest of
the world that Canada places a high value on its citizenship. For
a newborn child to become a citizen, the family must show a
strong commitment to Canada by striving to become residents or
citizens. Such a commitment will be too strong for some and
7889
will end both the flow of passport babies and the pursuit of
Canadian citizenship to act as a child's or parent's personal
insurance policy.
Second, it will send a clear message to Canadians that the
federal government values citizenship and takes a firm stand on
who can acquire it. Fewer Canadians than ever before I feel are
viewing their citizenship as a valuable commodity.
The words Canadian citizen have been devalued because of
many stories like this one of the passport babies and the flagrant
abuse of citizenship requirements. This amendment would be a
first step in restoring the value of citizenship to those who
cherish it most, that is Canadians.
In closing, I wish to point out the consensus that I feel Bill
C-249 holds within this House. The standing committee made
these very same recommendations four months ago in its report
``Canadian Citizenship, A Sense of Belonging''. This report
authored by an all-party committee unanimously
recommended:
``Children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if
one or both of their parents is a permanent resident or a
Canadian citizen. Children born to a parent who has been
recognized as a convention refugee or to a parent who is a
refugee claimant subsequently recognized as a convention
refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board should
automatically gain Canadian citizenship''.
I must emphasize that these very recommendations were both
endorsed by all members of the committee, Liberals, Reformers
and members of the Bloc Quebecois, and are here in black and
white in Bill C-249.
(1820 )
Clearly the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam in drafting
this bill has reflected the concerns held by Canadians as well as
the thoughts and intents of the standing committee. I call on my
fellow members of this House to listen to the Canadian people,
set aside their partisan differences and support these very
important amendments to the Citizenship Act.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Bill
C-249, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, proposed by the
hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
We have before us the opportunity to address the process by
which we confer citizenship upon new Canadians. Prior to
addressing the specifics of the bill, I would like to speak briefly
about the importance of the citizenship process. The integrity of
this process must be protected because, as all members in this
House are aware, it is considered a great honour to be a Canadian
citizen. Canadian citizenship is renowned and respected
worldwide. In this regard we are admired for our tolerance and
our fairness.
Despite this, we do have an understanding that there is a need
for a reform of our Citizenship Act. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration indicated on April 14 in this House that the
time had come to introduce amendments to the 20-year old act:
We need a Citizenship Act that also ensures fairness and integrity, one that
removes certain discriminatory aspects of current legislation, eliminates
inconsistencies in the granting of Canadian citizenship and improves the
process of acquiring that citizenship.
To attain this goal important steps have been taken such as the
elimination of the role of citizenship judges and the introduction
of significant administrative and regulatory changes aiming to
expedite the process more efficiently such as increasing the
daily number of hearings, establishing group hearings,
extending business hours, et cetera. The termination of partisan
judicial appointments was especially supported by many
Canadians.
At the same time the minister also requested the standing
committee to study our Citizenship Act and provide
recommendations for improvements. Shortly thereafter in June
the committee released its report entitled ``Canadian
Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging'' which presented a series of
recommendations.
Of particular relevance to the private member's bill up for
debate today are three recommendations which have already
been referred to, but I would like to paraphrase them. Children
born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both
of their parents is a permanent resident or Canadian citizen.
Second, the provision should be made to ensure the above rule
need not apply if its application could cause a person born in
Canada to be stateless. Third, an exception to the first rule
should provide that children born to a parent who is a successful
refugee claimant should automatically gain Canadian
citizenship.
In light of the above recommendations I feel compelled to
point out some serious deficiencies in Bill C-249, the private
member's bill being debated today. Although the basic principal
of this bill has been agreed upon by the committee, the bill
remains quite incomplete in that it has not addressed the latter
two recommendations which I have just alluded to. Moreover,
the danger exists that this bill can be employed as a vehicle for
inciting unwarranted fear among Canadians by exaggerating
statistically negligible abuses of the Canadian citizenship
process.
A relevant example in this respect involved cases of foreign
mothers, be they visitors or refugee claimants, who give birth to
children on Canadian soil for the express purpose of attaining
Canadian citizenship for their children. I should point out that I
have been informed by the Department of Citizenship and
7890
Immigration there is no evidence to indicate we have a
significant problem to this end as claimed by the Reform Party.
The committee concluded in this regard indicating in their
report that passport babies, as this phenomena is affectionately
referred to, does not appear to be a major problem. Nonetheless,
the committee provided recommendations designed to prevent
the possibility for abuse.
(1825 )
We should all be very clear in this respect. The committee did
by no means imply that a problem of any significance existed
when it provided suggestions on how we might prevent the
possibility of abuse. As such I caution members across the way
that it is terribly irresponsible to initiate unwarranted anxieties
based upon unsubstantiated claims.
Some members of the House appear prone to taking advantage
of occasional and statistically insignificant occurrences and
blowing them out of proportion to advance a political agenda.
We have seen this many times.
As I alluded to earlier the member's bill is suspect in that it is
incomplete. It appears to address a simple problem with a
common sense solution. However we live in a complex work in
which situations are precipitated by not one factor but often
myriad variables which may not at first glance be readily
apparent. Most problems require thoughtful and careful analysis
and sometimes demand complex solutions to yield optimal and
fair outcomes.
The bill is not well rounded nor fair because it has not
considered certain scenarios. Although reflecting the essence of
the committee's first recommendation found on page 17 of the
committee's report, the bill fails to take into consideration the
two accompanying recommendations which provide important
exceptions to the first rule.
Let me elaborate in this regard. It would be ruthless and
uncompassionate to deny children Canadian citizenship if they
could not be granted citizenship from another country. We could
not leave children in a predicament such that they would remain
stateless. I am appalled that the member did not see fit to include
this reasonable exception.
Furthermore, regardless of the hon. member's stated intent,
the bill indicates very clearly or in no uncertain terms that the
children of foreign mothers might gain citizenship only after
one of the child's parents became permanent residents or
citizens.
This poses a serious problem given that it does not take into
account the case of successful refugee claimants who do not
choose to seek permanent resident status or citizenship. Because
accepted refugee claimants are not obliged to seek permanent
residents or citizenship, the possibility exists that their children
would for all intents and purposes be denied citizenship.
I was most disappointed to note that there was absolutely no
reference to the above two exceptions in the member's bill. I am
confident that had a careful and indepth analysis been conducted
the contents of the bill would have been more complete and
comprehensive.
Without an acknowledgement of these exceptions outlined by
the committee, the essence of the hon. member's bill is rendered
unfair and our citizenship process rendered incomplete. This is
simply not the Canadian way.
In conclusion, Bill C-249, although commensurate with the
general essence of the first recommendation on page 17 of the
standing committee's report, remains incomplete to the point
where it would render the citizenship process unjust and
exclusionary. For the above reasons the amendment should be
exposed for what it is, a vehicle for partisan gerrymandering.
On the bright side, in the near future the House can expect a
comprehensive and fair reform of the Citizenship Act. I am
confident that the revised act will prove well balanced and will
seriously consider the recommendations presented in the June
report of the standing committee.
In the meantime the Reform Party would better serve the
interests of Canadians by contributing in a positive manner to
the citizen reform process rather than dwell upon the-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7890
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on July 10,
I asked the Minister for National Defence and Veterans Affairs if
he recognized that additional changes were needed to Bill C-84
and, if so, would he put these changes on the legislative agenda
now as time for our merchant navy war veterans is running out.
He stated that the Department of Veterans Affairs was working
on reforms that would speed up the processing of veterans'
claims. I agree with this. However it is not the only thing that the
merchant navy war veterans require.
7891
(1830)
Bill C-84 is a complex bill which amends various war pension
acts. By rejecting the principle of equality with war veterans,
veterans affairs locked the merchant navy under a civilian act
instead of including it under an amended War Veterans
Allowance Act.
One solution to the inequities of Bill C-84 is a simple
amendment to include the wartime merchant navy in the War
Veterans Allowance Act.
The government has said that Bill C-84 is a good bill. I say it
is a start. Some merchant seamen and their families are
receiving some benefits and that is a positive step in the right
direction. Unfortunately it is not as inclusive as it should be.
Bill C-84 is not satisfactory as it does not extend full veterans
status to merchant navy veterans. Nor does it provide equal
status to the full range of health, disability and income support
benefits by the department.
This past March the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs who
was involved in the 1992 act admitted at a House of Commons
committee hearing that the act was not perfect and contradicted
himself by saying he did not see a need for major change. As
well, last Friday the Secretary of State for Veterans stated on a
CBC program that all merchant navy veterans qualify for all
veterans benefits, but this is not so.
After 50 years the present labour government in Australia has
granted merchant mariners full benefits under its Veterans
Entitlements Act. In granting them full benefits and equality the
government has fully recognized the contribution merchant
seafarers made in the defence of their country.
During the war Canadian merchant ships carried essential war
materials needed for the war effort to succeed. The merchant
navy was a constant target for German surface raiders and
U-boats. It is no small wonder why they had the highest casualty
ratio of any of the services with one seaman in ten being killed.
The current Deputy Prime Minister last week stated that
Canada's merchant navy made the seas wholesome once again
and kept open the gates of freedom.
After the war merchant navy veterans were officially
civilians. They were not eligible for veterans benefits. We as a
country have recognized the injustices against our merchant
navy seamen and women. Why have we not compensated them
adequately?
Last week the government moved closer to recognizing the
war efforts of the merchant navy. First was the dedication of the
Book of Remembrance for the Merchant Navy War Dead. The
book is a lovely symbol of remembrance for the over 2,200
merchant navy seamen who died in both world wars. Second was
the participation of the merchant navy war veterans in the vice
regal wreath laying ceremony which was agreed to by the legion.
The number of surviving merchant seamen and women is
about 3,200 and their average age is 74 years. All they are
seeking is equal status, treatment and access to benefits.
I am asking the Secretary of State for Veterans to start the
changes to the legislation now so it can be put on the legislative
agenda before it is too late. Time for our merchant navy veterans
is running out. Let us once and for all fully recognize the
merchant navy as the fourth arm of the armed services.
It is my hope that the parliamentary secretary will not just
deal with the issue of pension reform which the Minister of
National Defence addressed in his first answer. I am asking if he
acknowledges that changes are necessary to Bill C-84 and, if
not, why not and, if so, when will the reforms be initiated.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for outlining the alleged
shortcomings of the previous government's legislation. Perhaps
to complete the irony in that remark, this government will
certainly consider correcting any legal or technical flaws in the
legislation.
I have personal knowledge of this subject because I was a
member of the standing committee that fought for and won these
benefits for merchant seamen. The real point is that the
legislation is succeeding in doing what it was intended to do.
Merchant navy veterans have the same access to veterans
benefits as their military counterparts. They are eligible for
disability pensions, war veterans allowance, the veterans
independence program, long term care and veterans funeral and
burial grants.
There is no veterans program currently available to military
veterans that is not also available to merchant navy veterans.
Listening to the hon. member for Saint John this House would
wonder if merchant navy veterans are receiving anything. They
certainly are receiving all the benefits. In fact an estimated
2,000 merchant navy veterans and their dependants are
receiving veterans benefits and that is certainly a long way from
the theme suggested by the hon. member.
Having said that, the merchant navy representatives have
identified several areas where they believe that legislation could
be improved. The Secretary of State for Veterans met with the
groups involved and their proposals are presently under review.
From this review changes with respect to the merchant navy
veterans benefits will take the form of amendments that would
be considered for inclusion in a general housekeeping bill. That
kind of bill is put forward from time to time to modernize
language and to address technical matters.
7892
The merchant navy representatives at this meeting were also
asked to bring to the secretary's immediate attention any
specific case where it appeared that benefits were being denied
because of a shortcoming in the legislation. May I conclude by
extending to the hon. member the same invitation. I thank her
for her question.
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. under Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)