TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 18, 1994
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6816
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6819
Division on motion deferred 6828
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 6828
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6830
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6837
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6843
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6847
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6848
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6850
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6850
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6851
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6851
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6851
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6852
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6852
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6852
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6852
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6852
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6852
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6853
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6853
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6853
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6853
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6854
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6854
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6854
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6854
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment. 6858
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 6866
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 6870
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6873
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6876
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed of report stage 6879
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas; 103; Nays, 133 6879
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6880
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 48; Nays, 189 6880
Bill C-48. Consideration resumed of second reading 6881
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 45; Nays, 189 6881
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 6883
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 6883
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 100; Nays, 138 6883
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 6885
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 189; Nays, 48. 6885
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 6886
Bill C-251. Motion for second reading 6886
6815
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 18, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, the 1993 annual report of the Lower Churchill
Development Corporation Limited.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition signed by voters of the riding of Pierrefonds-Dollard
stating their opposition to the proposed amendments to the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The petitioners are asking Parliament not to amend the
Canadian Code of Human Rights by adding the rather vague
expression ``sexual orientation'' to the list of prohibited
grounds for discrimination.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present two
petitions signed by 60 residents of Kaleden and Oliver in my
riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I would like to
point out that to date 413 people from my riding have signed
petitions regarding the same subject, gun control.
The petitioners oppose further gun legislation. They call on
the government to provide strict enforcement of existing
statutes governing the use of firearms in the commission of a
criminal offence, with particular emphasis on the rigorous use
of section 85 of the Criminal Code. Further restrictions on
law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem of crime in
Canada. Government must deal with the real problem and not
punish law-abiding citizens.
I support my petitioners.
(1005 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise on behalf of 685 residents
of the constituency of Edmonton Southwest to present a petition
that speaks against euthanasia.
The petitioners pray that the Parliament of Canada will ensure
that palliative care is active and compassionate, that it can
relieve the pain and suffering of the terminally ill and help
families without the danger of suicide.
It is my pleasure to present the petition and I concur fully with
the petitioners.
Mr. Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if
I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to
committee reports for the purpose of tabling a report.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Members have heard the
request of the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount for
unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from
committees. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both
official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee
on Industry entitled ``Taking Care of Small Business'' or, in
French,
Pour financer le succès de la PME.
This report contains 24 recommendations aimed at creating a
financial climate more favourable to the development of small
business in Canada.
6816
[English]
The report could not have been done without the tremendous
hard work and non-partisan co-operation of all members from
all parties of the industry committee. I wish to thank everyone
who participated in the report.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, on
the tabling of this report I would like to join the chairman in
saluting the 58 witnesses who participated in the committee
proceedings and thanking the people who sent us 62 briefs.
I also want to stress the highly positive atmosphere in which
the proceedings took place. I must say however that, in spite of
this positive attitude, we had to dissent on two major points
which we believed not to be in the best interests of Quebecers.
The first point concerns the fiscal relationship between the
Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec and the federal
government; we will comment on this further during the
forthcoming press conference; the second point regards the
Small Businesses Loans Act; instead of restricting its scope, we
would like to see it broadened to include all small businesses,
not only those involved in exports, so that in the new economy,
small and medium sized businesses can rely on this act for their
working capital. That is all for now, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I see the member
rising, according to our standing orders concerning the tabling
of reports from committees, if and when there should be a
dissenting voice, members from Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition have an equal amount of time to that of the presenter
of the committee report.
I submit with the greatest of respect to all my colleagues that
the Chair cannot extend the floor to another member to speak on
the same report.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With
unanimous consent, could we be afforded that privilege just for
a very brief comment?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Of course the Chair is the
servant of all members of the House. Is it the wish of the House
to extend the privilege to the hon. member? Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be here this morning and to be able to
support and to be part of a process in which democracy is
operating in its truest form.
The committee developed recommendations that will support
small business. These were developed based on the people's
commentary. The committee has come up with
recommendations that in my opinion will definitely help to
develop small business in Canada.
Some of the key recommendations are the increase of
competition among financial institutions by increasing the
number and kind of institutions that provide financing; setting
interest rates under the Small Businesses Loans Act that are
commensurate with risk; developing a code of conduct for
banks; and the establishment of a bank ombudsman with the
power to investigate and order compensation on matters of
breach of duty or maladministration in order to ensure a level
playing field between businesses and banks.
(1010 )
We know that small businesses play a major role in the
economic development of Canada. We need to shore up this part
of our sector. Our economic future is dependent upon them and
this report. If the government sees fit to implement the
recommendations, we will have a better climate as a result of
this development.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6816
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will recognize the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I want to apprise the
House we are at the stage of debate where members have a
10-minute allocation without questions or comments.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-41 addresses an area of the criminal justice
system which we call sentencing. There is for me a certain sense
of déjà vu. A bill not identical to this was introduced in the last
Parliament.
Colleagues on the justice committee at that time viewed the
bill as flawed and made a collective decision not to proceed. As
a result the sentencing legislation, which has been in the works
for some 10 years or more, languished for another period of
time. That legislation was flawed from the point of view of
properly defining what sentencing should be or could be and it
6817
also failed to take adequate account of the role of the victim in a
criminal law sentencing decision.
At least members on this side of the House and to some extent
all members are the authors of the bill currently before the
House. I am proud to stand with the Minister of Justice in
presenting this bill for its consideration.
Certain refinements have been made to the bill. There have
been a lot of contributors. It is only fair to acknowledge these
contributors over all of the years. This is not something that
came off the assembly line and was cobbled together quickly.
Over the years contributions have been made in the area of
criminal law sentencing, at least in laying the new groundwork,
by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, the Canadian
Sentencing Commission, and former members of the House of
Commons. I recall members of the other place also contributed
to the debate. There have been some special individuals inside
the House.
We should give credit to those in the Department of Justice
who have shepherded the bill through to the present time. Last
but not least is the Minister of Justice. He has come forward with
what we believe is a landmark in the sense that not previously in
our history have we attempted to codify the sentencing regime in
the Criminal Code. We have not had a statute that specifically
targeted the issue of sentencing.
Sentencing was referred to in the government's election
platform. Some credit is due to a lot of members in the last
Parliament, not just on the government side, but some credit is
also due to the flexibility and foresight of the current Prime
Minister who accommodated this in the party's platform. Now it
is our job in the House to review it, refine it should the need be
there and put it into law.
(1015)
What is worth noting for the record is this bill is not
corrections legislation. It does not deal with penitentiaries. It
does not deal with parole. It does not deal with sentencing terms
per se. The sentence that could be given by a judge is set out in
the Criminal Code, minimums, maximums or whatever. This
bill does not set out the penalty or potential penalty for a
particular crime. This bill does not deal with gun control per se.
It does not deal with the way we deal with gradual release of our
inmates. It is not any of those things. Notwithstanding, it is a
landmark piece of legislation.
This bill consolidates and updates in a codified form our
Canadian developed law of sentencing. Much of this law has
been developed in the courtroom by judges. It was created
judicially with reference to the Criminal Code, our criminal law
traditions, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other
common law elements that judges have taken into account over
the years.
This is perhaps an opportunity for the legislators to play their
role in giving the appropriate definition, guidance and
framework to the judges who have for the last 100 or more years
carried the burden of sentencing in the discretion that has been
given to them under the Criminal Code. Here is our chance as
legislators to provide a framework for them.
One of the major functions of this bill is to define the purpose
and principles of sentencing. This was an issue in the previous
legislation. It still may be an issue. It may be an area in which
some refinement may be useful at committee stage recalling that
as we debate the bill now we are debating the bill in principle. I
am certainly going to support the bill in principle.
In terms of these actual definitions, it might be useful for the
committee which will study this bill to look with a magnifying
glass at the actual wording of the purpose and principles of
sentencing as set out in the bill. There is some alleged fuzzing
thinking. It is just alleged. I am not saying it is fuzzy, I am
saying that from my point of view the wording in section 718
could be slightly more simplified and perhaps more orthodox
than it is written at the moment.
In that regard, and I will put it on the record, I have a sense
that in trying to define the fundamental purpose of sentencing
Department of Justice officials have used the definition of
purpose of criminal law. There is a difference between the
purpose of criminal law, that being generally or usually defined
to be the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, and
the purpose of sentencing which is just an element of the
criminal law. The purpose of sentencing, in my view, is to
promote respect for the law and respect for the criminal law
system which does all of these other things for us. However, that
is a rather narrow perspective at the moment as we debate the
bill in principle and that can be taken up later.
I want to address the sections of this bill dealing with
potential for change from the aboriginal perspective. It would be
wrong to say there is now in existence an aboriginal system of
criminal justice. There are some pilot projects through the
goodwill of aboriginal Canadians, the people on their reserves,
people in the criminal justice community, the police and the
judges.
(1020 )
There has been some leadership there in an attempt to develop
a system in the aboriginal community that works. I do not think
there is a member in this House who would walk into a reserve in
northern Canada and say they believe affairs on the reserve
ought to be run the same way they are in downtown Montreal or
Vancouver or at King and Bay Streets in Toronto. These are two
different worlds.
6818
Our aboriginal Canadians never did apply for Canadian
citizenship. We bestowed it on them. There is plenty of good
reason to look for ways to make the criminal justice system
work on these reserves that are very much removed from the
urban way of Canadian life.
I look forward to working on that aspect of the bill. I will
make note of my interest in section 745 of the Criminal Code
which is related to sentencing provisions. This bill does not
address that specifically. It might be constructive and useful to
take a closer look at section 745 of the Criminal Code, the
section that permits a decreased or reduced parole eligibility
date for those serving life sentences, and at the wording of
section 718(2) which deals with aggravating and mitigating
circumstances that a judge may take into account at the time of
sentencing.
There is an initiative put forward in the bill which may be
useful. It would certainly bear discussion at the committee stage
when we look at the entire package.
I will indicate my wholehearted support for the bill in
principle. I look forward to further deliberations at the
committee stage.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-41. The purpose of this
bill is to introduce changes to the sentencing system of the
Criminal Code. A number of aspects of this bill do improve the
sentencing process.
Canadians are demanding improvements to the criminal
justice system. Perhaps Bill C-41 will address a few of their
concerns. However, some aspects only appear to be positive.
Half measures or blatantly misleading proposals are not what
they want.
Despite the introduction of the statement of purpose and
principle of sentencing, judges will still have the same latitude
under this legislation as they do today in imposing various and
inconsistent penalties.
This month I have received over 4,000 letters and faxes as
well as petitions containing the signatures of over 12,000
residents of the lower mainland demanding real deterrents as a
fundamental part of the justice system. I believe that
inescapable, real consequences are part of such a deterrent.
Respect for the criminal justice system stems from equality
before the law. Where is the principle of building confidence in
Canadians that their safety and security is a primary goal of an
accountable justice system that must include the principle of
equality?
As I address the issue of equality before and under the law, I
would like to address the so-called hate crime section of this
bill. It reads as follows: ``Evidence that the offence was
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality,
colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual
orientation of the victim shall be deemed to be aggravating
circumstances''.
There is no question that it is totally reprehensible that a
person should be attacked viciously or otherwise because of
their personal characteristics. The attacker should be punished
fully for the offence. However, this section of the legislation
poses several dilemmas which need to be addressed.
How will the courts determine that a crime was motivated by
hate, prejudice or bias? Will prosecutors launch investigations
into the backgrounds and motives of every person convicted of
assault in order to determine whether that assault was based on a
personal bias against the victim?
How will this affect current backlogs in the courts? Will only
the most obvious crimes be subject to this section? Will the
courts later overturn a verdict delivered by a lower court
because it later seemed that the assault was or was not motivated
by hate, prejudice or bias, even though the assault on the
individual took place?
(1025 )
Why should one form of assault be judged as more hideous or
unacceptable than another? What happened to the fact that any
assault on a man or a woman is completely unacceptable and
should not be tolerated regardless of motivating factors? It is the
viciousness of the attack that needs to be judged, not whether the
accused harboured personal prejudice toward the victim. There
is a problem with the enumeration of categories upon which
bias, prejudice or hate will be decided. Is hate only an
aggravated crime if it falls within these categories?
What about a person who is attacked because someone does
not like their chosen profession? Consider for a moment the
popularity of lawyers and politicians. Occupational bias is not
on this list. What if they hate someone because they are rich or
because they are poor? Class distinction is not on this list. The
person who is mugged and beaten half to death for their wallet
and keys to their expensive car by someone who resents their
status or achievement will see their accused face a lesser
sentence than if the same accused had attacked them for their
religious beliefs. There is great inequity in this type of
legislation.
I would like to bring to the attention of this House a couple of
incidents from my own province of British Columbia which will
help illustrate the problem with this particular clause.
The first occurred in B.C. to a young man by the name of
Andre Castet. Let me read from the coverage of this case
provided by the Vancouver Sun: ``But no less than a month after
the Sidney teenager died from a beating, its his former
classmates and the community who must regain voices and steps
broken by the tragedy. `People are still grappling for an
explanation for this-something they can latch on to', says
Derek Peach, a grade 12 English teacher at Parkland secondary,
the 800
6819
student Sidney school where both Andre, 17, and his two
accused killers attended classes last year''.
Would the parents and friends of the victims feel any better
about this tragic death if they knew that the accused would be
facing a stiffer penalty because the crown prosecutor could
prove that the attack was motivated by hate, prejudice or bias?
Since there does not seem to be any such evidence should there
not be an outcry of injustice from those same parents and friends
because the accused will not suffer as harsh a penalty as they
might if it could be proven that they hated him?
What about the case in my own riding of Coquitlam, the tragic
and senseless death of Graham Niven? His death sparked an
outcry from the public which resulted in a rally attended by over
5,000 people demanding stiffer penalties for those youth
convicted of crimes of violence.
Again, I quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun: ``A man
who was kicked to death last weekend was helping a teenager in
trouble, the victim's roommate said Tuesday. Graham Niven,
31, had just called a taxi for a stranded Burnaby youth before a
confrontation with a group of youths outside a Mac's
convenience store in Coquitlam early Saturday morning. `He
was being a good Samaritan' said roommate Steve Hoskins
Tuesday. `He gave his last $7 to a kid from Burnaby who had
missed the last bus home.''
The people in my riding do not want the accused getting off
lightly because they are young offenders but they also do not
want them getting off lightly because they cannot be found
guilty of hate, prejudice or bias. They destroyed a man, along
with his dreams and goals, and left his family and friends with
nothing but their memories and their pain. No matter what the
motivation for the crime the sentence must reflect the tragedy
and hideousness of the crime. An assault is an assault and must
be treated with the full extent of the law.
I would also like to address the inclusion of sexual orientation
in this legislation. I am personally opposed to the inclusion of
this term and would like to outline the reasons for my stand.
My party affirms the equality of every individual before and
under the law and the right of every individual to live freely
within the limits of the law. I assert that homosexuals already
have the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians as
guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sexual
orientation in itself is not a legitimate basis for special
enumerated protection. I will give several reasons.
First and foremost sexual orientation does not possess the
characteristics essential for inclusion in the list. Human rights
are protected on the basis of immutable characteristics such as
age, gender and race, or the universally accepted positive
characteristic of religion. These criteria have not yet been
established for the category of sexual orientation and in
particular the undefined term as presented in this legislation.
As well my conclusion is based on the position of my
constituents. Recently in a questionnaire sent out from my
office I asked whether my constituents agreed that sexual
orientation should be included in the charter as a protected
category along with race, colour, religion or gender. A decisive
65 per cent of respondents rejected that notion.
(1030)
It is my duty to represent the concerns of my constituents. It is
also my duty as an elected representative to consider all
consequences and implications. As illustrated in the debate in
this House, the inclusion of such a term as sexual orientation
would result in a profound infringement on the longstanding
rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Would the label of crime of hate be applied to even the
expression of one's deeply held religious or personal
convictions if those personal convictions were that
homosexuality was immoral? That has been proposed.
Would it be a crime of hate to express personal freedom of
association by the exclusion of homosexuals in churches or
private associations or even as roommates? These and other
questions will be raised in broader ways as we discuss the
government's proposed changes to the Human Rights Act.
May I say that a government that denies the moral will of the
majority of Canadians by forcing a vote on party lines is denying
the very basics of democracy.
In conclusion, society demands that a criminal justice system
enforce deterrence of the offender with just and predictable
consequence. It demands the principle of equality under the law
to be applied to all Canadians. Assault or any other crime for
whatever reason should receive the full force of law regardless
of the range of emotion behind the motives for the crime.
Canadians want justice applied without the intrusion of mind
police or political correctness. Canadians want laws and
systems better defined to protect society as a whole.
Bill C-41 introduces more potential for inequities and
unpredictability in an already flawed system.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can think of
nothing more frustrating for Canadian people than laws which
are in theory intended to protect and reflect our sense of what is
right and what is wrong but which in practice continuously
prove to be ineffective or variable in their application and result.
Our legal system forms the network that binds us as
Canadians. It is the framework under which we all agree to live
and be judged. With variability or uncertainty of application and
use, the strength, control and credibility of this vital tool of
human management is undermined and society as a whole is
weakened.
6820
In response to a growing sense of frustration on the part of
Canadians, the Minister of Justice has tabled Bill C-41, an act
on sentencing reform. In an effort to refocus the application and
use of our laws Bill C-41 provides clear direction and
guidelines to the courts on the purpose and the methods of
sentencing. Prior to Bill C-41 the role of Parliament was simply
to set maximum penalties for offences under the Criminal Code.
With this legislation Parliament is looking at the fundamentals,
the policy objectives of the sentencing process.
This legislation sets out that the fundamental purpose of
sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. The framework
provided is of enormous significance. Sentencing is not simply
about giving sentences. Rather, sentencing must serve the
fundamental purpose of creating a just and safe society.
Bill C-41 provides as well a holistic vision of sentencing.
Sentencing should not be solely about jails and prisons.
Effective sentencing, sentencing that deters repeat offenders,
also involves alternative measures such as restitution and
conditional sentences.
Research has clearly shown that these forms of sentencing are
more effective in combating crime than a strictly law and order
approach. One only needs to look south of the border for
evidence of this. In the United States the rate of imprisonment is
400 per cent that of Canada's yet 200 Americans are victims of
violence every hour despite annual expenditures on police,
courts and corrections that exceed $70 billion. One cannot
seriously argue that the United States is a safer country due to its
bigger jails, tougher sentences and capital punishment. In fact,
the opposite seems true.
Bill C-41 outlines another sentencing principle that I would
like to briefly address. Under this legislation the courts should
take into consideration the principle that a sentence should be
increased if there is evidence that the crime was motivated by
bias, prejudice or hate based on the race, nationality, colour,
religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual
orientation of the victim. Some say that this provides special
status for these Canadians, particularly homosexual Canadians.
If these people have any special status, it is the special status of
often suffering abuse simply because of their minority
characteristics.
(1035)
Bill C-41 ensures that the courts consider these
circumstances when deciding upon sentences. This is not about
granting special status. Rather it is about affirming equality for
all Canadians. Homosexual Canadians should be able to walk on
our streets without the fear of being attacked just because of
their sexual orientation. Just as heterosexuals do not have to live
with this fear neither should other Canadians who have a
different sexual preference.
This is about promoting equality, not granting special status.
It is also saying that Canadians will not stand for crimes based
on hate.
Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concern
that the criminal justice system does not do enough for the
victim. I strongly support Bill C-41 because it does address this
concern in several ways. One obvious way is that it provides for
victim impact statements at section 745 hearings. Victims will
no longer go voiceless at the early parole hearings.
A second provision for victims that I would like to discuss in
more detail is restitution. Bill C-41 would allow the courts to
consider ordering restitution to individual victims or to the
community to cover property damage or personal injury. This
provision responds to the demands of victims to have their needs
considered by the justice system.
Crimes can have a tremendous financial impact upon victims.
Is it more effective to have these offenders only put behind bars?
Where does that leave the victim? Or should the perpetrators be
hit where it hurts, in the pocketbook, which will promote
responsibility for their actions?
Previously victims had to apply to receive compensation for
their losses. Bill C-41 provides a process for restitution to be
considered as part of the normal process of sentencing.
In cases in which the court orders an offender to pay
restitution and a fine but where it is clear that the offender does
not have the means to pay both, Bill C-41 states that restitution
must take precedence. This demonstrates that this legislation is
committed to helping the victims of crime.
I strongly support this move toward restitution. Why should
victims of crime go uncompensated while the offenders simply
spend time in custody? I would think for non-serious crimes
rehabilitation of the offender can be more effectively achieved
through directly seeing what damage has been caused to the
victim.
I believe and would request that the framework for restitution
as set out in Bill C-41 be extended to cover the special
circumstances of certain specific crimes. I am particularly
thinking about the issue of domestic violence. In most cases a
severe economic inequality results from these situations.
If a woman makes a horribly difficult decision to press
charges and leave the scene of abuse she in most cases retains
responsibility for the children. She is forced to seek temporary
shelter, needs to find child care or care for her children, often
with very limited economic means.
I believe that restitution would be particularly important in
cases involving domestic violence because of the economic
inequality that results. Women and their children are too often
left at a severe disadvantage. Too often the abuser spends some
weekend in jail or pays some fines but the victim is left with
6821
financial stresses in addition to the obvious physical and
emotional trauma.
Under Bill C-41 restitution orders for bodily harm only cover
pecuniary damages specifically including loss of income or
support. It is unclear how broadly the courts might interpret
pecuniary damages in ordering restitution in the cases of
domestic violence.
I am suggesting that we should not leave this judgment to
chance. We should define pecuniary damages in cases involving
domestic violence to specifically include loss of income as well
as costs related to temporary shelter, child care and
transportation. These are costs that are directly incurred as a
result of the abuse. The courts should consider these when
ordering restitution.
Abused women are often forced to spend time in battered
women's shelters since they are the only places they can afford
and which offer protection. Perhaps a portion of the restitution
order dealing with temporary housing could go directly to
support these shelters as well.
I acknowledge this is not a solution to the problem of
domestic violence. Solutions have to be found in addressing
problems before the abuse occurs in looking at the inequality
between men and women and looking at the problems of poverty
and alcoholism. However, I think that restitution offers an
excellent opportunity to address the economic inequality that
can result from domestic violence.
(1040)
Another significant problem is that women often do not report
abusive situations. Restitution would only be ordered after a
conviction is obtained. I realize that this is only a small
consideration to the emotional and physical challenges, but if
women knew that compensation would be there in the end they
might be more encouraged to report the abuse.
Requiring the courts to consider the specific circumstances of
domestic violence cases in ordering restitution would help the
victims of domestic violence. Requiring convicted abusers to
financially compensate their victims would provide another
good indication to offenders that they are responsible for their
actions.
In closing, I strongly support the measures that are included in
Bill C-41. The maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society
depends on good and fair sentencing. This legislation provides a
framework for our courts so that they in turn can give our
community, Canadians, just that.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-41. I do so on experience gained as a
community worker in the criminal justice system from 1975 to
1993. I have 18 years experience working with offenders,
victims, police, prosecutors, judges, correctional workers and
the public. I have also worked with many volunteers involved in
the justice system.
My work was in the Waterloo region where we pioneered
many programs in the field of community justice and
corrections. Victim reconciliation, community mediation,
Kitchener House where offenders serve provincial time in a
halfway house, the first bail program in Ontario, law day and
justice weeks were all pioneered in the Waterloo region. In the
Waterloo region crime and justice are a community
responsibility.
Bill C-41 is an omnibus bill that updates sentencing
practices. I applaud in particular the section dealing with the
imposition of fines. Under the current law close to one-third of
admissions to Ontario jails are for the nonpayment of fines. We
have a ridiculous situation where in lieu of collecting a $200
fine we end up spending thousands of dollars to jail the offender.
For too long we have been incarcerating people for no other
reason than their being poor. It is reminiscent of debtors prisons.
Too many of our aboriginal people and too many of our
economically disadvantaged people occupy our jails. This bill
will address this injustice and will use community service work
to replace costly incarceration.
It is important when we talk of crime and justice issues to
recognize that offenders and victims are people who come from
communities and are not aliens from another planet. Solutions
to issues of crime are complex and involve all segments of our
society.
Having reviewed the debates on Bill C-41, I am troubled by
the simplistic solutions put forth by the Reform Party. It would
have us believe that capital and corporal punishment along with
longer prison sentences would produce a safer society in
Canada. If the simplistic solutions dictated by the Reform Party
had any basis in fact then I submit that the United States would
be the safest society in the western world.
We know and I am sure the Reform Party knows this is not the
case. The United States has the highest crime rate and the most
violent crimes in the western world. It executes and jails more
people than any other in western society. Surely the Reform
Party would not want to trade the safety of our streets in Canada
for that of the United States.
One of the biggest problems we have with the issue of crime is
the perception created by the American and our own news
media. They create a perception that in Canada we are living in a
society where crime and violence are much more prevalent than
the statistics indicate. Canada is not the United States.
(1045 )
Our society is much less crime infested than the United
States. We do a disservice when we pander and reinforce
misconceptions. I would suggest that the Reform Party is
pandering to misconceptions. I would further suggest the debate
on firearms we are engaged in today is driven by the images of
6822
gun laws in the U.S., along with its horrendous crime statistics,
rather than by the reality in Canada.
There is no question that our justice system needs
improvement, but in reality we have one of the best justice
systems in the world. To continually attack the integrity of our
justice system as the Reform Party does is to undermine it. If
Canadians were to believe that our justice system does not work
they would not report crimes and would not sit on juries. If the
public is not supported the justice system breaks down.
There is no question that one victim is one victim too many.
The issue becomes how to keep our communities safe. There is
no question that to deal with crime we have to make crime
prevention and community safety everyone's concern.
In the Waterloo region we have one of the safest communities
in Canada and we do not rest on our laurels. We have established
a regional committee on crime prevention and community
safety that has two main mandates. The first is to mobilize the
community to fight crime, for crime prevention is everyone's
responsibility. The second is to deal with prevention through
programs. We all know that a child who goes to school hungry or
a child who is victimized is tomorrow's offender.
The community in the Waterloo region, in co-operation with
the provincial and federal governments, has to deal with this
social reality. It is of interest that the strongest proponent of
dealing with the root cause of crime on the Waterloo crime
prevention and community safety committee representing a
broad sector of our community is the police.
There are no simple solutions to the problem of crime. To deal
with crime we have to attack the root causes of crime and not
just deal with symptoms. The answers to crime prevention lie at
the level of individual communities where we work to enhance
our own, our neighbour's and our community's safety. Crime
and justice is a collective responsibility that we all share.
Much of the debate on Bill C-41 centred on the clause of the
bill dealing with an offence being motivated by bias, prejudice
or hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim.
If the crime was based on any one of these points it shall be
deemed to be aggravating circumstances in the case of
sentencing.
We have heard arguments that all crime should be treated the
same. I cannot disagree in stronger terms. I am defending this
clause because I believe if at any time somebody is attacked for
no other reason than being part of a minority group, surely the
law has to take a much stronger measure in preventing others
from doing the same.
It is imperative to remember that in the case of the Holocaust
we had persecution on the basis of religion. It took six million
deaths to raise consciousness with regard to this problem. I
cannot understand how anybody could extend the clause of the
bill which specifically talks about sentencing to talking about
spousal support for homosexuals. It talks about someone being
attacked for no other basis than sexual orientation, religion or
nationality, and about the offender being more harshly dealt
with.
That is one of the more important clauses in the bill. I
thoroughly support it. I regret some members of the House
would have the public misinterpret what that clause says.
(1050 )
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased I arrived on time from my riding to speak in this
debate. It is a very important one that raises some fundamental
questions about who we are as a nation, the values we hold dear,
whether or not we are compassionate or just seek vengeance
when we are wronged. It also says a great deal about the type of
society we are trying to build for our children who, after all, are
the people for whom we are holding the country in trust.
Everybody has spoken about Bill C-41. They talked about all
the major provisions of the bill. I am not going to attempt to go
through them again. However there are a couple of provisions in
the bill which I think the public in the riding of Dartmouth will
be very pleased to hear about.
During the election campaign law and order, whatever that
means or whatever was the definition of the day, seemed to be
the thing most people were concerned about. I knocked on doors
and received calls from people concerned that the criminal
justice system simply was not working. These people were not
rednecks, right wingers or crazy people; they were concerned
about the safety of their communities.
Somewhere in the mix over the last number of years there has
been a problem. The fundamental problem has come from the
fact that when we came in with the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which was a very bold initiative of the government of
the day that was applauded by nearly all Canadians, it switched
the pendulum over to individual rights and away from
community rights. Indeed at times there are community rights
which must be taken into consideration.
How often have we heard individuals ask why it is always the
rights of the individual who has broken the law, who has
wronged the community, who has sought to injure an individual,
steal their property or whatever, that are paramount and more
heavily weighed than those of the victim?
6823
The bill deals with sentencing. It starts to address some of
the real concerns expressed by Canadians. I am not going to
indicate that I have done a study and that I understand or I know
that the concern of Canadians about rising crime is founded in
fact or not, because that simply does not matter. Everyone can
quote statistics. The most recently quoted ones are that we are
not becoming a more violent society and that crime rates are
actually down. As a legislator I am concerned about the
perception in my community that people are less safe today
than they were 3, 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
From time to time it is up to us as legislators to come forward
to debate and try to figure out if the laws and the principles they
were founded on, like the Young Offenders Act and some of the
sentencing provisions in legislation, are actually attaining their
goals and if they are not to try to change them. It does not mean
we always have to respond to public opinion or that legislation
should be a knee-jerk reaction. It should not be that at all. If
members have their ears to the ground in their constituencies
and if they strip away their partisan approach to public policy
making, they can get a fairly good idea about what is in the
public interest. Clearly some of the reforms in the bill are in the
public interest.
The optics of the bill have to be seen to be fair as well. One
thing that disturbs me a great deal is the focus of the public eye,
through the media and through members of this place and others
in public, on a very specific provision of the bill. I am saddened
that the level of debate on sentencing has fallen to whether or not
individuals should be subject to harsher sentencing, or if the
crimes they have perpetrated were against persons and based on
hate then the judge should look at that provision. The debate
being about whether or not any group in society is being
conferred special rights does a great disservice to the level of
debate that has taken place in the Chamber since Confederation.
We are not here to respond to those who will slap us on the
back when we make remarks either overtly or thinly veiled
against minorities. The previous member who just spoke put it
quite nicely. He referred to a tragic piece of history; he referred
to the Holocaust and how in the minds of the people who
supported the Nazi regime in Germany it was fine to
discriminate based on a person's religion. It is not fine and if
anybody thought it was, society has changed. It is not fine to
discriminate against persons because of the colour of their skin.
(1055)
I have the largest, oldest, indigenous black community in
Canada. When I have an unemployment rate of 10 per cent in my
riding, three miles away their unemployment rate is 48 per cent.
I may not be able to prove it because there is systemic racism. I
am sure if every employer were blind we would probably have a
more even distribution of the unemployment load in my area.
Any type of act predicated by hatred for a group based on
whatever factor-if they have two green eyes, if they have an
arm or two arms or one is shorter than the other, or if it is sexual
orientation-has to be recognized as something that is not
supported by the legislators and is not supported by the people
of Canada.
It has done a great disservice to the bill and to individuals who
have been harmed far too often in the past by our refusal to
discuss these issues as well as the issue of hate crimes in a full
and unbiased atmosphere.
A couple of things are not in the bill. We are talking about Bill
C-41 and its impact on sentencing. We have heard of all the
great things in the bill. There are a few things I think should be
in there, and if they are not they should find their way into
legislation.
Unfortunately I live in an area that is now the pimping capital
of Canada. In the riding of Dartmouth we lay claim-and we are
not pleased with or proud of it-to probably the largest illegal
pimping ring in Canada. It extends into the United States as
well. That pimping ring has been going out and luring
girls-and this is a victim crime-as young as 11 years of age
into juvenile prostitution. They are luring them into illegal drug
use and then into prostitution on the streets of New York,
Niagara Falls, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Halifax,
Truro, and small towns near any of us.
All too often very few of these girls are ever rescued. They are
children. They are not adults who choose to get into this way of
life. They are children who are literally stolen from our schools
and off the streets. If they ever get out of the cycle of
prostitution they are like walking zombies. They have no
self-worth left. They are usually addicted to drugs and alcohol.
They have no life ahead of them. Their lives are destroyed; their
families' lives are destroyed.
However, when we deal with sentencing in the law most of
these guys get off with three to six months in jail. In Nova Scotia
that means they go to a minimum security institution and three
months later they walk out. They have not lost even one penny
because one of their friends will have taken over their stable of
young juvenile girls on the streets and they will still maintain
the financial incentive to break the law.
This has to stop. This is murder of the worst kind because the
soul and the spirit of the child, of the woman, or the young girl
are being killed, but she is not being killed physically. They are
hollow empty vessels after these low life scum are finished with
them. In our laws we most often treat that type of crime less
seriously than if somebody absconds with $100,000 or $10,000
from the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Crimes against children when the sentencing comes down
from the judge in a court of law in many cases are dealt with less
6824
harshly than crimes against property. That is simply wrong. For
anyone who does not understand the full implication, there have
been a number of articles written in Chatelaine and Reader's
Digest in the last number of months. This is one of the worst
crimes that happens in Canada because it happens to defenceless
children.
I have spoken to the Minister of Justice a number of times and
we could probably get support for one of the things I would have
liked to have seen in the bill. If the government is not prepared at
some point to deal with the issue then I am prepared to deal with
the issue as a private member by putting a motion in the House.
I am not one of those right wingers who believes we should
lock everybody up; I am the exact opposite. This is one of the
few crimes, I am told, where the length of sentence will be a
deterrent. For crimes against our children like sexual crimes
against our children the legislation should indicate the revulsion
of Canadians and of legislators. There has to be tough minimum
sentences. In my view not one of those pimps who destroy the
lives of young girls should get out of jail before a five-year
minimum sentence is carried out. If I had my druthers it would
be a 10-year minimum sentence, but they are out in three
months.
(1100)
For everybody who is out there watching and listening to
these debates, if they have a young daughter or granddaughter, if
their neighbour has a 10, 11, 12 or 13 year old and they think
they are safe when they are going to school, they are not. There
are predators out there, predators our sentencing law does not
protect our children against.
Although I support this bill, I encourage members as I
encourage the Minister of Justice, to be a little more bold. I ask
the minister to bring legislation into the House as soon as he
possibly can to deal with this most abhorrent crime of pimping
juvenile women, juvenile girls, our children.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on
Bill C-41, a bill that fulfils yet another Liberal red book
promise, sentencing reform within the criminal justice system.
During the past election campaign there was great debate over
public security. That debate raged in some quarters as a debate
of extremes. Some of these extremes have found their way
through the electoral process into the House, which is as it
should be.
The House, by its very nature and by its very culture, is a place
of polar views and the residence of extremes, which are used
sometimes as a vehicle for expressing opinion and as a vehicle
for driving a point home. Other extreme views are strongly and I
would suggest in some quarters unreasonably held.
That is the great risk and quite frankly the great beauty of the
democratic system. The views will be heard. The views will be
challenged. The views will be studied. They will be agreed with
or they will be discarded. As in the case of the 1993 election,
there will be a predominant view in the House which will
succeed. That was reflected in the election by our forming the
government. There was a predominant view in the land and
Canadians overwhelmingly elected the Liberal Party of Canada
to govern. From this overwhelming support, we have as we must
taken our mandate. It is a mandate for job creation, for tolerance
among disparate groups. It is a mandate for economic growth
and a mandate for safer streets through tough but humane
measures that recognize the supremacy of the rule of law.
It seems the charter has become inconvenient for some
members of the House. The charter has become the subject of
derision. The charter has become something for which some
members have no respect.
Since 1979 I have practised law in the criminal courts of
Ontario. Since 1982 I have acted as a prosecutor for the crown
attorney's office in Windsor and Essex county. Between 1986
and 1988 I also served as a federal prosecutor. I know more than
just a little about the subject matter in this debate.
I have defended and I have prosecuted the criminal. I have
done both successfully within the bounds of the rule of law and
since 1982, when it was enacted, within the bounds of the
charter. I have seen the system at its best. I have seen the guilty
convicted and punished even though the charter was in place. I
have also seen the not guilty walk away. Most times when this
happens the rule of law and the charter have prevailed. It is a tool
for democracy and a tool for democratic resolution of disputes.
It is also a tool that applies fairness within the system.
This bill is part of a fair, reasonable and responsible approach
to the problems of public security that face our communities.
(1105 )
It is a bill that recognizes that intolerances exist in our
society, intolerances that Canadians abhor. Sections which
relate to hate crime and to crime arising out of hate recognize
not special rights for individuals but recognize that our society
abhors that kind of treatment of individuals. It is not there to
create special rights for any given group and to provide excuses
for individual behaviour. It is there because we as a society do
not tolerate and promote hate. The bill has to be seen within the
overall framework of Liberal philosophy and of the Liberal
solutions to problems today.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on some of the
problems in our society other than the Criminal Code, other than
the behaviour of prosecutors and other than what some think are
the causes of crime.
6825
I suggest that what we should look at is crime as a part of
the overall problems that plague our society. In the city of
Windsor, part of which I represent, we have had an excellent
recovery recently from the recession which has really wracked
industrial Ontario and all parts of the country. Fortunately for
Windsor our recovery has been on the leading edge of the
recovery and has been quicker because of our excellent
industrial base. We have found as we have begun to recover and
as our unemployment rate has gone down that our crime rate
has also gone down.
I suggest that the Liberal red book and the current government
policy which promote economic recovery, job creation and
reforms will give people a dignified means to make a living and
contribute to our society. This will interact with bills like Bill
C-41 to reduce and to handle crime in a way that is healthy and
productive within our society. I would also suggest that as the
greater Canadian community prospers, we will see a related
decrease in the types of social problems that plague us.
No service is done to the community by firing the issue up to a
point where it cannot be reasonably and responsibly addressed.
No service is provided through disinformation to the electorate,
through driving home a subject irresponsibly and emphasizing
issues which serve only to inflame and frighten the citizenry
without offering responsible solutions.
Increasing penalties for crimes-in particular I am thinking
of non-violent crimes, property related crimes, regulatory
offences and the like-and increasing incarceration penalties
for those types of crimes do nothing but increase the financial
burden on our citizenry and force the government into the
pocket of its citizens in terms of taxation which some people see
as another form of criminal activity.
I suggest that this bill addresses the financial bottom line in
society in a very clear, creative and helpful fashion. It provides
alternatives in terms of sentences which are based in the
community so that offenders will be recognized as offenders.
Offenders will be punished for their crimes and they will be
rehabilitated within the community itself rather than being
isolated and put into institutions which are phenomenally
expensive to support.
(1110 )
On the other hand it takes a hard and I would suggest long
awaited look at criminals whose activities are violent and
extremely offensive to our citizens. By amending the parole
section and by taking a good hard look at some of the sentencing
problems that we have in our system for violent offenders, we
are offering protection to our citizens where that protection is
needed and where it is wanted.
This bill takes a balanced view. This bill takes a humane view.
This bill respects the rule of law. It is a statute that fits withinthe overall Liberal philosophy, the red book philosophy, which
respects the citizenry, which seeks to protect the citizenry and
which seeks to elevate the quality of life for all Canadians.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, N.D.P.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise during
debate at second reading of Bill C-41, legislation which is a
comprehensive package of amendments to the Criminal Code of
Canada.
I know that my constituents have a number of concerns about
elements of the legislation. Because we are at this stage in
second reading in which there are some 10 minutes remaining, I
want to take this opportunity to focus on one particular
provision of Bill C-41 which has been the subject of
considerable debate and controversy.
It is the provision of Bill C-41 that deals with the question of
so-called hate crimes, crimes which are motivated by bias,
prejudice or hate, and which are based on a number of criteria set
out in Bill C-41. Those criteria include race, nationality, colour,
religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual
orientation of the victim.
The question of the inclusion of sexual orientation of the
victim has been the subject of some debate both inside and
outside the House. I want to take a couple of minutes to explain
why I believe it is profoundly important that sexual orientation
be included in the hate crimes provisions of the bill.
However, before I get to that specific subject, I want to note
that the reference to hate motivation as a factor in sentencing
already exists in the province of Ontario. The Ontario attorney
general has directed crown attorneys to argue that sentencing
should be increased when a crime is motivated by specific
hatred. A number of guidelines are in place to guide the work of
crown attorneys in this.
I want to give a couple of examples of circumstances in which
sentences have been increased because a crime has been
motivated by hatred. Lelas was a case involving the desecration
of synagogues. This crime was quite clearly motivated by
hatred, by anti-Semitism, by the hatred of Jews. The Ontario
Court of Appeal increased the sentence as a result of that.
Another is the case of Moyer, a neo-Nazi skinhead who urinated
on gravestones in a synagogue. This was considered as an
aggravating factor in sentencing and the sentence was increased.
There is the case of Hoolans who went to a so-called hate rock
concert and was urged to go coon hunting at this concert. Well he
did. He went out and beat to unconsciousness a Sri Lankan
dishwasher. When the judge looked at sentencing for this
particular crime, because the crime was clearly motivated by
hatred on the basis of race, the sentence was increased.
6826
(1115 )
In that light I want to ask what are the implications of the
argument of the member for Central Nova and other members of
this House, including the members of the Reform Party? What
are the arguments for excluding sexual orientation from Bill
C-41?
The arguments are very clear. They say that it is just and right
and appropriate to increase sentences if a person is motivated by
hatred on the basis of religion, race or sex, but it is not if you are
motivated by hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. What
kind of message would this House be sending to Canadian
society if we accepted that message?
Just last weekend in Toronto two men on a downtown street
walking home from a cafe, the Second Cup coffee shop, were
attacked. Six young men piled out of a van and beat up these two
men with fists, boots, and beer bottles, right in the heart of
downtown Toronto. As they beat them and injured them, in a
pool of blood and broken glass they were calling them faggots.
That is gay bashing. Gay bashing occurs tragically too often in
my home community of Vancouver, in Toronto, Halifax, and
New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and in many other communities. It
is not always bashing of people who are gay or lesbian. In some
cases it is bashing people who are perceived to be gay or lesbian.
They are not gay or lesbian at all but because these thugs, these
people who are motivated by hatred, believe they are gay or
lesbian they beat them.
This legislation is saying that is wrong. It is saying that if we
are to sentence people who are convicted of serious crimes of
assault and other crimes and those people are motivated by
hatred that judges should take that into consideration as an
aggravating factor.
Frankly, I am astonished that a party like the Reform Party
which says it believes in law and order would not understand
that importance. I am very surprised and very disappointed at
that. I have to say I am even more disappointed in the position
taken by the member for Central Nova and a number of other
Liberal members of Parliament on this issue. That member has
said that sexual orientation should be taken out of Bill C-41, not
the other grounds in section 41, but sexual orientation.
The implication and the message which is sent out by that is
that it is okay. There is one standard if you beat up people based
on race or religion and there is another standard if you beat up
people based on sexual orientation. That is the message that
goes out. If there is a different interpretation let her silent
colleagues get up and say so. Let the member for Toronto stand
up and say what he thinks about that kind of hateful language.
That is what we are talking about here.
In fact, even the vice president of the Central Nova Liberal
riding association, Janet Rosenstock, has said she is opposed to
the position taken by the MP for Central Nova in this debate. She
said the legislation does not single out sexual orientationany more than it does physical disability. It does not give
special rights to gays or any other groups. That is the vice
president of the riding association of Central Nova. She says,
and perhaps Liberal members might find this interesting, that in
its simplest terms if the hated are not named specifically
prosecution of hate crimes is virtually impossible.
(1120 )
We in this House want to send a very clear and strong signal
that we believe that prosecution of hate crimes must not only be
possible but must be vigorously enforced. That is the message
we want to send out.
I urge members of this House to support this legislation. I urge
members of this House to recognize that this is an issue of
fundamental justice. It is not an issue of any kind of special
rights or treatment. I urge that that be recognized.
To those who say it is necessary to somehow define sexual
orientation, I have something to share with them. Sexual
orientation has been in legislation in this country for a number
of years. There has been absolutely no need to define it to avoid
abuses.
I appeal to members of this House to support this provision.
Recognize that to do otherwise would be to send out a message
of intolerance, a message which this House surely does not want
to send to the people of this country.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this bill goes a long way to improving our
criminal justice system. Yes, it will be debated pro and con.
Moves must be made. We as a Liberal Party made these
commitments during the last election campaign and we will
carry them out. Improvement in the way sentences of probation
are decided in the courts and handled in the community for
example by specifying the information that should be in a
presentence report and increasing the penalties for offenders
who break the conditions of their probation are a very important
part of the provisions in this proposed legislation.
We know that during probation period many people have not
been apprehended, could not be apprehended and went on to
commit other crimes. The streets in this country have to be made
safe. The communities across this country, rural and urban, have
to be made safe. There has to be respect for decency and law and
order.
Canada is looked upon throughout the world as a very
civilized, law-abiding and internationally interested partner on
the international scene. It is this government's aim to bring that
respect to the legal system, the parole system and the justice
system in general in Canada.
There have been horror tales in the media and for just cause
over the last number of years. The decay of any system must be
stopped. We must put in its place the barriers and the inhibitions
that are necessary for that to happen.
6827
There also has to be a change in the treatment of these people.
We are not going to gain anything by simply throwing people
in jail for long terms. They are going to come out the same as
they were before, or worse. This point has been argued time
and time again.
It is going to be very important that there be proper liaison
among the national Department of Health, the justice system
and health ministers across this country to make sure that people
in prison are treated so that when they do get out they are not a
threat to society. If they are not ready to be released, they should
not be released. That has to be a reality in our justice system.
(1125 )
We heard of the person who a few years ago was stopped at the
Canada-U.S. border at Niagara Falls by American customs
people and turned over to Canadian authorities. The Canadian
police were notified but nothing could be done under the then
legal system because the person had committed no offence. That
person committed two murders before being apprehended in
London, Ontario. He ended up shooting himself. In the interim
he had shot two women in the head.
These things have to receive as serious attention as the crime
itself. If a person is breaking parole or is out on bail, they must
be monitored. One iota of disobedience to the bail and parole
system must be cause for apprehension. That individual should
be taken into custody so that he or she will not commit other
crimes.
The Government of Canada in co-operation with the
provincial governments must be absolutely serious about
putting these new rules into the system. They may never be
enough so amendments must follow to tighten up the system and
protect the public. There is no way in a growing society that we
can allow these offences and unsafe conditions to continue.
We have seen examples from around the world where growth
in the areas of crime and the justice system have been handled
badly. They ended up with the problems they have today for
example in Chicago, New York, and other major cities across the
United States, as well as in England and other countries. We as a
nation that has grown rapidly in population over the last 20 years
cannot go in the same direction.
The justice and legal system must serve the safety of the
citizens of this nation today, tomorrow and on into the future. A
mentality must be built up whereby we will not allow any
decline in the safety of today's citizens or future citizens of this
country. Canada can indeed be recognized around the world not
only as an internationally caring country but as a nation that
pays great attention to the safety and well-being of all its
citizens.
A big challenge, yes. A big start here, yes. It must be
continued. We must work on new ideas, a vision of building a
nation that is safe and respected and will carry on with the
qualities that our forebears wanted for Canada.
(1130 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
intervention in this debate today is going to be relatively short
but I hope important.
I would like to caution the government, the minister, the
committee about the danger of some of the aspects of this
particular bill. I want to use a specific example which came to
mind when I was listening to the debates.
I was thinking of little Randy. Randy was a young boy about
two years old who lived for a while with a very close member of
our family as a foster child. In order to reunite him with his
sister, he and his sister were adopted by a couple. Imagine how
shocked we were when we heard that Randy and his sister and
their adoptive mother had been murdered. It really hurt our
hearts. I can hardly speak of it now without the emotion of that
occasion returning.
One of the things in this bill is the government proposal to get
into the mind of the perpetrator of the crime to find out what
motivated him. We really do not know what motivated the
person who did that evil deed.
I am greatly offended when I stop to contemplate that
someone would venture to say that a person took the life of
another person simply because he had a different coloured skin,
simply because he had a different religious background, simply
because he had a different sexual orientation. If that could be
proven and that person is now subject to a more harsh sentence
than the person who took the lives of Randy, his sister and his
mother, leaving that husband and father bereaved in that way, I
am deeply offended.
I believe this government makes a colossal error by starting to
say that we are going to base sentencing on what we think was in
the mind of the person.
I would like to also say something with respect to sexual
orientation. The hon. member has talked about that. He has
added to what other people have said imputing somehow to the
members of the Reform Party an improper motivation, which I
think is against the rules of the House in any case. He has said
that we somehow hate these people because we are talking about
these ideas.
Again, I have some level of resentment being told that I
cannot openly and honestly debate an issue without getting into
6828
name calling. That is wrong. I believe we ought to have total
freedom of speech in this place particularly if we are going to be
able to debate and to bring in laws which are absolutely the best
for the future of this country and for its citizens.
I do not know how to communicate to the member and to all
the members of that community that we do not hate them. A
friend of mine was of that particular orientation. His funeral was
this year. The hon. member can say that I hate homosexuals and
he is totally wrong. In the case of this friend of mine who died
this year of AIDS I know and every thinking person in Canada
knows that if he would have behaved sexually he would not have
had that disease.
I would like to promote very simply that what we need to do in
this country is promote sexual fidelity. We need to promote a
lifestyle which is healthy, right and good. In no way should we
be promoting a lifestyle which has such dangers, even according
to what the Minister of Health has said in this House.
(1135)
I would like to urge all of the members of this community to
recognize that we are trying to do what is right, we are trying to
do what is good. To legitimize the homosexual lifestyle in this
way is a wrong direction.
Further to that, it is again misguided. I remember when I was a
young man. Members should all recognize looking at me
sideways now that I have a propensity for a little wider girth than
others. I have had that all my life. I was some 180 pounds when I
was in grade 8. I remember coming into the big city school as a
farm kid from Saskatchewan. One day some of the mean city
kids beat me up. The best I know the reason was that they were
taunting me for being fat and then they proceeded to beat me up.
It was not a happy experience. It was many years ago and I still
remember it. It was a traumatic event.
By the same token, I do not believe that any citizen in this
country for any reason whatsoever should be subject to being
beaten up. It is my understanding that there are laws in place
right now which would provide for punishment for people who
do things like that. I submit to the different people who are
classified specifically in this Bill C-41 proposal that they are
already included. If you are beaten up the person who did it
should be found and punished in a substantial way so that there
is a deterrent to this type of thing.
I think we should simply say, as the Reform Party always
says, a good country, our nation is going to be strong if we can
come to the place where we treat our citizens equally without
regard to how they are classified into subgroups, without regard
to what race they belong to, without regard to whether they are
male or female, without regard to any of these other
classifications.
I implore, I beg, I plead for the minister and the committee to
think very carefully of the implications that are being included
in the proposal that is being given here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by
the chief government whip to defer the division to a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until this
afternoon at 5.30 at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
(1140 )
The House resumed from October 3 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; and of the
amendment.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of The Department of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House
to speak in support of Bill C-53, an act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
Over the past few months it has been my privilege as
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
work closely with him in advancing the department's initiatives
on many fronts. I have had occasion to journey to the farthest
reaches of our department's operations, visiting and consulting
with local officials and community groups. Most striking among
my findings was the intense enthusiasm of our Department of
Canadian Heritage personnel whose zeal I am sure is fueled by
the value they attach to their work.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is not some distant or
insulated agency. It is an active participant in countless commu-
6829
nities. In a real sense the department is a large part what makes
many towns and cities into strong communities, very often the
focal point, the gathering ground for communities, events or
institutions that might not exist were it not for the support of the
ministry.
From museums, parks and orchestras to sporting and
multicultural events, literally millions of Canadians are
attracted to our programs every year. The Department of
Canadian Heritage is the guardian of our inheritance as
Canadians. This department, this minister, stands at the gate
protecting rich and unique elements of our culture, our vast
stretches of unspoiled habitat, national historic sites, buildings
and monuments, which offer Canadians a glimpse of the
struggles that built this country.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is the protector of our
artistic tradition, our sporting tradition, our official languages,
the multitude of contributing cultures from our native citizens to
the newest Canadian.
This is not a department which regulates a commodity. Our
product is a better Canada, enriched with its natural and historic
treasures.
[Translation]
Up to now, the debate taking place in the House has
highlighted a number of interesting points, not the least of which
being the diversity of programs administered by the new
department.
Bill C-53 reflects very well the mandate sought by Heritage
Canada and the scope of its field of endeavour. Although this has
been mentioned by others, I should repeat that Heritage Canada
incorporates programs from five existing or abolished
departments.
It is easy for some to say that these programs have little in
common, but this is a very superficial way of seeing things. A
more thorough examination reveals that the three main areas of
activity in the department have a lot in common, and I will come
back to that later. More than that, they mesh very well and
contribute to the prime goal of the department which is
developing Canadian identity centres and encouraging the
contribution of all sectors of society to the growth and vitality of
our culture.
[English]
One of the major sectors of the Department of Canadian
Heritage is Parks Canada, formerly a part of Environment
Canada. National parks, national historic sites and the historic
canals under the stewardship of Parks Canada represent some of
the best examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage.
These gems are to be found in every region of the country. The
economic activity and tourism generated by the department's
operations in this program area are of vital significance to many
local economies.
(1145)
The parks service is mindful of its importance to these
communities and has been at the forefront of efforts to fashion
innovative partnership arrangements with private and not for
profit enterprises in carrying out its mandated responsibilities.
The second major sector of the department encompasses those
programs which are aimed at the promotion of Canadian identity
and civic participation. As one would expect with such a broadly
based mandate, this sector includes an impressive sweep of
program areas. In fact some of the government's most important
initiatives are being implemented in this sector. They include
the promotion of official languages, the pursuit of excellence in
amateur sport, the promotion of our cultural diversity, and the
encouragement of the full and open participation of every
Canadian in society.
Here then are the programs that speak to us regarding what it
means to be Canadian, that set us apart from the rest of the
world, and that have helped Canada earn its top ranking by the
United Nations for overall quality of life.
[Translation]
The third main activity of the department is cultural
development and heritage. This includes arts, broadcasting and
heritage preservation, as well as cultural industries like film,
video, sound recording and publishing.
As regards the wide variety of activities involved, the best
way to describe them is to quote the short statement in the
government's red book on the importance of culture. Here it is:
``Culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of
national sovereignty and national pride. At a time when
globalization and the information and communications
revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than
ever to commit itself to cultural development''.
This shows not only the importance of the department's
programs, but also stresses what its prime objective should be:
To develop policies and mechanisms to ensure a steady growth
of artistic and cultural sectors both strong and dynamic.
[English]
During debate on the bill we have heard the Minister of
Canadian Heritage outline the important connotations imparted
by the term heritage. For me one of the most meaningful uses of
the term is to capture myriad ways in which we express
ourselves not only to our fellow Canadians but to the world. In
my view heritage conveys the idea of the link between the past
and the present in matters of human endeavour, whether they be
related to culture, language, shared values or common
experiences.
When I think of Canada and its heritage what springs to mind
is a nation forged on the principles of respect for the use and
6830
equal treatment of its two major languages, French and English;
of respect for the cultural diversity, the traditions and the
contributions of its aboriginal citizens and their languages; and
of fundamental respect for basic human rights and values and an
all encompassing and abiding devotion to democratic
principles. It is no exaggeration to say that all these sentiments
and ideals will find expression and action within the programs
embodied within the Department of Canadian Heritage.
It is vital not to lose sight of what will be accomplished by the
passage of Bill C-53. Moreover the bill should not be viewed in
isolation. It is part of a greater reorganization of government
being effected through the passage of various pieces of enabling
legislation now in different stages of parliamentary review.
This redistribution of programs and responsibilities, as we are
all aware, had its origin in steps taken by the previous
government last June. The current government has put its stamp
on the reorganization, redefined it and refined it. We are now
proceeding with the task of confirming these changes in law.
(1150)
This exercise, however, is but one component of our overall
effort to provide Canadians with the most effective and open
government possible. Toward that end it should be emphasized
that the government's program review is ongoing and that the
tabling of the various pieces of enabling legislation is part of the
process.
The wording of Bill C-53 establishes the overall
responsibilities of the Department of Canadian Heritage without
being prescriptive as to how the mandate will be delivered. In
other words the bill does not limit the types of changes that
government may implement to make services more responsive
and efficient in the current fiscal context.
The enactment of the bill will summon the coming wave of
re-engineering efforts in the department that can only yield
even greater efficiencies and more focused services. We must
not allow Canada to grow pale from the leaching of its natural
and cultural resources. We believe in a Canada infused by the
advancement of our sense of Canadian identity and participation
as a society and by the continuation of our cultural development
and the protection of our priceless natural and cultural heritage.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for her
presentation, which could not be any clearer or more interesting.
With regard to her quote from the red book about culture
being really important, why did the Liberal government not take
this opportunity to establish a department that could have been
called something other than the Department of Canadian
Heritage? I, for one, would have called it the department of tutti
frutti, since it includes a little of everything whether or not it
belongs there. So why not give us a department other than this
one?
Why did the Liberal government not take this opportunity to
do the right thing? When they were in opposition, they criticized
the Conservatives for creating such a department; now that they
are in office, they do the exact same thing the tories did.
How is it possible, now that the information highway is just
around the corner, that no mechanism has been provided for in
the Department of Canadian Heritage to deal with this subject,
that there is no regulatory power over the information highway,
that telecommunications remain separate from
communications, that the CRTC will continue to be split
between culture and industry, and that we will never be able to
resolve copyright issues because this government lacks courage
once again and does what others did before it? It must go back to
the drawing board. How can they justify this according to the
Liberal party's philosophy? I wonder.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois complaints
only make the achievements and importance of Canadian
heritage stand out. We often hear that Canadian culture belongs
to all Canadians wherever they come from. I think the hon.
member should be the first one to admit that we save taxpayers,
including Quebecers, money. She should applaud us instead of
criticizing us because we do not do exactly what she wants. The
Bloc's goals are different from those of the department.
Mrs. Tremblay: What are the Bloc's goals?
Ms. Guarnieri: You do not understand me? She wants me to
speak in English. But I want to practice my French but, as you
can see, she will not give me this opportunity.
(1155)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I would like to
remind you that comments must be made through the Chair and
not directly from one member to another. You can use the
official language of your choice.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon.
member that Canadian culture belongs to all Canadians
wherever they come from. I read the hon. member's speech and I
am surprised by her suggestion. She proposes that francophones
be confined to local cultural resources only.
I want to add that Canada's culture and history were built by
all Canadians together. Sharing our culture and history is the
basis of Canadian heritage. It is easy to see why the Bloc
6831
Quebecois is against our goal. I think that Quebecers and
Canadians agree with us.
When the hon. member talks about telecommunications
coming under the purview of the Department of Industry, is she
aware of the growing role of telecommunications as an
important source of Canadian economic activities?
Broadcasting is easier to integrate into the mandate of Canadian
Heritage, as it relates to Canadian culture, identity and content.
Departments work in close co-operation-and I think the
hon. member will agree with this-in order to manage these
sectors efficiently. I wonder why the hon. member is laughing,
when she should be applauding us for saving Canadians,
including Quebecers, money. I think that she should be
applauding.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. parliamentary secretary was talking about looking for ways
to cut spending in government. I would like to offer one right
now.
The department of multiculturalism is redundant. Not only do
Canadians not want to see a department of multiculturalism but
people in various multicultural communities around the country
do not want to see it. I refer to a recent article in Saturday Night
magazine wherein noted Canadian writer Neil Bissoondath
talked about doing away with the whole idea of
multiculturalism. He happens to come from the West Indies, but
he is a Canadian writer and that is what he calls himself.
There are people in the Liberal caucus who say we must do
away with hyphenated Canadianism. I urge the parliamentary
secretary to use her influence on the minister, in conjunction
with other members of caucus who feel the same way, to do away
with the department of multiculturalism which is absolutely and
completely redundant in the eyes of the Reform Party, many
Liberals, the Canadian public and the ethnic communities
around the country.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel the Reform
Party should be called the 1 per cent party because it spends all
its time criticizing 1 per cent of the government programs.
The government believes in communities, strong linkages
among communities and promoting understanding from
wherever people come. The government is committed to
pursuing programs which foster understanding and harmony.
However it is a dark day for members of the Reform Party;
they should be promoting and endorsing the bill. How does the
opposition permit itself to criticize an administrative change
that saves all kinds of moneys for taxpayers and actually reduces
bureaucracy? The number of assistant deputy ministers has been
reduced from 14 to 3. It increases efficiency. Actually the
administrative cost savings will be $7.3 million. They may scoff
at that, but it is $7.3 million of Canadian taxpayers' money.
Members of the Bloc and Reform should unite and applaud us
for this initiative rather than indulging in tangential tirades
about programs. These improvements would actually increase
efficiency. It should leave the Reform speechless but they prefer
to remain groundless rather than speechless.
(1200)
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting
exchange. I rise to oppose Bill C-53 because it affirms the
continuation of officially sanctioned multiculturalism. It
encourages division along racial, linguistic and cultural lines.
We are going to continue to have anglo Canadians, French
Canadians, native Canadians, Chinese Canadians and a host of
other hyphenated nationalities, but apparently no plain,
ordinary Canadians. John Diefenbaker must be spinning in his
grave.
It is ironic that a department dedicated to ``the preservation
and enhancement of Canadian heritage'' should be charged with
state sponsored multiculturalism. This is a contradiction in
terms.
For generations Statistics Canada, which used to be called the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, has been obsessed with our
ethnic origins. Until fairly recently one could not even if born in
Canada be recorded by the census taker as a Canadian. Ottawa
now accepts the reality that we Canadians exist. However the
1991 handbook for census takers assures us that they must
continue to inquire into the racial origins of our ancestors, again
I quote: ``to ensure that everyone, regardless of his or her
cultural background, has equal opportunity to share fully in the
economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada''.
I am not sure what that pretentious bureaucrat slop means but
one interpretation could be this. The government wants to know
where the money should be sent to buy votes, where to distribute
the pork and how to tailor certain government policies to
appease voters whose first loyalty is still to the old country.
The Liberals and the scattered remnants of the other two
traditional parties endorse official multiculturalism. This
foolishness began with the racially and linguistically biased
concept that Canada is a coming together of two founding
nations, French and English. This understandably irritated
native Indians, western Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry,
Newfoundlanders whose ancestors were here centuries ago and
just about everyone else. As a pedigreed Heinz 57 Canadian I
was a little ticked myself.
To resolve the problem it was ordained that everyone belongs
to a distinct subspecies of homo-Canadiansis, another of the
Trudeau government's wonderful legacy of destructive policies.
The maintenance of ancestral culture should be a matter of
6832
personal choice at one's own expense. That would be
commendable.
What we do not need are federal politicians saying: ``Here is
money to preserve and promote the cultures of the societies
which your ancestors wished to escape from''. This is an
absolutely immoral abuse of the power of taxation.
It is the Reform Party's position that official multiculturalism
is a divisive force that encourages ghettoization and wastes our
tax dollars to do it-$25 million last year. This annual slush
fund is doled out to hundreds and hundreds of entities without
justification.
(1205)
Why for example should the various Ukrainian committees
get hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funding? If they
want to dance the prysyadka, more power to them. They are
better men than I, but why should I help to pay for their
athletics? Most of them are at least fifth generation Canadians.
The first and second generations living in rude cabins in
northern Alberta and Saskatchewan got all the exercise they
needed clearing land and working away from home to earn a
little hard cash. They prospered, helped to build a nation and
preserved their language and culture with no help from anyone.
Four years ago I spoke at a Reform Party organizational
meeting at a hamlet north of Yorkton, Saskatchewan. The
meeting was held in the Ukrainian hall, a 70-year old building
made from hand hewn logs, nicely finished and decorated with
icons, scrolls and pictures of patriarchs. No civil servant had had
a hand in it. That is multiculturalism.
Why do the descendants of these Ukrainian settlers have their
hands out now? I suspect it is because they see everyone else
lining up for grants. Being practical people they want some of
the action.
According to clause 7(a) of the bill the minister may provide
financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and
endowments to any person. That is outrageous. One of the
principal functions of Parliament is the approval of
appropriations. This legislation gives the minister, in other
words the bureaucrats, carte blanche to give away money
without even cabinet oversight.
The long list of grants to cosy little social and cultural
organizations contains such gems as $12,000 to the Icelandic
League-more fifth generation Canadians-to finance a
convention; $22,575 to the Institution of Ethnic Minority
Writing; $72,000 to the National Council of Canadian Filipino
Associations-we are going to dance the tinikiling
too-$20,000 to the Multicultural History Society of Ontario.
Here is a beauty: $19,254 to the Lu Hanessian Productions: Love
Notes, to produce a musical review of 27 songs and musical
vignettes about human relationships.
The government has apparently become a little sensitive
about these long lists of grants that appear in newspapers. More
and more of this stuff is being camouflaged in grants to umbrella
groups like the Canadian Council for Multiculturalism
Intercultural Education, $205,000; the Cross Cultural
Communications Centre, $114,000.
I have been thinking of organizing a club for my particular
ethnic group. I will call it the Mixed Origins Line Dancing
Association for the Genetically Challenged. That should be
good for a grant of at least $100,000, provided I make the
application in a red envelope.
I grew up in an ethnically diverse community. All of western
Canada had been ethnically diverse for generations, when
Toronto was still a WASP enclave where on Sundays travellers
could starve or die of thirst right on Yonge Street. Times have
changed; I will not pretend that we lived in a sea of brotherly
love. Every group felt superior to some other group, but we got
along. We were glued together by a common language, shared
history, the adverse conditions of that time and place and, above
all, by a lot of intermarriage.
(1210)
Now the federal government by stressing diversity instead of
human commonality is weakening that glue and it is weakening
the social fabric of our nation. Ghettoization is in; adaptation to
new surroundings is out. Why learn the language and social
customs of your adopted country when you can hide in an
enclave from which emissaries are sent out every day to come
back with sustenance and interface with the wicked outside
world.
Every few years a politician will stop in your community,
figuratively pat people on the head and patronizingly solicit
your votes as a vehicle to combat racism or preserve cultural
diversity.
Now lest any hon. member dismiss my deeply held
convictions on this matter as the insensitive views of one white
guy in a suit, somebody who does not understand, I would like to
conclude my remarks by quoting a few recent immigrants.
Dr. Rais Khan is a very wise new Canadian who heads the
department of political science at the University of Manitoba. A
couple of years ago he was guest speaker at the Reform Party
assembly in Winnipeg. I would like to quote some of his remarks
verbatim. He said: ``I did not come here to be labelled as an
ethnic or as a member of the multicultural community or to be
coddled with preferential treatment, nurtured with special
grants and then sit on the sidelines and watch the world go by''.
Later in the same speech, he said: ``If I want to preserve my
6833
cultural heritage, that is my business. If I want to invite you into
my home to eat some spicy traditional food, that is our business.
If I expect you to pay for my cultural activities, that is your
business''.
Bharati Mukherjee, a writer who emigrated to Canada from
India, felt marginalized here. She blamed Canada's obsession
with multiculturalism for making her a psychological
expatriate, so she moved to the United States after being here for
15 years. She says that Canada has chosen to be a mosaic but by
preserving differences it also preserves bias.
One of the most eloquent opponents of multiculturalism is Al
Meghji, a professor of law at Dalhousie University. I believe he
is Canadian born but in the eyes of the multiculturalists he is an
Indo-Canadian whose fragile identity must be preserved from
the dark forces of assimilation. I will quote him at some
considerable length.
He states: ``Multiculturalism undermines the efforts of those
who are seeking to forge a national identity and prevent the
disintegration of an already fragile nation. Whatever the
purpose of multicultural policy, the net result is that it highlights
and accentuates differences among Canadians. What is needed
is not a policy that emphasizes differences but one that promotes
common goals and nationally shared values while at the same
time allowing the expression of individual identity''.
I have one last name on my list. He has been previously
mentioned. I would like to quote him at a little more length. Neil
Bissoondath is a prominent Trinidad born Canadian author.
Some of you may have read his collection of short stories
Digging Up the Mountain. He was a darling of the chattering
classes until he had the temerity to question the doctrine of
official multiculturalism. Now he is in big trouble for saying
things like multiculturalism is a policy that seeks merely to keep
a diverse population amenable to political manipulation.
(1215 )
A very prominent and very white chatterer who is well known
to most of us in this House has asked a snide question. Now he
wants to reject his brothers, his sisters, his nieces, his nephews.
So much for politically correct tolerance.
It is the responsibility of government not to encourage
immigrant people to maintain their separateness but to help
them, especially through language courses to integrate into
Canadian society. Even that would be more than the old timers
got. They put down their roots, helped each other and thanked
the stars that they had arrived here. Their children became
unhyphenated Canadians through their own efforts and now this
government like those that have preceded it for the last 20 years
is trying to rehyphenate their great grandchildren. You cannot
bind a nation together with hyphens.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon.
member for Swift Current-Maple Creek especially with
respect to his comments dealing with the Ukrainian community
in Saskatchewan. I am one of that community and my hand has
never been out for any moneys from any group for funding for
any of the cultural events that either I or any of my children have
attended and continue to attend.
In particular in Saskatchewan we have groups such as the
Hutterites who came from Europe to escape both language and
religious oppression. They were hard working people who came
to Canada to preserve their religious beliefs and language.
Can the hon. member tell us whether these individuals are
objecting to integration into Canadian society? Should they be
treated in some different manner to prevent them from being
able to live in communities on their own where they preserve
their language and their religion and are not integrating into
society? The speech seemed to indicate that they should. This
applies not only to the Hutterite communities but to the
Mennonite communities, et cetera.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
very astute observations. I applaud him for not participating in
riding the gravy train. He probably noticed that I was looking
right at him when I made that portion of my speech.
With respect to the Hutterian Brethren, I do not think there is
any contradiction when I say that I have no problem with their
continuing to live their lives apart from Canadian society the
way they do. The reason is that they do this entirely with their
own resources. They are not subsidized. They are not getting
part of that $25 million a year. They do not have civil servants
coming around telling them: ``Fellows, have we got a deal for
you''. They are very independent people. There are several of
their colonies in my constituency and I have no problem with
that at all. I have problems with the other things I mentioned.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions. I listened to the hon. member and
I find myself in accord with some of his remarks and in
disagreement with others.
When he talks about rejecting multicultural policy, is he not
really talking about rejecting a kind of implementation of it? I
take it the hon. member is not really against multiculturalism.
He is against a multiculturalism policy which tends to divide us
rather than unite us. If I understand the member correctly, he
still is in favour of our multiethnic nature as a country.
(1220)
I have also been looking at the grants issue to various ethnic
groups and I have found during the last government a correlation
6834
between payments to ethnic groups and election years in which
the actual payments increased.
Would he care to comment on those two points?
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I will go to the bottom first and work back up.
I am aware of those figures. I had intended to mention them in
my speech but through oversight I did not, and I thank him for
bringing that to the attention of the House.
I know that this is by its very nature a multiethnic society.
There will be people who will be assimilated quickly into a
melting pot, as they call it south of the border. There will be
others, like the Hutterian Brethren, who will maintain their
individuality for generations.
As long as this is done as a matter of free individual choice,
neither I nor my party has any difficulty with it. The magic
words are free individual choice. Do it on your own folks. Do not
expect me to pay for it.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I speak to the House today as one who supports Bill
C-53.
Today I would like to speak in a comparative fashion
concerning the comments made by the hon. member for
Kootenay East before the House broke for the recess. At that
time he proposed that national parks be removed from the
Department of Canadian Heritage and put into the Department
of the Environment. In reviewing his comments I fail to
understand the rationale.
He stated that he has, in a very anecdotal way, some
experience with national parks, as his riding contains three of
them. In his specific examples of concerns he spoke only to one
environmental situation, namely the difficulties of maintaining
naturally evolving forests. The remaining issues he mentioned
dealt with maintenance of highways, user fees, enterprise units,
hiring practices and office locations. I would suggest that these
are administrative as opposed to environmental issues.
Nevertheless there are undeniably important links to be
maintained with Environment Canada in the science and
research sectors as they relate to national heritage exemplified
in the national parks system. This is being accomplished now
through a memorandum of understanding between the two
departments. Specific areas of interest include membership on
the science committee on participation, the biodiversity strategy
and the protected areas strategy, all of which are multilateral
initiatives involving a wide range of government departments.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is both the client
department of Environment Canada and a leader on specific
issues such as the protected areas strategy in the same way that
other departments such as fisheries and oceans are both clients
and leaders on specific environmental issues. This sharing of
responsibilities among departments not only focuses the right
kinds of expertise on the right issues, but in the case of Canadian
heritage adds an extra supporting voice at the cabinet table for
dealing with them.
Parks Canada is an organization that comprises
responsibilities for both the natural and the cultural heritage of
our country and has done so under many different names and
departments since 1919. It has, quite simply, a natural and a
cultural component that are not mutually exclusive.
[Translation]
Nationally and internationally, efforts are being made to
recognize that history, culture and nature are interdependent.
This is largely reflected in the UNESCO Convention on the
protection of natural heritage and world culture, which he
represents as the minister responsible for Parks Canada.
[English]
As the new Department of Canadian Heritage includes the
bulk of natural cultural programs over and above those within
Parks Canada, there is a unification of that element of our
national and international responsibilities.
(1225 )
Moreover the national parks and national historic sites are
tangible symbols of the best of our Canadian identity. The
Department of Canadian Heritage has national responsibilities,
programs for the enhancement of Canadian identity that will
build on this element as well.
An example of this kind of synergy that is developing
throughout the new department of heritage is the heritage
tourism initiative which we on this side of the House are
supporting. Given the wide mandate the department now enjoys,
there are tremendous opportunities to build an exciting,
economically significant and, probably most important, a
sustainable international program based on the cultural
institutions and natural wonders of this country. To this end the
government is also committed to the completion of the national
parks system, the expansion of our national historic site themes,
and the establishment of new national marine conservation
areas.
I would point out that new guiding principles and policies for
the range of activities undertaken by Parks Canada were
completed under the umbrella of Canadian heritage. When these
policies were tabled in the House last March it was to
considerable acclaim for the many stakeholders involved in
these aspects of national heritage. There was a clear
demonstration that they had been involved in their development.
With regard to the specific concerns raised by the member for
Kootenay East I would note that it does appear strange that the
Department of Canadian Heritage is involved in the road
maintenance business. However I do not comprehend how that
6835
translates into an argument for returning the national parks to
Environment Canada.
In any event there are roads, national transportation corridors,
that pass through some parks. There is no question about that. As
they are within park boundaries there is an obligation of the
responsible department to ensure their suitability and safety. In
some parks work is contracted out or performed under an
agreement with the province.
The member will be interested to know that Parks Canada is
reviewing all its road operations to ensure the most effective
means of proper maintenance. That could well mean
consolidation of operations in the four mountain parks.
I understand well the member's argument that highways are
normally managed by provinces and should not be funded by
Parks Canada. Accordingly the government will take the
member's suggestion under advisement.
I found that the member's comment on road tolls for
commercial through traffic in national parks to be somewhat
confusing. There was no such road toll nor is one being
contemplated.
On the question of the enterprise unit for the operation of hot
pools I believe that this project is turning out to be successful
and should be a good pilot for similar ventures. Staff will
continue to be hired on merit and where appropriate, business
opportunities that can be realized will be pursued. I welcome his
support for a more businesslike approach to park operations as
exemplified by the enterprise unit at the hot springs. The
member will be pleased to know that this initiative is one of
many that represent the future direction of management in our
parks.
I trust that I have answered the member's concerns. I conclude
by saying I am proud to support Bill C-53, which creates the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the departmental
briefing, officials from this new department told us there would
be no streamlining, no downsizing and no cash savings. A few
moments ago the parliamentary secretary was talking about a
saving of $7.3 million.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us where that saving is
going to come from. Where is it going to get that money,
especially since there is a recommendation tabled with the bill
that will allow the department to spend more money? I wonder if
the hon. member could straighten us out on this point.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness it is difficult to
answer a question raised in an earlier speech with respect to a
speech made by the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps the
member ought more properly to have addressed the question to
her.
(1230 )
As I understand the concerns raised by the hon. member, I
have been advised by the parliamentary secretary that the figure
of $7.3 million will come through streamlining administrative
procedures within the department.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, we are
here today to debate a bill establishing the Department of
Canadian Heritage and amending and repealing certain Acts.
This bill is known as C-53.
Its title suggests that this bill simply reorganizes a
department. The heritage minister himself presents it to us as a
technicality. But in fact, this bill goes far beyond the mere
restructuring of a department. Indeed, this bill proposes an
inefficient and dangerous distribution of government
responsibilities.
Let me highlight two important points where the bill is
seriously off track. First, let me point out a serious
inconsistency in the sharing of departmental responsibilities.
Once again, the government is acting in such a way that the left
hand will not know what the right hand is doing, since the
sharing of responsibilities between the departments of Industry
and Canadian Heritage raises various problems of jurisdiction,
competition and policy.
To illustrate what I am saying, I shall now quote what the bill
says about the department's field of jurisdiction. First, clause 4
says:
4. (1) The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and
include-
In French, the bill says ``de façon générale''. What does this
mean?
-all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to
any other department-
If it is already somewhere else, the heritage minister does not
have to be concerned with it, and anyway it is ``de façon
générale''.
-relating to (Canadian) identity and values, cultural development-
Let us look at some areas of jurisdiction. Subclause 2 says:
(d) cultural heritage and industries, including performing arts, visual and
audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film, video and literature;
This subclause also includes broadcasting and the
formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment.
My colleague said that it is a real mish-mash. You see, the
minister's portfolio includes the arts, cultural industries,
museums, heritage, broadcasting, physical fitness, amateur
sport,
6836
multiculturalism, the status of women, parks, historic sites and
canals, state ceremonial and protocol and so on. I felt like saying
``Alouette'' at the end of this long list.
There is a problem and let me mention an obvious one,
copyright. When it comes to culture, copyright must be strictly
and effectively protected. Here, copyright comes under both
Industry and Heritage; Industry is in Bill C-46. There is a
problem.
(1235)
I would also like to mention a document just recently
published by the Canadian Conference of the Arts that points
out, with respect to copyright, that the division of powers
between industry and heritage will slow down the legislative
process that should one day lead to fair compensation of artists
and creators for the commercial use of their works. I understand
the government's good intentions, but I quite simply do not
believe there will be any concrete results.
Secondly, I would point out to this House that the bill does not
address the cultural and societal impact of technological
advances and in particular of the so-called electronic highway.
The second objective set out in the Throne Speech with respect
to the electronic highway is to strengthen Canada's cultural
sovereignty and identity, in the singular, I note, as if there were
only one cultural identity in Canada.
The stakes are high. Certainly, in Canada, Quebecers have a
cultural identity. Can we speak of one cultural identity for the
rest of Canada? I am not sure we can. Maritimers have their own
values, heritage and history. Canadians from the Prairies have a
different history, heritage and set of experiences that are also
uniquely their own. The same can be said for Canadians on the
West Coast and for Ontarians, with their very different history.
This assumption of a single Canadian identity worries me.
I was speaking of the electronic highway, technological
advances and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The latter,
in its eagerness not to miss anything, is aiming in all directions,
but is missing the real targets, the challenges we must meet in
the next few years, not ten or twenty years down the road.
And here we should mention technology. Broadcasting,
communications and telecommunications are being
revolutionized. As I speak, the real stakes, the real players, the
real pieces of this incredible puzzle are not immediately
apparent. The problem is a multi-facetted one. On the one hand,
there are the suppliers of telephone services and infrastructures,
the telephone companies, of whom there are several in Canada.
On the other hand, there are the cable distributors, which bring
television to the homes of so many Canadians and Quebecers.
These two major players are in the process of merging and
using computer technology to transmit their signals, with the
result that there will no longer be any difference between my
telephone conversation and a television broadcast. The
electronic signals travelling through the wires will be the same.
(1240)
The contents will change but the container will remain the
same. This container will travel at very high speed on the optic
fibre, which is basically a glass wire along which light can
travel. Light can carry much more information in one second
than electrical current. In fact, it is ten times faster. This means
that a single fibre-optic cable can replace a huge number of
copper wires. Then there is the coaxial cable of the type used by
cable distributors. This cable is also capable of carrying large
amounts of information.
With these cables, we are on the way to acquiring the physical
capability to carry information of any type from point A to point
B at astounding speeds. Technologically, this is feasible in the
very short term. The problem is knowing what information will
be carried.
If we are talking about telephone conversations, just between
you and me, that will not make much of a difference. If the
technology enables me to make banking transactions from my
home, that is already an improvement on the present situation. If
I can make banking transactions with other countries around the
world, with electronic movement of capital, then the flow could
be substantial and I understand that the Department of Industry
would want to look into this. As a matter of fact, so should the
Department of Finance and the Department of National
Revenue.
In terms of programming, what would happen to cultural
programs and television programs as we know them? Will we
continue to have local antennas broadcasting according to the
familiar sequence? I do not think so. We are headed for a drastic
changeover. At present, you turn on your T.V., select a channel
and watch what is on, without having any input regarding the
sequence. This is as if you were to go to a restaurant, went in,
checked the menu and were told: ``Here are your choices of
soups, your choices of appetizers, your choices of main dishes,
your choices of desserts and your choices of beverages, and
these are your only choices''. Today, when you select say the
CBC, you take what you are served. It is direct and simple, but if
you do not like what is on, you turn the dial to another station.
Again, you watch what that station is offering, in the sequence it
has decided. But no more.
In just a few years, you will find yourself in a situation similar
to being in a cafeteria. You will not tune in to a station; rather,
you will look at a list of programs which will have been
prerecorded-sometimes 20 or 30 years earlier, since there are
already video libraries containing large numbers of prerecorded
tapes-and you will decide what you want to see and when. This
is what I call a cafeteria-style of selection. You want three
desserts but no soup? Fine, the decision is yours. You want more
6837
of these vegetables? You do not like turnip or broccoli? They are
good for you. No, Mr. Speaker, I know that you do like turnip
and broccoli. So, you choose what you want and then pay for it.
This is how it will work.
The real problem is that each consumer will now decide what
he or she will consume. The question then is: Who works in the
cafeteria kitchen and prepares what is available? Who will
prepare these programs and according to what standards? Who
will define what is good and on what basis? Who will conduct
inspections in the kitchens?
If this was done in a single facility housing these kitchens, we
could go there and see what goes on, but these kitchens will be
located all over the world. The information highway gives
instant access to data located anywhere. We do not have the
ability to control what producers do in other countries.
(1245)
To what extent will we be able to ensure the second objective
stated in the Speech from the Throne, namely the strengthening
of Canada's sovereignty and cultural identity? I am not only
referring to Quebec's cultural identity, which is a lot easier to
protect since the majority of Quebecers are French-speaking.
However, in the rest of Canada, where the majority speaks
English, access to American production, for example, will be
incredibly easy.
So far, the issue of Canadian content has been discussed in
terms of broadcasting time. So much time is allocated to
Canadian programs and so much time to American content. This
is fine when you are in a restaurant with a fixed menu. The soup
is Canadian, the potatoes are American, the steak comes from
western Canada, while the dessert is home-made. However,
when you are in a cafeteria, you choose what you want and there
is no way of making sure that a consumer will opt for a quantity
of Canadian products which is equal, greater or lower than that
of foreign goods.
Of course, one can resort to the video store technique which
consists in allocating a certain number of shelves to Canadian
productions and leave the rest for foreign ones. However,
nothing guarantees that customers will go for Canadian
productions in a proportion that matches the space allocated on
shelves. No one is at the door to control what customers choose.
We are in a similar situation with the information highway. At
first glance, it seems that it will not be easy to control. However,
in terms of technology, the Department of Industry is taking
quite an interest in wires, cables, connections, interfaces and
protocols, while the Department of Canadian Heritage is making
pious wishes regarding our cultural identity.
This bill essentially gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage
the right to talk about heritage without giving him the power to
regulate or to intervene at any level. It does not give him any real
power to ensure that Quebec and Canada's values are protected
at a time when the stakes are extremely high because we find
ourselves in a situation where we are facing the unknown.
I am thinking about this Minister of Canadian Heritage who,
question period after question period, explains to us when we
are wondering about the CRTC or the Museum of Nature that
these organizations are independent, that they have their own set
of rules and that they will do a good job. Well, do we really need
a Minister of Canadian Heritage? I think I have expressed my
concerns very clearly but, to give you a brief summary, allow me
to say that at a time when the telecommunications and cable
industries are converging, which threatens the level of cultural
content from Canada and Quebec, it seems totally inconsistent
that the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage be
outdated with regard to these issues.
In conclusion, I support the amendment proposed by my
colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata to withdraw this bill
which, I am sorry to say, is bland, colourless and has a strange
smell to it.
(1250)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Bloc Quebecois
has expressed its concerns about the federal presence in cultural
matters. I listened with a great deal of interest to what was said,
but I must admit I was somewhat surprised at the cafeteria
metaphor.
They worry that people are allowed to choose. They worry
that people do not have the knowledge, the discipline or the
ability to make informed decisions about the kind of food they
should eat.
As you know, thousands of people use the Commons
cafeteria, and I think we have quite a variety. People eat more
than cakes and cookies. They are concerned about good
nutrition. All Canadians, especially young Canadians, are very
much aware of the importance of good nutrition.
In the bill before the House today, we want to give Canadians
a chance to make choices and not necessarily make those
choices for them, as the hon. member for the opposition
assumed. I trust the public, and I am confident that our fellow
citizens can make informed decisions. After all, the purpose of
this department and the objective of the Government of Canada
is to establish links among the various elements that make up
our country.
I think we can benefit from the experience of a fisherman
from the maritimes, a logger from Quebec, and a western
farmer. I think we should realize that the genius of federalism
6838
lies in having invited these various elements to come and build
such an extraordinary country.
Once again, the opposition talks about controlling.
Controlling whom? Controlling choices made by adult
individuals, by people who want to find a way to express
themselves? For instance, the federal government never
intervened when Pierre Falardeau decided to do his film
Octobre. I must say I do not share the views expressed by Mr.
Falardeau. However, the Government of Canada, through
Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board, agreed to
produce, to fund this film which, as you all know, is raising a lot
of questions and causing a lot of debate. People say it is not a big
success because unfortunately, the Government of Quebec
refused to participate.
This goes to show that when partnership is lacking, some
projects often never get off the ground. And some are often not
well received by the general public. In any case, I wish the
opposition would realize that as far as Canadian heritage and
culture are concerned, the goal of this government and of all
creative artists has always been to stimulate our intellectual
curiosity and urge people to reach beyond the horizon. Oddly
enough, separatist nationalists often say they want a Quebec that
is open to the world. So why not start with a Quebec open to
Canada, and vice-versa? I think we already have a system that
works well and is very open to the range of different opinions we
have in this country.
To go back to the cafeteria metaphor, I am glad to know I have
a choice and that this choice is a matter of individual freedom.
Unfortunately, the opposition only proposes to remove or
control those freedoms we take for granted.
(1255)
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, to have a choice is great, but to
have the right choice is even better. But the hon. member
opposite seems prepared to consume anything, provided he has a
choice. The Americans rely on the power of money and on
competition to bring down the price of the cultural product in the
United States and the price of using communications and
telecommunications resources and infrastructures. And they
succeeded at it. But a small price buys a small amount, as is
unfortunately too often the case on this side of the border.
Our cultural industry has great merit and does great things,
both in English Canada and in Quebec. The danger is that this
bill, which basically gives no power to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, will have a disastrous effect on our culture and our
cultural industry. I am pleased to see that the hon. member
opposite shares my concerns. What makes me sad, however, is
that he does not realize that this bill does not have enough teeth
to deliver the goods.
I would be delighted if he interceded personally with the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and his caucus to have this bill
withdrawn and replaced with a bill which would truly deliver the
goods he was referring to.
Mr. Gagnon: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks made by
the hon. member opposite quite legitimate. I agree with him that
the system is not perfect. It is true that further efforts are
required to safeguard the Canadian cultural space, whether
French Canadian or English Canadian. And I believe that is the
primary goal of the Canadian National Broadcasting Strategy.
There is no doubt that the bill deals with several aspects that
extend beyond radio and television broadcasting.
It also deals with parks, as well as multiculturalism. That is
true. Matters that affect culture also affect the cultural industry,
and the hon. member is right in saying that we must remain wary
of the American competition which, as we know, can be plainly
disloyal at times not only vis-à-vis the Canadian culture but
also other cultures worldwide.
Take France, England, Japan for example. These are countries
that already pay closer attention to their cultures because of the
massive American invasion in our cultural spaces. The fact
remains however, and I believe all the hon. members agree on
this, that Quebec and the francophone culture in Canada, which
certainly extends beyond the boundaries of Quebec, are better
protected in a federal context than if left to fight the American
cultural giant on their own, alone, without any friends or allies.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I have time for three short
quotes. First, I would like to quote the Arpin report to Ms.
Frulla-Hébert, who was Quebec's minister of culture. It says:
``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''. It talks
about culture here. ``We can even talk about duplication which
leads to one-upmanship. The two governments have different
policies and priorities for the same target groups. Measures
taken by the federal government sometimes flatly contradict
Quebec's options. 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''.
To conclude, Keith Kelly, National Director of the Canadian
Conference of the Arts, said: ``Telecommunication companies
seem to be prepared to penetrate the world of broadcasting and
the government must ensure that their activities have a
beneficial impact on Canadian cultural industries. Reaffirming
the separation of telecoms and broadcasting companies in these
two bills simply freezes a status quo which is no longer
appropriate today''.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I spoke as I did this morning.
6839
(1300 )
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to
share with hon. members present my views on the legislation
that will establish in law the Department of Canadian Heritage.
As an opening comment I must say that a reading of Bill C-53
has convinced me of the importance of this piece of legislation.
This department is called upon to play a central role in the life of
Canada and Canadians.
The legislation reflects the sweep of the new department's
mandate that includes responsibilities in the areas of cultural
development, multiculturalism, official languages, heritage
conservation, national parks, national historic sites and amateur
sports.
Moreover the policies and programs of the Department of
Canadian Heritage are meant to promote increased
understanding of our diversity, the involvement of all citizens in
Canadian society and an increased awareness of our cultural and
natural wealth. In other words the department is active in those
areas that have clear links to our identity as Canadians.
One of the pre-eminent characteristics of Canada has always
been its multicultural nature; in fact it is a vital comment of our
national identity. This multicultural dimension is one of the
most exciting realities of our society, one that should be
cherished and nurtured. I find it very comforting therefore to
read in Bill C-53 that the new department will be responsible for
the promotion of the greater understanding of human rights,
fundamental freedoms and related values as well as
multiculturalism.
All Canadians must experience a sense of belonging to the
country. Multiculturalism seeks to bridge the gap between
cultural communities with diverse interests and backgrounds. I
have referred to Canadian heritage as a new department.
However as most members know the department has been
functioning well for almost a year and a half.
Passage of the bill is a necessary legal step and will serve to
confirm the areas of jurisdiction within which the Minister of
Canadian Heritage will exercise his powers and carry out his
duties and functions, one of the key sectors that will occupy the
time of the minister in ensuring the growth and development of
Canada's cultural section. Never has this area been more
important than now, given the significance of the contributions
to the Canadian economy.
I will not repeat the figures and statistics that others before me
have quoted in support of that contribution. Rather I will focus
on the role of the federal government in cultural development.
Some maintain that culture above all is a way of looking at the
world and a manifestation of our civilization. This unique view
of the world is one of the features that allows one group to
distinguish itself from others. In short, without culture there is
no identity.
Most would agree that the federal government's
responsibility in cultural matters extends to those areas that are
pan-Canadian, interprovincial and international in scope.
Federal endeavours in these areas remain complementary to
those of the other levels of government. It is crucial there be
many agents of cultural development and for governments to
play an active role. The federal government's role is to ensure
that Canadian artists, creators and cultural industries are able to
produce and that Canadians have access to those cultural
products.
No better example can be given than the current efforts of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to ensure that the Canadian
cultural content will be readily accessible to Canadians on the
rapidly evolving information highway.
I will now turn briefly to the department's specific programs
to promote the country's two official languages. These programs
are designed to provide opportunities for Canadians to
appreciate and profit from our rich linguistic heritage and to
communicate with and participate fully in federal institutions
such as the one we are in today.
As anyone who has travelled exclusively and extensively
abroad will attest, it bears emphasizing that Canada remains one
the world's most favoured nations. Our prosperity and civility
are products of much hard work and cannot be taken for granted.
Duality is an essential element for our identity and our defining
characteristics.
(1305)
The English and French languages and the people who speak
them have shaped Canada and helped define its identity. The
federal official languages policy is designed to reflect this
reality. I am proud to be a member of a government committed
to a vision of Canada where vital English speaking and French
speaking minority language communities can contribute to the
economic, social, cultural or scientific life of our country.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage also has responsibilities in
the areas of heritage policies and programs. The Department of
Canadian Heritage provides support and assistance to museums
across the country. At the same time the department ensures that
the environment in which our national museums function,
including the National Archives, the National Gallery, the
Museum of Civilization, the Museum of Nature and the National
Library, is conducive to giving Canadians maximum
accessibility to our cultural heritage.
When I think of the heritage of Canadians my thoughts often
turn to our national parks and national historic sites. The
6840
Minister of Canadian Heritage is charged with the weighty
responsibilities of preserving these priceless examples of our
nature and cultural and natural heritage for the benefit of
present and future generations. These parks and sites represent
the very essence of our identity as Canadians.
Parks Canada is one of the major components of Canadian
heritage. It provides strong leadership in the management of
protected heritage areas and aims at promoting sound principles
of stewardship and citizen awareness. Parks Canada also leads
the field in ecological and commemorative integrity by adhering
to international conventions. Canadians can take pride in the
internationally recognized contribution of Parks Canada to
heritage conservation.
Nationally and internationally there is a trend toward
regionalization, that history, culture and nature are intertwined.
This is strongly reflected in the UNESCO convention
concerning the protection of world culture and natural heritage
for which the Minister of Canadian Heritage is Canada's
representative.
In summary, it is clear the programs of the Department of
Canadian Heritage span Canada's past, present and future. In
many ways the department can be regarded as the flagship of
Canadian identity, bringing together the diverse mix of federal
programs that will help us confront and surmount the challenges
that lie ahead.
I look forward to the passage of the legislation and the official
creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before recognizing the
member for Surrey North, I want to advise the House that the
block of five hours of debate which entitled members to speak
for a maximum of 20 minutes with a 10-minute question or
comment has lapsed. We are now going to the next stage of
debate which allows for 10-minute interventions without
questions or comments.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to participate in any debate in the House.
Today I join in the debate on Bill C-53 concerning the creation
of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Before getting into the text of my talk today I refer to a
comment that was made earlier in the debate about the saving of
$7.3 million in relationship to the bill. At a departmental
briefing it was indicated there is no streamlining involved with
the bill; there is no cost saving and there are no layoffs. I am left
a bit mystified as to where the saving of $7.3 million will come
from.
A number of speakers have preceded me in the discussion and
have addressed a number of the components singled out by the
government as comprising the mandate of the department.
(1310 )
When reviewing the items in the bill one wonders what
criterion was used for the selection of these items for the
department. For example, according to Bill C-53, it includes
such things as multiculturalism, national parks, historic sites
and canals. It moves on to the field of amateur sports and the
advancement of equality and status of the English and French
languages. Then it goes into the field of broadcasting and so on.
When the present government was restructuring the ministry
at the beginning of this session it would seem that items which
were left over along with a few others that were pulled from
other departments have been lumped together to create the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
This questioning of the practicality of placing diverse and
unrelated items in the same department leads to a more
fundamental question as to what is Canadian heritage. Webster's
dictionary defines heritage as something that we inherit at birth;
in other words it is like a legacy. It is something or anything that
is derived from the past or from tradition. By definition, then,
heritage of an individual or group or a country is what we
actually inherit at birth, that which was created and moulded by
the actions of those who preceded us, just as what we do now in
our lifetime will become the heritage or the mould of the
lifestyle for those who come after us. For example, briefly, those
in the present inherit a base from the past to build on for those in
the future. That would be what heritage is.
A basic source contributing to our heritage is the consensus of
our society to recognize specific events and/or issues as being
valuable to retain for our future development and to create and
maintain these things through tangible symbols as a constant
reminder for those who follow us in the future. When events of
the past no longer directly influence how we govern our
lifestyles today, they tend to move from the concept of heritage
into what we call our history.
Following this definition, I question the purpose of the
Department of Canadian Heritage. I feel that the citizens of the
country do not need a Department of Canadian Heritage at all.
We in the House must realize that everything we do in terms of
the laws we pass, the issues we discuss, will become part of the
legacy we leave to those who follow us, which will be their
heritage.
Instead of there being a specific Department of Canadian
Heritage, all departments or ministries should be responsible
through the legislation they propose for the development and
maintenance of everything we do, of the heritage for those who
are to follow, not just a single department.
The government's role is simply to provide a legislative
framework for all persons living in Canada and to provide an
overall framework within which individuals and groups of
6841
individuals and Canadians generally can define their own
existence. As long as they operate or define it within the
parameters of Canadian legal jurisdiction it will become or
carry on as heritage.
For example, persons who come to Canada have the
opportunity to maintain their heritage, such as language or
dress, as long as that heritage or the components of that heritage
do not come into conflict with established Canadian laws, the
equality of men and women, for example.
People should not come to Canada to recreate the country they
left. That begs the question of why they left in the first place.
People who immigrate to Canada do so because we have a
country that is very attractive to people all over the world. Our
response to those who come should not be to reproduce the
country they left behind but to do our best to maintain Canada so
that it will be as attractive to other people as it was to them.
On this subject I quote from an October 5 article in the Globe
and Mail written by Sonja Sinclair, a freelance writer and
self-described Canadian by adoption rather than birth:
(1315 )
``At the risk of being politically incorrect, I believe that those
of us who left our original homelands whether by choice or
necessity have no business complaining that the country that
offers us a refuge happens to be different than the one we left
behind. This does not mean that we should not criticize things
that we believe to be wrong or better still try to improve those
that seem to be imperfect. Neither does it mean that we should
forget where we came from or if we choose keep alive our native
language and our culture. What we should not do is expect the
government or our fellow citizens to do it for us and foot the
bill''.
Canada's history is filled with cultural groups that
immigrated to this country and maintained their own heritage.
For example, the persons of Ukrainian descent who immigrated
to western Canada this century did not have a department of
heritage to show them or to help them maintain their traditions.
They did that on their own and their community in Canada is
much stronger for it.
Anyone who has been to a wedding in Vegreville can attest to
the enduring strength of the Ukrainian culture in Canada. It is
government arrogance to believe that people with different
cultures will maintain their cultures only as long as they are able
to receive money from federal governments to help them
remember their own heritage.
Therefore, what it is to be Canadian, that is our heritage, is
defined by the actions of the people and groups of people within
the parameters of legislation as determined by the governments
of this country.
The meaning of Canadian should be defined from the bottom
up and not the top down. The process for defining our nation
should go from individuals to groups of individuals, to
community, to province, to region, to nation. This is the only
way our struggle for identity will be resolved.
We do not need a Department of Canadian Heritage.
Government's role is to provide good legislation and parameters
for the present and future growth of our country. With this our
heritage will be looked after by the citizens themselves.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-53 because I
believe this nation is probably the world leader when it comes to
identifying the importance of heritage and what that means to all
of us.
To suggest that we do not need a department of heritage is to
suggest that this country does not have a vision or focus or
direction as a nation and nothing to build, that things will
happen as they may, that regionalism will evolve as it may, that
one part of the country need not talk to the other part of the
country and that culture need not be reinforced in any which
way.
However, today I would like to concentrate my comments
around the whole issue of multiculturalism which hon. members
of the Reform Party have made a great to do over in this House in
the last several days.
What is multiculturalism? The first problem is that the
members have totally misunderstood what that is. They keep
referring to it as the Ukrainian community out west or the such
and such community somewhere else which maintained their
dance, their culture and their food. That is not only what
multiculturalism is about. That is such a minor part it happens
quite by itself as an hon. member rightly pointed out.
Multiculturalism is a fundamental policy that acknowledges
the reality of what Canada is today. It is a multicultural society
made up of peoples from all over the world.
Over the years it has been to the advantage of what used to be
referred to as the mainstream to maintain the status quo of us
and them. In the discussions even today I keep hearing the us and
them, those people, the cultural people, the multicultural
people. Those are the people who are neither English nor
French. With respect, that is not what multiculturalism is all
about. Multiculturalism defines this country. That means if one
looks at a circle the perimeter of the circle is multiculturalism
and that is Canada. Within the circle are Canadians of British
descent, Canadians of French descent, Canadians of Italian
descent and so on, and the aboriginal community. Within that
circle is where we try to develop programs to deal with equity
and to arrive at an equitable kind of society.
6842
(1320)
Without the fundamental policy, the concept of
multiculturalism, I will tell members what happens. I have dealt
for 20 years with program delivery of services in this country.
Multiculturalism applies to every government department, not
just to the department of multiculturalism. It is a policy, it is an
idea. When policies are developed by different departments if
the concept of multiculturalism is not taken into account at the
very development of that policy the delivery of that policy will
not reach everybody. It will be very inequitable.
The people developing both the policy and the mechanism
with which to deliver it do not have either the experience or the
understanding of the different peoples of this country. In order
to be able to understand the needs of people in this country, in
order to build a policy and a delivery mechanism that does not
have barriers within it that would prevent people from accessing
what is their right to access, that policy is not developed
properly.
The policy assists in schools, the discussion of equality within
the school system, so that children will learn about one another
and are able to respect each other's backgrounds, are able to
work together and be proud of who they are. The curriculum in
this country for the longest time-these are very simple
examples that should not even have to be made-ignored totally
the contribution to Canada and around the world of peoples of
different cultural backgrounds.
When we take into account the policy of multiculturalism we
begin to say we must take into account all the contributions of
all the people in this country. Christopher Columbus was not a
North American; his name was Cristoforo Colombo. There are
many others who came to this country over the last 200 years.
People of Chinese background who built the railway in this
country made a contribution to build this country. The
Europeans who cleared the west made a contribution to this
country. The Italian Canadians who built the railway as well and
were incarcerated during the second world war, many of them
built this country. This is not an us and them country. It is a we
country.
Canada is a nation that is evolving. The culture of this country
is evolving. It is not a British culture entirely. We are very
respectful of the institutions.
The member across the way from the Reform Party a week ago
suggested that people of immigrant background if we continue
with multiculturalism will not respect Canadian institutions. I
find that insulting. I am a Canadian and I respect Canadian
institutions.
What is a Canadian? I was not born here. I came here at the
age of nine. I am very proud of who I am and where I come from,
but I am a very proud Canadian first and foremost. To suggest
that people who have heritage that is not English or French are
not proud Canadians is an insult to people in this country.
Multiculturalism is the equalizer. It is the acknowledgement of
what we are as a nation and that is what we are building.
Countries around the world have called us and asked us to
share our experiences with them. Australia has taken our policy
and taken it much further than we have. Germany has recently
asked that we help it to develop a similar policy because the
world around us is changing. We have countries where because
of religious or ethnic differences people are killing each other.
We in this country are developing a model of coexistence, of
mutual respect for one another and that is what multiculturalism
is about. It fosters that respect. It helps us to build an evolving
society. Nothing is static.
Every one of our heritages is just as important as the other. No
one is more or less important.
(1325 )
It does not mean that Canada as a state and as a country is not
something that we are all proud of and that is first and foremost
in our minds. It does not mean that Canadians who are not of
British or French background did not fight and die in the world
wars.
Some people say that multiculturalism is divisive and is
causing the divisions and the breakup of this country. That is
highly insulting.
An hon. member: Look around, it is.
Ms. Minna: It is not. You are. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for recognizing her indulgence.
Ms. Minna: I am sorry, but it does not. It is not the people like
myself who are neither of English nor French background who
are causing the breakup of this country.
We believe in multiculturalism, in having a policy that
acknowledges that this country is not what it was 200 years ago.
Even then it was not what people claim it was. It was a
multicultural nation from day one.
The model that we are building is one that we can be very
proud of. The moneys used are for programs to develop and
implement the ideology and concept of multiculturalism. One
may disagree with a specific program but to disagree
fundamentally with the policy is absolutely wrong.
I want to quote some of the statements that have been made in
this House over the last week. One of the statements suggests we
are funding specialist groups at the expense of the taxpayer. Are
we not all taxpayers? Are the people who receive the funds not
taxpayers? Why do some suggest that of us and them, those
people are not taxpayers? This policy is not one of us and them,
it is a policy of all of us. It affects every single Canadian.
6843
There were statements such as this policy encourages large
groups to remain apart from the mainstream. Who is the
mainstream? In metropolitan Toronto the mainstream is all of
us. There are some 100 different languages spoken. That is the
mainstream of metropolitan Toronto, Hamilton and many other
large urban centres in this country. I am not sure what is meant
when people say the mainstream and what that is supposed to
be.
Sometimes I am asked why I do not become a Canadian. What
does Canadian mean? Canadian simply means that you are a
citizen of this country who respects the laws and the citizens of
this country and who will work and fight for this country.
An hon. member: We choose the government.
Ms. Minna: We choose the government, that is right. We vote
and we have a democratic process. That is what Canadian
means. Every Canadian in this country has a different heritage, a
different place that their parents came from, a different vision or
a different region, but we are together as Canadians and that is
what Canada is about. We are hybrids, some of us.
Some Canadians are first generation, some third, some fourth.
Nonetheless, we are citizens of this country and we are
Canadians. Multiculturalism is the only policy that this country
has which is the equalizer, which brings this country together to
create the model that this world needs.
In of all places, the New York Times, a writer stated that if
Canada killed multiculturalism and the experiment died here it
would be a sad state of affairs because if it died in Canada there
would be no hope for the rest of the world to develop the same
thing. I say to this House that it is time that people began to look
at this government policy and include themselves in the future
of this country instead of trying to maintain the status quo that
never was.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill we are debating today in the House is a perfect example
of the measures which we strongly oppose and which explain
why many Quebecers have come to embrace the sovereignist
option. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague
from Rimouski-Témiscouata to withdraw this bill and refer its
subject matter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
The purpose of this amendment is, of course, to prevent the
House from proceeding to second reading of this bill, which
deals with the concept of promoting the Canadian identity. A
basic reason why we are opposed to this bill being debated now
in this House is that many ethics problems have not been
resolved yet.
(1330)
When we talk about promoting the Canadian identity, it goes
without saying that the mandates and subsidies of the various
government agencies will support this goal. Such is the case
with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which should
logically promote a big and beautiful Canada, but especially a
united Canada.
A declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada on June
18 leaves no doubt as to the directives given to the CBC. The
Prime Minister said: ``There is a law governing the CBC's
operations and I will ask them to obey this law. Among the
obligations outlined in the law is that of letting people know
about Canada's advantages''.
They would ask a broadcaster to voluntarily provide biased
information in order to fulfil a mandate given by the Canadian
government. It is very difficult to swallow. During an election
campaign, for example, the air time allocated to the main
political parties is monitored to the second. If one party gets
more coverage than another, the news room will soon receive a
telephone call from the party that feels slighted. This golden
rule is the only guarantee that the population will be shown both
sides of the coin.
Reflecting his leader's thinking, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs said in 1977: ``I cannot see the CBC taking a neutral
stand to show both sides of the issue. During the referendum
campaign, employees must stand squarely on the pro-Canada
side''.
Mr. Speaker, as this statement shows, our Minister of Foreign
Affairs was already advocating in 1977 that this Crown
corporation-24 per cent of whose operating expenditures are
being paid by Quebecers-should take a biased position. Today,
this same Minister of Foreign Affairs travels around the world
preaching a healthy democracy, which he would flout here in his
own country.
I saw him last Sunday in Haiti with President Aristide
extolling the benefits of democracy. If democracy is healthy in a
country like Haiti, why would he deny that this same democracy
is just as beneficial here in Quebec, in Canada? It is very
dangerous for the future.
It remains to be seen whether the opinion of the minister I just
told you about has evolved since 1977, but I doubt it. What the
Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs said amounts
to favouring, for example, the no side during the next
referendum campaign, either by giving them better air time or
by boycotting events favourable to the sovereignists. It amounts
to asking Bernard Derome to look disgusted when mentioning
the benefits of having a sovereign Quebec.
(1335)
Such an attitude means one of two things: first, all
Radio-Canada employees are federalists, or at least lack some
professional ethics and agree to give a biased view in their media
coverage; second, Quebecers do not realize that democracy is beingcheated. For all those journalists, news desk officers, producers,
6844
technicians and others who have contributed to establishing
Radio-Canada's reputation as a serious and credible
organization, these comments are outrageous and reflect a
blatant lack of respect for the right of Canadians and Quebecers
to be informed. In fact, such comments jeopardize the
credibility of Radio-Canada's news bulletins.
On top of these horror stories, the daily Le Devoir reported
last April that the gap between programming budgets for the
French and English networks is constantly increasing. There is
no alternating here: every year the gap gets greater. Last year,
the difference was $76.4 million. Indeed, Radio-Canada's
budget was $69.7 million, while CBC got $146.1 million. And
then Radio-Canada is being told how to present its news
bulletins. There are limits to taking advantage of Quebecers.
To say that a nation is defined by its culture and its language is
stating the obvious. We will continue to fight relentlessly until
we get all the necessary tools to ensure Quebec's cultural
development. Quebec's interests cannot be the same as that of a
population with a different culture. The best example of this is
the recent film released on the events which occurred in October
1970, to which the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine referred this morning.
The producer, Pierre Falardeau had to defend his project because
a Liberal senator campaigned against it, claiming that Telefilm
Canada should not have to support such projects. Political
schemers and movie producers do not have much in common.
In conclusion, the mandate given to the Department of
Canadian Heritage goes totally against Quebec's will. We urge
the government to recognize Quebec's distinct and specific
character and we will keep doing so.
(1340)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-53 takes a very realistic and comprehensive approach to
the new realities and problems confronting Canadian society.
The new Department of Canadian Heritage is an instrument to
promote Canadian identity. Multiculturalism is a part of this
new department because it helps to define us as Canadians.
The department's programs and policies reflect the changes
that are taking place in how we see multiculturalism, in terms of
its realities and present problems. At first, the purpose of the
policy on multiculturalism was to protect cultural identities and
promote exchanges between cultures. However, since 1988,
when the Parliament of Canada unanimously-I repeat,
unanimously-passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the
policy has evolved considerably. In addition to its initial
cultural dimension, it now includes a social and economic focus.
[English]
We know that exclusion can be said to present a threat to
democracy for it impedes equal and full participation for all. It
leads to alienation, a sense of disenfranchisement, and feelings
of powerlessness. Alienation leads to political apathy that
diminishes both the society and the individual within society.
According to the 1991 census of Canada, 42 per cent of
Canadians identify themselves as having at least one origin
other than British or French. Canadians with origins other than
British or French now make up the majority in every major
urban centre west of Montreal. By 2006 the proportion of
Canadians who are visible minorities is expected to be between
13 and 18 per cent. In Toronto some estimates suggest the
proportion could be as high as 50 per cent.
The increasing diversity of our population presents a
profound challenge for Canadian society. In order to avoid
conflict and maintain social cohesion, institutions within
education, policing, justice, media, health and social services,
business, labour, municipal and other sectors will have to
redouble their efforts to develop policies, programs and
practices adaptive to the reality of Canadian diversity. At the
same time public education initiatives are necessary to promote
among Canadians the value of their diversity and the tangible
benefits that can be derived from it.
[Translation]
The federal multiculturalism policy is dynamic, because it
responds to new challenges to society. Today, both policy and
programs provide a response to major problems connected with
racism and racial discrimination and to the problems
encountered by immigrants seeking to become a part of
Canadian society.
I want to make it clear that multiculturalism is everybody's
business, not just that of members of ethnic and cultural
minorities. We all gain if we are able to give everyone a chance
to make his way in society and make a full contribution towards
building a stronger country.
[English]
Canadians are consistently expressing growing concerns
about racism and racial discrimination. In November 1993
Decima Research found that an overwhelming 86 per cent of
Canadians have identified racism as a problem in Canadian
society. Further, 53 per cent of Canadians believe that racism
has increased over the past four to five years. When asked to
identify those individuals or organizations that could best
promote harmony and acceptance, a majority cited the federal
government and/or the Prime Minister. In March, Ekos Research
found that over three-quarters of Canadians feel that an
6845
appropriate future role for government is to ``promote tolerance
and understanding throughout Canadian society''.
I would submit that the above facts clearly demonstrate that
this bill reflects the aspirations of Canadians and that the
programs that it enables respond to the demands of the majority
of Canadians. This government is in touch with Canadians.
[Translation]
It is in our own interests to try and preserve harmony. A
society that understands the value of diversity and is prepared to
make the adjustments that are necessary will enjoy an enviable
reputation internationally.
(1345)
John E. Cleghorn, president of the Royal Bank of Canada,
says that our success as a nation depends on our ability to
channel our country's rich diversity in ways that will make us
truly competitive on the world markets. Because of an
increasingly globalized economy, Canadian businesses must
turn to new markets.
In doing so, they can take advantage of Canada's abundant
resources and a knowledge of other cultures, other languages
and other ways of doing business. I would even say that
businesses that are able to make this adjustment will have a
competitive edge when the time comes to hire, and keep,
qualified staff in a tight labour market. Multiculturalism
reflects Canada's basic values. Multiculturalism derives from
the general framework of civil, political, social and linguistic
rights enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
[English]
These values are consistent with the results of a large national
attitude survey conducted in 1991. On questions relating to
diversity an overwhelming 95 per cent of citizens believe you
can be proud to be Canadian and proud of your ancestry at the
same time. Seventy-six per cent believe that multiculturalism
applies to all Canadians regardless of ancestry and 73 per cent
have close friends who come from different cultural
backgrounds.
Canada's multiculturalism policy is an eloquent testimony to
our commitment to upholding the value of diversity as well as
setting an example for the rest of the world. As a member of the
United Nations our country has signed several international
articles affirming our commitment to better the human
condition at home and abroad.
The international convention on the elimination of all forms
of racism and racial discrimination obliges us to take positive
measures against racial discrimination. The international
covenant on civil and political rights addresses the rights of all
persons to enjoy their own culture, practice their own religion
and use their own language.
Other articles to which we are a signatory such as the
international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights
and the international convention on the alienation of all forms of
discrimination against women speak with conviction about
basic Canadian values.
[Translation]
It is extremely important for the Government of Canada to act
on its commitments and realize the values proposed therein.
This is even more important today, when countries throughout
the world are turning to Canadians for support. Every day we
hear news about civil disobedience, political oppression, public
chaos and fighting in the streets. It is a reminder that these
societies urgently need a model on which they can base hopes
for a better future.
If as legislators, parents and citizens, we can keep working
together to improve the Canadian vision, we will have
something to offer the world, something of immense value. This
brings me back to the real purpose and crucial role of the
multiculturalism programs that will be part of the new
department proposed in Bill C-53. These programs will help
Canadians, whatever their cultural roots, become full members
of our society and make a significant contribution to that
society.
That is why the lion's share of the $22 million worth of
subsidies and grants administered by these programs is intended
to help new Canadians become integrated into our society and to
eliminate racism and racial discrimination throughout Canadian
society. We also support efforts to deal with problems such as
institutional change and the integration and participation of all
individuals in Canadian society.
[English]
Let me also emphasize that a great deal of work involving no
funding is carried out by officials of these programs. For
example, our strategy on diversity and the economy forges
important partnerships between government, business and
communities to seize the economic opportunities afforded by
our diversity. In a similar way we are working with our federal
colleagues in the Departments of Justice, Solicitor General,
National Revenue and others to accelerate work on the issue of
hate crime, the importation and distribution of hate propaganda.
(1350)
Examples of the department's strategic partnerships include
its work with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Canadian Advertising Foundation, the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters and the Canadian Bar Association.
As an ideology, multiculturalism reflects the reality that our
society is becoming increasingly diverse. It is an ideology based
on the shared values of acceptance and mutual respect. It is a
visionary statement about the kind of society we are all really
working to achieve, one in which each Canadian can realize his
6846
or her full potential, economically, socially, politically and
culturally.
Bill C-53 provides the government with a framework for
action by which it can continue to build a society based on
fairness, respect and is inclusive of each and every Canadian.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, as a junior
presiding officer it is not my place to call the attention of the
House to anyone in the gallery. However earlier this day I was
fortunate enough to have the visit of a group of young students
from Bishop Macdonell School in my riding. I want them to
know that if they are in the House, and if I could acknowledge
them, I would. I would simply say welcome and thank you for
your visit.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleague across the way I am proud to be a Canadian. Prior
to that I was an immigrant. I see no reason to support this bill.
I begin with the idea that this bill is going to save $7.3 million.
I cannot find this anywhere in the document. Rather it appears to
me to be a hodge-podge of ideas designed to remove more tax
dollars from the pockets of taxpayers.
The bill proposes an omnibus department of government
designed to promote a greater understanding of human rights.
How often do we hear that? It has not one word about human
responsibilities.
The bill proposes a department to promote fundamental
freedoms and related values. The term related values has no
meaning to most Canadians. What values are related to
fundamental freedoms? Could it be that the term may give
another minority group another reason to challenge the current
charter or human rights legislation because their values are
related to fundamental freedoms?
The bill allows for the establishment of multiculturalism,
another tax grab. The Liberal government started
multiculturalism as a means of using tax dollars to buy votes and
it continues to do that today. Canadians, if given a choice
between funding special interest groups under the guise of
multiculturalism or funding education, health care and social
services, would always vote for the essential services, not for a
waste of tax dollars.
I recently attended a multicultural event. It was marvellous.
We had ethnic food, represented by 14 countries, flags flying for
each country, ethnic dancing. It glorified the splendour of young
men and women, wearing ethnic costumes, depicting the varied
artistic culture of their homelands.
This event did not cost taxpayers one red cent. It was entirely
funded by those in attendance. There was a $20 admission fee.
Not only did everyone have a great time, the event earned
enough money to assist one group with its building fund. That is
my kind of multiculturalism, the proud display that cost
taxpayers nothing.
The bill proposes to finance the cultural aspect of the status of
the artist. Could anyone please tell me what that really means? It
surely sounds like another waste of taxes to special interest
groups who are so successful in lobbying the government for
hard earned tax dollars. Another example of a catch-all phrase
that steals taxes from essential services is the government's
intent to fund cultural and heritage industries, including every
form of entertainment imaginable.
(1355)
In case the government does not know, we have a vibrant
entertainment business in Canada that does not need tax dollars
to survive. It is funded on a user pay system. If citizens partake
in any event they pay for it. What is wrong with the free
enterprise system funding cultural heritage industries? All the
user-pay system does is stop wasting tax dollars.
The government proposes that this new super department will
oversee sites, canals, battlefields, railway stations and federal
buildings of historical importance. I ask, who decides this
importance? More special interest groups clamouring for tax
dollars? More than likely.
Also the bill proposes to have control of national parks. Since
there are national parks in my riding this is of special interest to
me. My constituents already know a small band of radicals have
the heritage minister's ear. Instead of allowing Canadians
access to their national parks he seems intent on doing whatever
is instructed by these radicals to prevent our national parks from
being open to call Canadians.
It seems the minister listens to those who are already
established in the parks and are preventing others from doing
likewise. Again, special interests will control this department.
The bill proposes to encourage and promote development of
amateur sport. Yet every parent I know that has their child in
organized amateur sports like hockey, ringette, baseball and
soccer are finding it more difficult each year to afford keeping
their child in any of these sports. Again, special interests receive
the tax dollars.
The bill proposes to advance the equality of status of English
and French with the use of federal tax dollars. The provinces
should be controlling language, not the federal government.
Again special interests will benefit and all Canadians will pay.
The bill will allow spending tax dollars on state ceremonies
and Canadian symbols. May we ask what ceremonies and what
symbols, or dare we ask?
The bill also proposes to fund with tax dollars the formulation
of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment. Can anyone
in the House tell Canadians exactly what this means? Who
knows? I doubt if this government knows either.
6847
The Speaker: My colleague, yes, indeed, you do have some
time remaining and I am looking forward to hearing what you
have to say after question period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6847
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks a significant event in the history of our nation. Sixty-five
years ago on October 18, 1929, Canadian women were formally
recognized as persons by the British Privy Council.
This victory came after a lengthy political and legal battle led
by the famous five: Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Nellie
McClung, Irene Parlby, and Henrietta Muir Edwards, five
persons of incredible vision and perseverance.
As a result of their work and the subsequent decision, women
became eligible for appointment to the Senate. One year later in
1930 Corinne Wilson became the first woman to sit in the Senate
of Canada.
Today with 18 women in our Senate, we continue to work
toward equality for all persons in every facet of our society. As
we keep alive the spirit of the famous five and the legacy of the
persons case, Canadians can be proud of our strong history of
activism and our continued commitment to social justice.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, in
presenting his economic statement yesterday, the Minister of
Finance simply added a purple cover to the document presented
in 1984 by the Liberals' new mentor, Michael Wilson.
The Minister of Finance is trying to tell us that social
programs are the main obstacle to employment in Canada.
Nevertheless, considering how much the population has grown
in the past five years, we are still some 800,000 jobs short of the
1990 employment level. That is nothing to boast about.
Given this fact, what are they proposing to us? Solutions
which the Liberals criticized and scorned every day that the
Conservatives were in office. There is a limit to inconsistency
and political expediency. From their first reactions, the people
know this limit better than the Minister of Finance does.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Trooper
Kyle Brown has been sentenced to five years in jail on charges of
manslaughter in the death of a Somali prisoner. The minister of
defence is now appealing, demanding a longer sentence for
Brown.
The minister and the military establishment knew all along
that a longstanding defence existed for Brown who was obeying
an order of his superiors, an order that he did not understand to
be so outrageous as to be obviously illegal. The Supreme Court
last March reaffirmed the availability of this defence.
Furthermore, the minister and the military establishment
ignored the well known effect of Mefloquine, a malaria drug
administered to Canadian troops in Somalia. Side effects
include violent dreams, hallucinations, confusion, anxiety and
mental depression. Mefloquine could have precipitated the
murder of the prisoner and Master Corporal Matchee's
attempted suicide.
The minister of defence should today order the release from
military detention of Trooper Kyle Brown pending an
investigation into this affair.
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 65
years ago today, women won the right to be recognized as
persons.
We in the Liberal Party use persons day to honour the
accomplishments of women and to acknowledge that we still
have a long way to go. The members across the way in the
Reform Party celebrate it by belittling the accomplishments of
women.
The member for St. Paul dismissed women in the Liberal
caucus, claiming they were given their jobs by the Prime
Minister. She must be confused by her own party's selection
process. After all, it was the Reform Party that had candidates
fill out an application form.
Many women contested nominations in the Liberal Party, far
more than got elected. The battle waged by every female Liberal
MP was real. The fact they made it through a male dominated
and sometimes sexist process must not be diminished.
6848
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the birthday of a very
important political scientist in our country's history. Today is
the birthday of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a man who served this
country and served this House of Commons for many years, a
man who believed in strong national programs. From strong
national programs we created a great national will.
I think it is incumbent on all of us in this House today to
recognize the great work that he has done on behalf of Canada.
* * *
Mme Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Beaver River suggested in her
statement that some women MPs on the government side were
not duly elected.
The residents of Beaches-Woodbine are well informed on
their democratic rights as citizens of Canada. After six months
of meeting and discussing with them the Liberal agenda as
outlined in the red book and after six months of evaluating my
credentials and preparedness for public office, the voters of
Beaches-Woodbine gave me 9,000 votes more than the next
closest candidate.
It would seem that the member has forgotten a very important
event that took place in October 1993 which is called an
election.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, year
after year, the Auditor General denounces federal
mismanagement that costs taxpayers billions of dollars.
Do you want some examples? What about the $4 billion
wasted by inefficient federal management of real property?
What about the $3 billion of contracts issued without bids, when
the Auditor General himself says that $1 billion could have been
saved here? And what about the billions of dollars of military
spending that is no longer justified today?
Instead of slashing only social programs that meet the needs
of the poorest people in our society, the government should first
clean up its own yard. Examples of wasted public funds are not
lacking. The government should start by properly correcting its
poor management instead of blaming the unemployed for all the
fiscal problems in this country.
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to a
piece of propaganda masquerading as a news story.
In this story Alliance Quebec wrongly accuses the Reform of
wanting a unilingual country by passing a resolution at our
assembly calling for the repeal of the Official Languages Act.
This is the type of propaganda the government and its status
quo allies use to colour the fact. If the government and its
language lap-dogs were to speak the truth they would tell
Canadians that the repeal of the act will cost nothing but will
save millions.
Bilingualism in Canada is safe through the guarantees
contained in the BNA and the charter. Alliance Quebec knows
these facts but refuses to state them, not because it fears for the
future of French and English in Canada but because it fears the
loss of over a million dollars in annual federal funds which it
receives through the Official Languages Act.
Speaking of money, the national debt now stands at
$534,738,000,000.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to underline the exceptional performance of
Dave Barr, Rick Gibson and Ray Stewart, all from British
Columbia, who recently won the Dunhill Cup, in Scotland,
which is the world championship for golfing.
I also want to congratulate Montreal's Impact soccer team for
its impressive victory in the North American soccer
championship.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has been said by the Reform Party that the road to
Parliament was made easier for Liberal women.
I rise to remind this House that Liberals sought the best
candidates. They searched for and found top quality people in
order to assist the Prime Minister of our government to do what
is right for Canada. We were elected because of our commitment
6849
and experience. Women and men in the Liberal caucus know that
we have an obligation to serve this country through good
government.
Nellie McClung, an early leader of women's rights, is quoted
as saying: ``Never retract, never explain and never apologize.
Get the thing done and let them howl''.
Certain members may find that all they know is how to howl,
but our caucus, women and men, have joined our Prime Minister
in getting the job done.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to point out to those opposite who deride
the accomplishments of female parliamentarians over here that
I, like others, took all comers at a nomination meeting and I
won.
I want to say that I am proud of that accomplishment and very
proud of my brothers and sisters whom the Prime Minister had
the good sense to appoint. He has the plan, he has the team and
he has more female parliamentarians to support him than any
other leader in history.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, there was
disbelief on international financial markets after the comments
made yesterday by the Minister of Finance. The fact is that these
stakeholders are simply asking the minister to take concrete
action to stop the wasting of public money. Yet, one year after
his appointment, the Minister of Finance is still content to
merely look at the extent of the damage caused to Canadian
government finances.
The deputy chairman of the Deustche Bank of Canada
summarized the concerns of the financial community when he
said that the finance minister's pledge to lower the deficit is
certainly praiseworthy, but that investors will want to see
concrete action. Must we conclude from the finance minister's
failure that our 127-year old federal structure is too heavy and
obsolete to adequately meet the challenge of improving the
situation of government finances?
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of howling, it appears I may have struck a chord by
questioning the Liberals' nomination not election process. The
normally docile government backbenchers came alive with
protests and howls of indignation.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester passionately
claimed that she was duly elected in her riding and the hon.
member for Edmonton East-I could go on and on today-went
to great lengths to show that residents in her riding and no one
else chose a Liberal candidate.
(1410 )
How about some testimonials from those who were perhaps
appointed? How about the hon. member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore? Why is she so quiet? What about York
Centre or Hull-Aylmer? Nothing to say? We want testimonials
from these people. How about my friend from
Saskatoon-Humboldt? Does she have any comments on the
nomination?
Were these people appointed or democratically nominated,
not elected? Do they subscribe to the views of their Prime
Minister who when asked why he appointed more than 14
candidates, male and female, said in a press conference
``sometimes Canadians just cannot be trusted to make the right
choice''.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Canadian Soccer Association held its youth club
soccer championships. The tournament was played over four
days and included teams representing all provinces. I had the
pleasure of attending the under 15 division in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan and was pleased with both the boys and girls
teams in this division representing the city of Scarborough.
The girls under 15 division, the Scarborough West Rouge
Soccer Club, finished third. In the boys under 15 age group the
national championship was won by Scarborough's Alexander
the Great team representing the Greek Canadian community's
Olympic Flame soccer club.
These fine young men and women from all across our country
have developed their skills and talents at the championship level
and deserve the recognition of all the members of the House.
Together with their hard work and effort this competition has
instilled in them the importance of fair play and true
sportsmanship.
I would encourage the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
continue his support for our young Canadian athletes.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow, Wednesday, October 19, at Government
House, Paul Brodie a resident of Bala in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka, will receive the prestigious Order of Canada
award.
6850
Mr. Brodie is recognized as Canada's ambassador of classical
saxophone and founder of the World Saxophone Congress.
Having played for 35 years, Mr. Brodie has performed in 2,500
concerts. He has been the guest of high commissions and
embassies in England, France, China, Israel, Australia and
others. From the small, picturesque community of Bala, Mr.
Brodie has travelled to small communities throughout Canada.
In the Parry Sound-Muskoka region Mr. Brodie has been
kind enough to share his art with young students by performing
in the many schools in my riding. I congratulate Mr. Brodie for
winning the Order of Canada and wish him continued success in
the future.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of success for
apprenticeship programs in New Brunswick. Over those 50
years 50,000 diplomas and certificates have been granted to
New Brunswick students in 65 different occupational areas.
[Translation]
New Brunswick is proud to offer its citizens new occupational
programs in the field of high technology, thus preparing them to
meet the challenges of the next century. The co-operative
efforts of employers, unions, governments and students have
had the effect of making occupational training an important
element in the province's economy.
[English]
As the demand for highly skilled workers increases in
Canada, the future for apprenticeship looks bright. The
continued support of apprenticeship programs is not only an
investment in youth and an investment in the New Brunswick
economy but an investment in the Canadian economy.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am hearing concerns from my constituents and have
been studying the facts. I would like to add my name to the list of
individuals urging the government to take action in the case of
Patrick Kelly. Mr. Kelly is the former RCMP officer who was
convicted of murdering his wife based on eyewitness testimony.
The eyewitness has since reversed her position yet there have
been unacceptable delays in the process which could lead to a
new trial. Since the conviction of Mr. Kelly allegations of
dishonesty on the part of the investigating officers have also
been put forward.
Dawn Taber, the eyewitness who was critical in putting Mr.
Kelly behind bars, has rescinded her testimony claiming she lied
in court under pressure from the investigating officers.While the government has called an independent review into the
case, I am concerned that the Minister of Justice has yet to give
a deadline for the review's completion.
It is imperative that Patrick Kelly receive a speedy review of
this conviction in light of these new revelations and receive the
justice he deserves.
_____________________________________________
6850
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance sounded the
alarm on the state of federal public finances. He said, and I
quote:
We are in hock up to our eyeballs. That can't be sustained.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he share
the gloomy diagnosis of the distressing state of federal finances,
as given by his Minister of Finance? Does he intend to take
urgent action to kill the deficit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when you are $500 billion in debt, you have a serious
problem. That is what the Minister of Finance said yesterday,
and we are taking steps to remedy the situation by reducing the
annual deficit. The objective we clearly stated in our campaign
platform was to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP after
three years. We will do what it takes to get there.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, once again, all we get is words and a rehash of the
objectives the government set out in the red book more than a
year ago. What we have is a case of total paralysis, as confirmed
by the Prime Minister, while his Minister of Finance also told
him yesterday that the situation is untenable.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Does he not realize
that after almost a year in power, it is high time that his
government decided to act and that what he just said is no longer
enough to calm the growing concerns of the financial
community?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we brought down a budget in February, and we
predicted a deficit of $39.7 billion. We are confident that at the
end of the year, we will be below that level.
At the time, we also predicted that the deficit would be around
$32 billion at the end of the second year and would drop to $25
billion-the level required to meet our objective of 3 per
cent-by the end of the third year. We said, I said so myself as
did the Minister of Finance, that we would do what it takes to
meet our objectives.
6851
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very frank with us,
since he just told the House they will do absolutely nothing
between now and the budget next February to deal with the
disastrous situation his government just disclosed. This is a
very serious matter. We have here a clear and flagrant
admission of irresponsibility.
Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to say to the Prime
Minister, and to the government that has often asked us for
suggestions on concrete measures that the Bloc has been
suggesting concrete measures for some time but the government
has refused to listen. What is the government waiting for to
cut- Here are some concrete measures. Make a note of them,
why not. What is the government waiting for to cut the fat out of
federal operating expenditures? To eliminate the
unconscionable waste caused by administrative overlap? To get
rid of tax havens? To abolish the undue privilege represented by
family trusts? Those are concrete proposals. Would the Prime
Minister care to respond?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question put by the Leader of the Opposition is a
very broad one. He is talking about fat and unconscionable
spending, without being more specific, which is exactly what
the Minister of Finance is being now. He is talking to committee
members. As for family trusts, the problem, as suggested by the
Finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois, was referred to the
committee that is looking into the matter right now, to see if
family trusts are paying the taxes they should be paying. We will
act on the committee's recommendations as soon as the
committee has finished its work.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to reducing the deficit, the government
is still turning a deaf ear to the various suggestions it receives
from all over, including the Official Opposition. The
government's only recipe is massive cuts in social programs, at
the expense of the poorest people and the unemployed. To do
this dirty work, the Minister of Finance is counting on his
colleague in Human Resources Development.
(1420)
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to admit that his
government is going the wrong way by attacking the poorest
people and the middle class with cuts to social programs, when
he should first reduce his spending, end waste and duplication
and fight tax evasion?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member would take the time to read the paper
presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development he
would see that what we are doing is taking some of the money
available, not to give it to frequent claimants and so on, but we
want to give them the training they need so that they will be able
to have a job and have the dignity of working.
Canadians do not want the people of Canada who are
unfortunately unemployed to remain on welfare or
unemployment insurance. What they want is a government that
will use this money to create jobs so they will have the dignity of
working. That is exactly what this government will do for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, B.Q.): Mr.
Speaker, they are putting a purple colour on the Conservatives'
blue book, which says that we are in the red. Does the
government's inaction in the past year and its inability to attack
the deficit not confirm that the federal structure is too
cumbersome, paralysed, paralysing and incapable of the
downsizing required to reduce the debt crisis?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have faced up to our responsibilities. We were the
only political party that put in writing in a red book exactly how
we would achieve our objective. The financial community
thinks that it is a realistic objective; a deficit of 3 per cent of the
gross national product is the level required in Europe for all
countries in the European Community to qualify for the new
European currency, the ecu.
Right now, I think that not one European country has been
able to achieve this level, but we will get there in the third year
of our mandate, as we promised in writing in our red book. If you
want a copy, I can send you one; I have it here.
[English]
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members will agree that we
should not be using any props as we go through.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, evidence is mounting that the cabinet is divided on the
urgency and importance of reducing the deficit and the debt and
this is going to cripple the government's deficit reducing efforts.
Some ministers such as the finance minister appear to
recognize and demand more serious and substantive spending
reductions. Other ministers such as the Deputy Prime Minister
only reluctantly agree to mild spending reduction. The silence
from the Prime Minister is deafening.
Will the Prime Minister show some leadership by stating right
now whether he supports the Deputy Prime Minister and her free
spending colleagues or whether he supports the finance minister
in his deficit reduction efforts?
6852
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I support the red book.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am seeking commitment from the Prime Minister and
the government, not equivocation.
The cabinet and the Prime Minister's resolve to substantially
reduce spending is still in doubt. Yesterday I directed a question
to the finance minister on this subject but it was the Deputy
Prime Minister who intervened. At one time they were both
standing until the Deputy Prime Minister stared down the
finance minister. I note also that the Canadian dollar dropped
yesterday. I do not know if there was any connection.
I ask the Prime Minister, whose position on deficit reduction
is the government's position: the Deputy Prime Minister's
position or the finance minister's position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is so easy to receive questions from the Reform Party
that everybody wants to get up to have the privilege to reply.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I will read from the red
book. Any responsible government must have as its goal the
elimination of the deficit. This is our goal.
(1425)
Given the current state of the economy a realistic interim
target for the Liberal government is to seek to reduce the deficit
to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of its third
year in office and we will do it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the money markets believe that the cabinet is divided
and many Canadians do too. If the cabinet does not get its act
together we are going to need another aisle in this House with
the hard headed Liberals and Reformers on one side and the soft
headed Liberals and the Bloc members on the other.
The other evident division in the cabinet is between those who
think that tax increases are still possible and advisable and those
who know that they are not.
Will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal guarantee that
tax increases are not an option for deficit reduction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a lot of very nice members of Parliament but
they want to be re-elected and they do not want to be seen with
the Reform Party. That is a very good reason to keep our team
together.
We are preparing the next budget at this time. It is the first
time since I have been a member of Parliament, and it has been
quite a few years, that there are prebudget consultations with the
Canadian public. The Minister of Finance tabled documents
yesterday. He is tabling more documents today and everybody
will be able to have input. There will be a budget and what will
be in the budget will be written after we have listened. If we are
consulting it is better not to make up our minds before the end of
the consultation. We do not want to laugh at people that way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
notwithstanding the extremely difficult fiscal background
described by the Minister of Finance yesterday, we learn that the
Canadian Army is presently taking part in an international
missile firing competition in Florida.
Canadian F-18s are expected to launch missiles that cost up to
$400,000 each. We are also told that over 60 members of the
Canadian Forces-pilots, technicians, controllers-are taking
part in this competition called Operation William Tell.
In the present context where the government is about to cut
billions of dollars at the expense of the poorest of the poor and
the middle class, does the Minister of National Defence not
agree that he should immediately put a stop to this shameful
waste?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member displays his ignorance about the role of the
armed forces. That was obviously seen in the manifesto of the
Bloc Quebecois in the last election when it called for a 25 per
cent cut in defence expenditures and then objected to cuts when
they occurred.
With respect to the William Tell exercise this is a normal
exercise by the Canadian air force and it involves the firing of
live missiles which cannot be done in Canada and can be done
under the auspices of a bilateral training agreement we have
with the United States. This is nothing abnormal, it is done quite
frequently.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, let us
put the question to the Prime Minister; he seems to have a lot to
say on this matter. How can the Prime Minister of Canada
tolerate such squandering at a time when our country is literally
on the brink of bankruptcy, according to his Minister of
Finance? Should he not be acting to stop the squandering
allowed by his defence minister, with his tacit consent?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have commitments to other countries. And Canada
stands to gain from European forces coming to train in Canada
on a regular basis as part of these military exchange programs
between allies. There is, as a matter of fact, some controversy
about this in Labrador.
6853
So, we have more foreign military training in Canada than
Canadians training abroad. This cannot be a purely unilateral
affair. We must co-operate with the other forces, and that is
precisely what the Minister of National Defense is doing. In
the case in point, he is co-operating with the Americans, but
when the Belgians, the Germans or other forces come and train
in Canada, in one province or the other, we all like to see them
spending money in Canada. It helps the Canadian economy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister presented a policy paper that in
many respects, to be fair, is supportable. One of the minister's
points was that increased productivity was key to economic
growth. Yet just the day before the Deputy Prime Minister
released a report calling for billions of dollars of new gasoline
green taxes.
Would the Prime Minister state the position of the
government in promoting productivity? Does the government
advocate raising taxes or lowering taxes?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never released any
such report.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister knows that every time Canadians go to
fill up their gas tanks with $25 worth of gas, it costs $12.50 in
federal and provincial taxes. Yet through her rather
uncharacteristic silence she has implied that even higher
gasoline and carbon taxes are possible; she has implied that.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. So that it
is very clear to Canadians, will the Minister of the Environment
demonstrate her commitment to improving the productivity, as
was stated in the paper yesterday, of Canadian business by
rejecting any kind of proposed tax grab in the carbon industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just told the whole
House that I never released any such report.
If the member wants to be true to the people of Canada, why
does he not tell the truth and admit in the House that the Minister
of the Environment in no way released any such report. Stop
setting up strawmen so you can try to burn them down.
The Speaker: I ask my colleagues to please direct their
remarks to the Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced in his economic
statement that the government intends to end subsidies for
megaprojects. While the government slashes social programs, it
will sink over $250 million into the Hibernia project this year
alone.
If the Prime Minister wants to be taken seriously, are we to
understand that his government has now committed itself to not
sinking the additional hundreds of millions of dollars required
by the Hibernia project?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, several million dollars have already been spent on this
project, which will be completed within two or three years.
Ending the project now would make us lose all the money
already invested. If we had to do it all over again, perhaps we
should not have gone ahead. However, stopping now would be
an enormous loss. We must complete this project because, when
it starta producing oil and natural gas in three or four years, we
will be able to recover if not all at least a large part of the money
invested so far. We would be very ill-advised to stop now, as
these investments will start paying off in two or three years.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has a short memory. He should remember that
his party supported the Hibernia project when they were in
opposition.
How can the Prime Minister refuse to make a commitment not
to invest any more public funds in this very risky venture, when
there is no evidence that this project will ever be profitable?
(1435)
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a minute ago I explained something very simple to the
member. There was a lot of investment in that and some of these
projects have not produced the results anticipated. It happens
like that many times.
At the moment we have invested millions of dollars in that
project. The project is scheduled to start producing oil in three
years and will be an available resource to be sold abroad or for
Canadians to use in Canada.
It would be stupid to stop the project at this time because we
would lose the benefits that would come from it. I must tell the
hon. member that a lot of the work on the project is being done in
Quebec at the moment.
6854
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister has sent out invitations to the provincial health
ministers to her health care forum. There has been no response.
The Prime Minister invited the premiers to the same forum and
received the same answer.
Just to be sure I called the health ministers. Guess what? They
are really not coming.
When will the health minister get it that the most important
players do not want any part of this $12 million boondoggle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were committed in the red book to having a forum
of that nature. We kept our word. When we introduced the
project members of the opposition said that we had to invite
some people from the provinces.
The minister negotiated with them. At the beginning they
asked to have several representatives. We said that was fine.
After that they wanted to have as many as ten. We said that was
fine. Some said some premiers would like to be there, that we
should let them come. We said yes, yes and yes. If they do not
come we are back to square one.
We began with no invitations. We have now invited them and
they are not coming. We will just do what we said we would do in
the red book, that is consult with the people and maintain good
medicare in Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the provinces
pay 48 per cent of health care bills. Private sources pay 28 per
cent and the junior partner, the federal government, pays 23 per
cent. Why would the major payer accept being a minor player?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we have medicare in Canada today it is because there
was a federal government that took the initiative to have
medicare. The fathers and mothers of the program want to keep
it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, in a
last-ditch effort to convince the provinces to participate in the
National Forum on Health, the Prime Minister has written to his
provincial counterparts inviting them to attend on a consultative
basis. The Minister of Health sent a similar invitation to her
provincial counterparts but never received any answers.
How can the government persist in trying to hold its National
Forum on Health when it is so obvious that the provinces do not
wish to participate in that forum in its present form?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a consultation exercise involving experts as well
as other stakeholders. We asked the provinces to make
suggestions and we welcomed their proposals. The forum is not
a decision-making body. Its purpose is to look at the issue and
make recommendations. This exercise is not binding on the
federal government nor on the provinces. There are other
initiatives involving the provinces, such as the meeting of
federal and provincial health ministers.
Again, this is not a federal-provincial program: it is a
consultation exercise to get ideas from Canadians. I will not
make any decisions; I will simply preside and listen. I invited
these people to discuss the issue. I will not be making speeches.
I will take note of suggestions made. We will try to take those
into account to ensure that health-related costs in Canada do not
become prohibitive and to maintain a free health care program
for all Canadians.
(1440)
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, at a
time when the government is looking for ways to eliminate
wasting, does the Prime Minister realize that, in the absence of
the provinces, the National Forum on Health will be a totally
futile exercise which will cost over $12 million to Canadian
taxpayers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the support of all intermediary organizations
involved, including the Canadian Hospital Association, the
Canadian Medical Association and others, because they realize
that in order to have a national plan, we must establish national
standards. Also, what works in one province could be used
successfully by another. It is our role to find the best possible
solutions and discuss them with the provinces. It will then be up
to them to adopt or reject these solutions. This is how we intend
to proceed.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last Friday when VIA Rail announced that it was cutting
another 478 jobs, half of them being in Montreal, it stated that it
would be done without a cut in service.
Would the minister please explain how VIA can cut 478 jobs
and not reduce service to the public? Why is VIA still pursuing a
downsizing policy introduced by the Conservative government
in 1993?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, VIA is approaching the problems it is facing in the
same way as the government. We have problems in operating a
service in the country that loses over $300 million a year and is
6855
supported by taxpayers. The cuts that were announced by and
large were about 50:50 as between administrative positions and
operating positions.
The hon. member would know, because he has a very definite
interest in it, that we are trying to do everything we can to
maintain levels of service across the country. It is true that we
have made cuts to VIA with respect to personnel. There have
been no cuts or even requests put before us for eliminating any
of the routes.
We still have another area to look at, that is what happens with
the ongoing labour negotiations at VIA. The commitment of the
government is to try to maintain services coast to coast with VIA
but also to protect the owner of VIA who happens to be the
Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Public Accounts of Canada were tabled today. The Minister of
Finance included in his 1994 deficit prediction half a billion
dollars for the resource allowance tax fiasco. We now find that
one of the reasons the 1994 deficit is lower than the minister's
original prediction is that the cost of that tax boondoggle was
added to the previous year's deficit.
When will the government come clean with the Canadian
public and make real, and I mean real, cuts to the deficit rather
than use smoke and mirrors to make us think that progress is
being made?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
answer the question because we have made real cuts. We made
real cuts in our budget of February. We took $5 of spending cuts
for every dollar in taxes. They were real cuts and we will meet
our deficit target.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
we should debate real cuts. The government did not stop there. It
changed the 1993 accounts to make the 1994 accounts look
good. The government reduced the 1993 deficit by $569 million.
It reduced the 1995 projected deficit by $200 million due to
accounting changes, and there is not one penny of savings to the
Canadian taxpayer.
What is the reduction in the 1994 deficit that will be dumped
on the Canadian taxpayer's lap in coming years by accounting
changes that are supposed to be deficit reductions?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it rather
interesting the Reform Party again and again quotes Auditor
General's reports. Again and again it brings these things up and
calls them mere accounting changes. These are accounting
changes ordered by the Auditor General.
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
While visiting the riding of Saint-Jean, the Quebec Premier
announced that Ottawa and Quebec were back to square one
regarding the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, since the
agreement in principle between Ottawa and the previous
government had not been followed by the operating agreement
which was supposed to be signed no later than August 31, 1994.
Is the minister going to confirm that the operating agreement,
which was supposed to be concluded no later than August 31,
has in fact never been signed and that he must start negotiating
with the new Quebec government all over again?
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, we reached an agreement with the Quebec
government. It is dated July 19. It is signed by Mr. Chagnon, the
then education minister, by myself and by Daniel Johnson.
This general agreement is still in force. This agreement
benefits people in the area by keeping the Collège de Saint-Jean
open with a military presence and students coming from the
Quebec education system. It would be a great pity if the Quebec
government were to indicate now that it does not want to abide
by the terms of the general agreement, but I do hope that it will
not do so.
Some matters were still to be settled, such as the list of
equipment the federal government was to hand over to the
provincial government. Obviously, these are still open to
discussion. But as far as the agreement is concerned, it is in
place and it benefits the area.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
if I understand correctly, there are still a few contentious issues
left. The Bloc would like to make a suggestion. Given the fact
that it is increasingly obvious that Kingston College will not be
able to accommodate all student officers, is the government
going to finally cancel its illogical decision to close the Collège
militaire de Saint-Jean?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no.
6856
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as reported in the media, a previous
Solicitor General authorized Grant Bristow to attend neo-Nazi
rallies and meetings in Germany. However, CSIS and the
previous administration did not believe it was necessary to
inform the German government of Bristow's attendance.
Has the Solicitor General been provided with an explanation
of why the Germans were not informed, and has he accepted this
explanation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a matter, as the hon. member says, that relates to
the previous government.
I have sought assurances that the appropriate directives will
be followed if any similar occasion arose. In any event, I am also
informed that this is a matter which will be commented on by the
Security Intelligence Review Committee in the report it is
preparing.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned that all of this is all
inclusive in the SIRC report. They may not get that report out
before the end of the year.
However, I am pleased that the minister has assured us that
this sort of thing will not happen again. I ask if he has given the
Germans an indication of Grant Bristow's involvement and a
report of the activities.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, neither myself nor CSIS has confirmed that Grant
Bristow is an individual who is involved in these matters. The
matters in question, as reported last night, relate to events that
happened several years ago.
If I am contacted by the German authorities I will be happy to
give them assurances that will be appropriate in the
circumstances.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment.
In 1987 the Brundtland commission concluded that the
wilderness areas in the world today must at least triple if we are
to protect plant and animal species and preserve biodiversity on
this planet. What action is Canada taking to increase our
protected wilderness areas and what role is Canada playing in
the global protection of wilderness areas?
(1450)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
hon. member for the question and point out that the latest report
of Statistics Canada said that 9 per cent of Canada's land was set
aside as wilderness. It is short of our goal but certainly moving
in the right direction.
We intend in the next few weeks to enact the Canadian
biodiversity strategy. We will use this strategy, along with our
strategy on expanding wilderness areas, to make sure that
Canada is among the first signatories not only to the biodiversity
strategy but also among the countries that actually put the
strategy in place, working together with the provinces as we will
do at the CCME meeting in November.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Transport which he did not
know about in advance.
Students at the Coast Guard College in Sydney are
automatically members of the federal public service and have
many benefits including room and board, tuition, textbooks and
an allowance of $200 a month. This college competes directly
with other educational institutions, including the marine
institute in Rimouski.
How can the minister justify spending nearly $10 million a
year to maintain the college in Sydney, when the marine
institute in Rimouski and other institutions in other provinces
offer the same services? Is this not an example of needless and
costly duplication?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will make a point of looking into the situation to
which the hon. member refers, but I am sure, given the long
history of the Coast Guard College in Sydney and the institute in
Rimouski, that offering such services to students in both
institutions is nothing new. Probably it was done that way when
the Leader of the Opposition was in the government.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
how can the government justify maintaining a college like the
one in Sydney, when it used cost efficiency as the reason for
closing the military college in Saint-Jean, the only French
language college of its kind in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the approach that the hon. member is taking in linking
the activities of the coast guard facilities at Sydney with a
facility in Quebec and other facilities across the country is
6857
typical of the kind of approach that the Bloc Quebecois has
taken in the House.
We are trying to give the best possible service we can to
people that need them. One thing for sure is that what is being
done today is very similar to what was being done when the
duplicitous leader of the Bloc Quebecois was a member of
government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister perhaps to
withdraw the word ``duplicitous''. It is a little bit strong in the
circumstances.
Mr. Young: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that word and
replace it with one that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition
understands: double talking.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of oceans.
In the fall of 1992 the Ministry of Justice dropped 213 charges
against poachers on the west coast, one of whom was caught
with 30,000 sockeye salmon. When the minister's Liberal
friends examined the aboriginal fishing strategy at his request
last spring, they conveniently forgot to mention this
embarrassment to a favourite program not only of this
government but also of the Mulroney government.
Why should we expect a different standard from the current
catch of DFO insiders appointed to examine this minister's
handling of the 1994 salmon disaster on the west coast?
(1455 )
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. If he
were serious about seeing constructive improvement in the
management of the salmon resource in British Columbia, rather
than getting up and asking questions and impugning the
reputation of somebody like the Hon. John Fraser, former
Speaker of the House of Commons, who chairs the panel that he
has called the panel of Liberal insiders, he might do what the
president of the Fisheries Council of British Columbia and what
the president of the Union of Fishermen of British Columbia did
at lunch time today. They sat and had a constructive meeting
with me to get something positive done, not just to throw out
allegations.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the former
Speaker of the House is hardly independent. He is now an
appointee of the government as ambassador for the
environment.
The 35,000 member B.C. Wildlife Federation and the 12,000
member B.C. Fishermen's Survival Coalition have joined me in
calling for an independent judicial inquiry.
When will the minister acknowledge the growing support for
this and act?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is questions like these that test the
so-called commitment of the leader of the Reform Party to give
due recognition to the honour and integrity of people who have
served long and well in the public good of the country. That kind
of attack on the former Speaker of the House of Commons is
unwarranted and I shall look to see Mr. Manning repudiate it
right away.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, the minister made light of an unacceptable,
insidious and inflammatory statement made by an employee of
the Canadian embassy in Japan, namely the academic relations
officer. This employee accused Hydro-Quebec, on the basis of
an ad that this provincial Crown Corporation had nothing to do
with, of fuelling racial tensions between Quebecers and the
Mohawks.
Does the minister not realize that, by refusing to call this
employee to order, he is in fact condoning a glaring breach of
ethics and lack of judgment?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after this question was put to me in this House
yesterday, I asked an official of my department to make an
inquiry. Naturally, as the alleged incident took place in Japan, I
have not received an answer yet, but as soon as I have, I will
gladly follow up on the hon. member's question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
During his speech on the proposed amendments to Bill C-22
the minister stated that the Pearson consortium was seeking
$445 million in damages through the courts. In fact that is his
answer to virtually every question we ask.
However court documents clearly indicate no amount has
been claimed, only the right to have damages settled by an
arbitration tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the
airport contract.
Can the minister tell the House why he is continually
misstating the facts? Is it because he is trying to scare the public
into
6858
supporting an immoral, illegal and unconstitutional cover-up of
Liberal election strategy gone bad?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did not get the true face of Reform last week but we
are getting it today.
In the documents presented to the court the claim is for some
$172 million but there are third party claims as well. What I said
to the hon. member, and what I say to the people of Canada, is
that the total amount of claims that have been submitted to Mr.
Wright, who represents the Government of Canada in this matter
is $445 million that the deficit cutting Reform Party is prepared
to put at risk just to satisfy its little political games.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Persons responsible for criminal atrocities may attempt to
gain entry to Canada following an exodus of military police and
paramilitary personnel from Haiti. In particular, the attachés
and the tontons macoutes have been implicated in human rights
violations and murders against the Haitian people.
What is the government doing to ensure that these human
rights abusers are prevented from gaining entry into Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his very sensitive question and say two things.
First, those individuals who commit acts against humanity are
inadmissible under the Immigration Act. This includes
individuals who have been involved with de facto regimes in
Haiti since the coups of September 1991.
Second, individuals wanting to visit Canada from Haiti or to
make application as landed immigrants need to have security
checks. In that regard a list is being compiled of all persons who
have been close to all de facto regimes, including individuals
who may have perpetrated acts against humanity, so that our
officials and our offices may be advised that such individuals
are inadmissible.
We are taking every possible precaution to protect society
against those who have contributed to acts against humanity.
6858
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed 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; and of the amendment.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
before question period I opposed the bill. After question period,
realizing we went another $8 million into debt, I oppose it even
more. Now it is $8.5 million and climbing.
The bill proposes to allow the minister to provide financial
assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments
to any person. If that is not an invitation for every special
interest group to bend the ear of the minister and grab tax
dollars, I do not know what is.
The problem with that is quite simply that we have no tax
dollars to spare. We are spending 39 cents of every tax dollar to
fund the interest on our debt, and the government wants to spend
some of the remaining 61 cents to satisfy special interests. It
sounds like a red book Liberal idea to me.
The bill proposes to allow the minister to establish a Canadian
council composed of seven to twelve part time members,
including a chairperson, one or two vice-chairs and not more
than nine other members to be appointed and hold office during
the pleasure of the governor in council.
If that is not an ideal position for hacks, special interests and
friends of the government to feed at the tax trough, I do not know
what is. At a time when the government will not reduce our
deficit spending or debt, the government wants to spend more
tax dollars on cronies. The patronage continues.
(1505)
The bill proposes that the head office location of the Canadian
council be set by the minister. Are there any bets the chosen
location has no relation to the bill but has significant political
meaning to the government?
The bill offers the government further excuses to give its
political cronies, hacks and high donation buddies ample funds
from the public trough and easily allows any special interest
group that can successfully lobby the government its turn at the
trough.
The bill does not take into consideration the fiscal and
financial state of the treasury. The manner in which this tax and
spend government will tax Canadians to spend their hard earned
6859
dollars on political favours and to further increase the feeding
frenzy of political hacks and cronies for which the government
is famous will know no bounds if the bill is passed into
legislation.
At a time when the government readily admits essential
services desired by Canadians will be reduced, how can it justify
further expenditures of tax dollars on the funding of hacks,
special interest groups and friends of the minister?
Canadians must now ask whether they support the continuing
waste of tax dollars being presented in the bill. I know what
grassroot Canadians will say. It would be a resounding no. It is
too bad grassroot Canadians could not get constituent
representation with members of the government, because the
bill would never be tabled for consideration if they would bother
finding out. The government prides itself on making the tough
decisions without having to ask its constituents for their input.
The government has already said it knows what is best for
Canada.
With bills like this one Canadians know the government only
knows what is best for its friends who will feed at the trough
well established by this kind of bill.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the bill describes the central role that the
Department of Canadian Heritage will be called to play in the
life of Canada and Canadians.
The legislation creates a department which will have
responsibilities in the areas of national parks, historic sites,
cultural development, amateur sports, multiculturalism and
official languages. All those areas have clear links to our
identity as Canadians.
I will speak today specifically about the official languages
responsibilities of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the
English and French languages and the people who speak them
that have shaped Canada and helped define its identity. Surely
Canada's linguistic duality has its origins in the very nature of
the country.
The official languages policies put forward by the
Government of Canada since the 1970s are the reflection of a
generous and creative vision of Canada. It is a Canada where
English and French speaking citizens can feel at home wherever
they choose to live. It is a vision of Canada where vital English
speaking and French speaking minority language communities
can contribute to the economic, social, cultural and scientific
life of the country.
In order to translate this vision into reality, federal
institutions have become bilingual. It is the institutions that
have become bilingual. The government co-operates with the
provinces to ensure that our linguistic duality is reflected in the
education system and other services in the areas of justice and
health.
The government has recognized that it has a role in enhancing
the vitality and development of official language communities
from coast to coast to coast, both by supporting the development
of their institutions and by supporting their efforts to have their
rights respected. It has also worked to promote the recognition
and the use of two official languages with a wide range of
organizations within Canadian society.
The official languages programs of the Department of
Canadian Heritage are designed to provide opportunities for
Canadians to appreciate and profit from our rich linguistic
heritage and to communicate with and participate in federal
institutions.
(1510 )
The Government of Canada believes that the great majority of
Canadians share these goals. We all know that the Canada of
tomorrow is being built in the classrooms of today. Few would
doubt the importance of education to any community and of
support for minority language education. The federal
government works toward the full participation of both
language groups in all aspects of Canadian society.
[Translation]
These programs do much more than support the vital
contribution of official language minority communities. They
allow them to contribute to our country's economic growth. For
example, recent progress in education for francophone
minorities has been a big help in reducing the illiteracy and
school drop-out rates, thus raising the post-secondary
attendance rate.
The 1991 census revealed that the number of francophones
outside Quebec went up slightly in absolute numbers. Nearly 1
million French speaking Canadians, or about 14 per cent of
Canadian francophones, live outside Quebec. They are found in
all regions of the country and account for about a third of the
population of New Brunswick. The largest community in terms
of numbers is in Ontario, where almost 1 million francophones
live.
Even in my own province of Manitoba, there is a significant
number of francophones and a vibrant community. Minority
language education is a good indicator of these communities'
viability. There are some 660 French language primary and
secondary public schools outside Quebec. By ratifying the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the federal
and provincial governments made commitments to official
language communities.
Section 23 of the Charter gives minorities the right to be
educated in their own language and to manage their own
schools, as just happened in Manitoba. In the Mahé decision, the
Supreme Court said that this section is ``the cornerstone of
Canada's commitment to bilingualism and biculturalism be-
6860
cause of the essential role of education in maintaining and
developing linguistic and cultural vitality''.
By allowing parents to fully participate in the operations of
their school boards and ensuring that together they can turn their
schools into truly francophone living environments, we also
discourage dropping out and give a head start to several
generations of our very young children. That is why the federal
government must continue to help the provinces and territories
fulfil their constitutional obligations to their official language
minorities.
As with any government policy, this policy, its objectives and
its implementation may be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Even here in the House of Commons, we hear comments that
reflect a misunderstanding of the objectives of the federal policy
on official languages. I would like to take this opportunity to
clarify certain facts about supposedly imposed bilingualism.
The 1969 Official Languages Act stated that French and
English had equal status in all Canadian parliamentary and
government institutions. It was revised later to take into account
the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[English]
As a result of this policy everyone has the right to use English
and French in Parliament and Parliament must enact its laws in
English and in French. Everyone has the right to appear and
proceed in the official language of choice before any federal
court and any criminal court. The public has the right to
communicate with and receive services from the institutions of
Parliament and the federal government in either of the two
official languages.
English speaking and French speaking Canadians have equal
opportunities for employment and advancement in federal
institutions. The composition of federal institutions must reflect
the presence of the two official languages communities in
Canada.
(1515 )
The federal government is bilingual so that the citizens do not
have to be. Every Canadian has the right to remain unilingual.
Universal bilingualism has never ever been the goal of the
policy. The B and B commission stated:
A bilingual country is a country where the principal public institutions must
provide services in two languages to citizens, the vast majority of whom may
very well be unilingual.
The key concept in all of this is that it is the choice of
individual Canadians. So much for the supposed enforced
bilingualism.
This policy is one that not only reflects what Canada was,
what Canada is and what Canada can be. It is an open policy, a
policy that reaches out and encourages people to participate in
the official language of their choice. In doing so it does not
exclude other groups from participating fully in Canadian life.
That is what sets it apart.
[Translation]
I could speak for a long time but I understand that I am coming
to the end of my speech. It is unfortunate because I had so much
to say. However, I would like to close simply by asking all
members of the House of Commons to look with their eyes, their
minds and their hearts open at this policy encouraging all
Canadians to get involved.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, B.Q.): Madam Speaker, I
thank you for allowing me to make a comment on Bill C-53.
With the establishment of the Department of Canadian
Heritage, the government only accentuates existing differences.
Once again, the federal government ignores the cultural
distinctiveness of Quebec by attempting to promote a
hypothetical Canadian identity. The minister's mandate is at
odds with Quebec's fundamental interests. The Liberal
government openly denies the distinct and specific character of
Quebec. Moreover, it seeks to reinforce even more the
centralizing power of the federal government, at the expense of
provincial jurisdiction.
Ottawa will make decisions affecting Quebecers' culture,
based on its own priorities. One can imagine what bright future
awaits our province. Already, the allocation of smaller budgets
is an unfair treatment. Indeed, the discrepancy in the budgets for
Radio-Canada and CBC is a blatant example of federal
bilingualism. The budget of the English network is more than
double that of the French one, this-and make no mistake about
that-for an equivalent number of viewers. We are not talking
about population but about the number of people who watch
television.
For the same public interest program, the English network
spends $58,000, compared to $34,000 for the French one, in
spite of the fact that the number of viewers is the same. This
discrepancy is a blatant example of so-called federal
bilingualism. When the Liberal government says white it means
black. The Liberals talk about bilingualism but they do not
provide the same means to French-speaking and English
speaking groups. I could go on and on.
(1520)
Considering that the cultural future of a nation is based on its
language, we can see that the efforts to promote a Canadian
identity will ignore Quebec's own cultural identity.
But there is more. This bill does nothing to correct the
government's inconsistency regarding the sharing of
departmental responsibilities. On the contrary, it accentuates
the existing discrepancies. Why is that? Is it to slow down the
process? Is it to increase costs? Maybe. It becomes difficult to
understand the inconsistencies of the Liberal government. Are
6861
the Liberals creating an administrative monster over which the
minister will have no control?
This inconsistency on the part of the Liberal government was
also demonstrated with the information highway. Responsibility
for policy lies with the Department of Industry, while the
Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for content-in
other words, culture.
Both departments share similar responsibilities but differ in
their approach to procedures and content. Actually, one is
concerned with the framework, while the other concentrates on
content. The future seems pretty clear-cut. The Minister of
Industry will approach culture in a way that promotes the
interests of large corporations and users, at the expense of the
creators. Since the Minister of Industry will be responsible for
programs and policies, this does not leave much room to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is to reinforce cultural and
social values.
Hon. members must realize that our cultural future is at stake.
Both departments will be on a parallel course, without any
consultation between the two. To build something you need
co-ordination.
The House will recall the lack of consultation when the
Advisory council on the Information Highway was established.
When appointing the committee, the Minister of Industry failed
to include members from the cultural community. The Bloc
believes, and we are not alone in this, that culture lies at the very
heart of the information highway, and the Bloc Quebecois also
believes that jurisdiction over culture and communications is a
provincial matter.
Today, Ottawa makes decisions unilaterally. Quebec has been
excluded from major decisions, where Canadian cultural
interests are crowding out Quebec's distinct identity.
Apparently, good government means denying a distinct identity.
This has been borne out by the Liberal government. In spite of
repeated requests, it has failed to amend its procedures with
respect to copyright and intellectual property. The government
ignores the major contribution made by authors, creators,
performing artists and other parties in Quebec that make this
province a living force.
One wonders who, will get his views on copyright across, the
Minister of Industry or the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will
it be the Minister of Industry, who prefers the straight copyright
system that benefits large corporations, or will the Minister of
Canadian Heritage manage to convince his colleague to opt for a
copyright system with neighbouring rights. Under this system,
author, creator, performing artists and producers all enjoy rights
with respect to the future use to be made of their work.
For once, the Liberals will have to get their act together.
(1525)
In this connection, it is a serious mistake to give the Minister
of Industry ultimate responsibility for copyright policy. This
area should be the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, who would then have a mandate to propose policies to
Cabinet and to table bills accordingly.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who often says he is
powerless to act, have enough political clout this time around to
persuade his colleague to avoid total disaster on such an urgent
and important matter? Canadian creators have been waiting for a
long time.
Last Sunday on TV, the ADISQ Gala was a good example of
the work done by Quebec artists to disseminate Quebec culture
throughout the province, across Canada, in the United States and
Europe. There are no ifs and buts about it: this bill should be
revised. In its present form, it contains too many aspects that are
inconsistent or poorly defined.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion moved
by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
[English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-53, the bill to create the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
This bill is designed to give legal status to the amalgamation
of five previous organizations: the Secretary of State, the
Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the
Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport, the Parks Canada
component of Environment Canada and the cultural
broadcasting and heritage components of the Department of
Communications.
This new department has functioned well over the past year
and reflects the government's commitment toward more
efficient and effective government. The Department of
Canadian Heritage lays the foundation for the promotion of
Canadian cultural heritage and identity which are important
sources of social and economic enrichment.
I wish to speak at this time on what I feel to be one of the most
important aspects of this legislation, the preservation of
Canada's national heritage.
As Canadians we value our freedom, our clean environment,
the breathtaking beauty of our natural scenery and the hard work
of those men and women who helped make this country what it is
today. With this in mind the proposed legislation intends to
preserve Canada's rich past and to stimulate a profound concern
for ensuring the survival of historic places, artefacts and
structures.
6862
Inasmuch as these areas and sites represent the very essence
of our identity as Canadians, so is the concern that our historic
legacy continues to be maintained and that we are motivated
to protect our natural resources and commemorate our historic
places.
The vast expanse of Canada's environment presents an
interesting array of terrestrial and marine ecosystems: the
Arctic tundra, the western mountains, the prairies, the
Precambrian Shield, the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific coasts. The
environment also includes places and landscapes associated
with our human heritage. These historic places, which represent
thousands of years of human history and encompass places of
work and worship, commerce and culture, evoke all our
aspirations and all our values.
For more than a century the Government of Canada has been
involved in protecting Canada's outstanding national areas and
in commemorating significant aspects of Canadian history. This
extensive experience has enabled Canada to be recognized
internationally as a world leader in the management of heritage.
Parks Canada as an integral part of the Department of
Canadian Heritage is committed to establishing an extensive
and comprehensive network of protected heritage areas that
fully represent Canada's natural and cultural heritage.
(1530 )
Canada's national parks system began in 1885 when 26 square
kilometres around mineral hot springs near Banff Station,
Alberta were set aside for public use. The Rocky Mountain Park
Act of 1887 defined the first parks as public park and pleasure
grounds for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people
of Canada.
In 1930 the National Parks Act dedicated the national parks to
the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment
and made provisions for their sustained enjoyment for future
generations.
In 1917 Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, was set
aside as a historic site, followed in 1919 by the establishment of
the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. These two
significant events set the ground for Canada's system of national
historic sites.
Following the second world war the Historic Sites and
Monuments Act of 1953 reflected the strong sense of national
purpose that was found in Canada. The act provided statutory
authority for the designation of natural historic sites as well as a
legislative basis for acquiring and contributing directly to the
care and preservation of these sites.
As Canadians we appreciate the beauty of the natural
environment and the richness of our history. Canadians share
this heritage with each other and welcome others to value,
respect and learn about it. We celebrate the rich heritage through
national historic sites, national parks, park preserves, heritage
railway stations, historic canals, marine conservation areas,
heritage rivers and federal heritage buildings as well as
historical markers.
These national symbols contribute to our Canadian identity in
numerous ways and it is for this reason that I eagerly await the
enactment of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
With this legislation Canadians can be assured of the future
preservation of Canada's illustrious past.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-53 today. This bill establishes
the Department of Canadian Heritage and amends and repeals
certain other acts. This bill also makes multiculturalism and the
official languages the responsibility of the new department.
That is the topic of my address today.
Let me start by repeating what we have already heard from
this side of the House. The Reform Party supports the rights of
citizens and private groups to preserve their cultural heritage
but the Reform Party wants them to do so using their own funds.
The Reform Party is opposed to using taxpayers' money to fund
multiculturalism.
I am opposed to Bill C-53 because it entrenches
multiculturalism, bilingualism and the financing of special
interest groups. I have no problem with different ethnic or
linguistic groups keeping their culture; I am all for it. As the
trade critic for the Reform Party I believe this kind of diversity
is one of Canada's strengths in this great country.
New immigrants and second and third generation Canadians
help Canada display an outward looking approach to business
and trade practices. They do so by maintaining linguistic,
cultural and family ties with other countries. Besides speaking
English and French, Canadians speak many aboriginal
languages, German, Ukrainian, Mandarin, Arabic, and
Norwegian, the language of my wife's ancestors.
That is great. I have no problems with this and I have no
problem with different groups maintaining organizations to
preserve their language and culture. I do not think that
government should get involved in the process.
In my riding of Peace River there is a strong Sons of Norway
organization which has been in place for 75 years and I have
some colleagues who know quite a bit about that. How did it
survive before multiculturalism? It did not need federal
government grants to survive. It did it on its own initiative.
My riding has a strong French population in the Falher area
which has been there since about 1912. These people kept their
language alive on their own before there were any federal
moneys available to them and they did so by their own hard
work.
6863
My riding has a German society and a Ukrainian group. All
of these organizations were doing fine before the federal
government started emptying its piggy bank.
(1535 )
My riding also has a Filipino association, an East Indian
cultural society and a Scottish society. I suspect that all of these
groups will survive very well on their own initiative and
according to their own needs when we abandon this very
divisive policy we have in place.
This whole multiculturalism process, and some would say not
a process but rather a mess, started just over 20 years ago with
the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Many
witnesses appearing before the commission appeared because
they wanted to protest the notion of two founding peoples and
two nations. They were right.
We in the Reform Party also reject this notion. Canada is a
very different country today than it was in 1867. Our new
Canada would be a country of 10 equal provinces all with the
same opportunities and rights, not one built on two founding
peoples.
After all, a country built on two founding peoples in 1867 did
not even recognize that the very first people here, the aboriginal
people, certainly should have fit into that category. It was
misguided from the very beginning. Before the English and
French came to this country Indians and Eskimos were the first
people here. We have seen several waves of immigration since.
We were all immigrants to this country at one time or another,
but we do not need the federal government to promote our
culture and languages. We can do it very well on our own.
At the time of the royal commission on bilingualism and
biculturalism, roughly 44 per cent of the population could claim
to be of British descent; 29 per cent could claim to be of French
descent; another 27 came from other ethnic backgrounds,
German, Italian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Polish, native Indian,
Chinese, Jewish or East Indian.
People who sprang from stock other than English and French
objected to the notion that these two were the most important
groups in Canada. They made the point that Canada is a mosaic
of people from many different ethnic and linguistic
backgrounds.
Prime Minister Trudeau announced the official
multiculturalism policy in 1971. Many people felt it was meant
to diffuse the concerns about official bilingualism in areas
where there was absolutely no need for a second language.
Multiculturalism started with a budget of $3.5 million. The
budget has since grown to $39 million. Of this almost $15
million is spent on community support; $5.5 million goes to
heritage cultures; and $6.5 million goes to race relations. Many
proponents of multiculturalism today point to race relations, the
last item, as being a worthy area of funding. I would agree.
Racism is a problem in Canada today and there is a role for the
federal government to play here. Racism is not a multicultural
issue. Race relations is the domain of the human rights
commissioner. It is so stated in the mandate of the Human Rights
Commission.
The Canadian government should not pay people to be
different. This leads to balkanization and divisiveness. Instead
of dissolving racism, multicultural funding emphasizes and
hardens it. Instead of diminishing separatist strategies,
multicultural funding further creates and encourages people to
be different.
I know it is not politically correct to state that I am against
public funding for multiculturalism but a lot of people in Canada
feel this way and they expect their representatives to express
their views publicly. These people are not racists or bigots. They
think that government has no role to play in funding special
interest groups and I totally agree with them. Culture cannot be
dictated or controlled by the state. Therefore, I am opposing Bill
C-53 proposed here today.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is certainly my pleasure to rise today in the House to speak on
Bill C-53, an act creating the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The purpose of the bill is to effect the establishment of the
Department of Canadian Heritage in statute and thereby amend
and repeal certain other acts.
The proclamation of the Department of Canadian Heritage
Act will be the culmination of a process that began more than a
year ago when the department of the day decided to proceed with
a wide ranging reorganization of federal government
departments. Passage of the bill will fulfil a number of technical
yet nonetheless important requirements.
(1540 )
First, it allows for the appointment of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and outlines the jurisdictions within which
he will exercise his powers and perform his duties and
responsibilities. The bill has been drafted so as to promote the
minister with the flexibility that will be needed to carry out
these responsibilities both now and in the future.
The legislation will also permit the government to assure the
status of the Canadian heritage employees and to formalize their
transition to a new department. The entire process is consistent
with the government's commitment to its employees and
respects the principles of existing workforce adjustment policy.
In short, the bill will give the department the legitimate basis
it requires to assume the rightful share of the responsibility for
implementing the mandate given to the government by the
people of Canada.
6864
Broadly speaking, the Canadian heritage minister will work
for the betterment of our country in matters relating to
Canadian identity and values, cultural development, heritage
and areas of natural and historical significance for the nation.
Much has been said about the diversity and complexity of the
new department that Bill C-53 will start. Certainly it reflects the
richness of the activities and the fact that the new department
comprises programs from the former and existing departments,
namely the Secretary of State, Communications Canada,
Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Environment Canada and
Fitness and Amateur Sport.
It is easy for some to claim that the department's program
areas are disparate and ill matched but this is a superficial
assessment. A closer examination will reveal that the
department's principal sectors have much in common. Chiefly,
they will work together in support of its primary objective which
is to enhance our sense of Canadian identity and to encourage
the contribution of all segments of society to the growth and
vitality of Canadian culture.
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 over-arching
objective and therefore with the comprehensive review of the
federal government's objectives now under way.
For those who value the bottom line, they will take comfort in
the knowledge that for 1993-94 the Canadian heritage portfolio
appropriations total $2.97 billion, a reduction from the previous
year by some $76.1 million. In addition to these actual savings
in money, there will be other longer term efficiencies realized
through the regrouping of areas of responsibilities from the
various departments through strengthening the linkages
between program areas and through the elimination of
duplication.
The government appreciates that there are some concerns
about the decision to divide the responsibility for broadcasting
and telecommunications between Canadian heritage and
Industry Canada. There are many valid reasons for so doing. The
inclusion of telecommunications in the Department of
Industry's portfolio recognizes the increasing role of
telecommunications as an important economic generator in the
Canadian economy.
On the other hand, broadcasting is more closely related with
the identity and cultural Canadian content mandate of Canadian
heritage. Strong co-ordination and liaison exists between the
departments to ensure that effective management of these two
sectors are compatible and will work out well.
In light of responsibilities and the program areas gathered
within the Department of Canadian Heritage, the government
believes that the passage of Bill C-53 will have far reaching and
enduring positive benefits for all Canadians. We are all
confident that a detailed examination of the bill by the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage will clearly show this to be the
case.
(1545 )
As a society, culture is very important. We are made up of a
diverse people. We have two founding nations. We have
diversity with the First Nations. Culture is an expression of the
Canadian identity. It connects us with our past and projects to
our future. It makes for a better life and allows people to express
themselves. Therefore I am glad to be here and to participate in
this discussion.
It is very important that we use new ideas, innovative
approaches, cost saving techniques, yet respect the rights of the
workers and see that we have some mechanism to make sure
they can fit within the department or be trained for something
new.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, B.Q.):
Madam Speaker, Bill C-53 is aimed at establishing a department
which would have the following duties, as stated in clause 5, and
I quote:
[-] initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national
policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and values,
cultural development, heritage [-]
This bill is unacceptable because it definitely infringes upon
an area of responsibility that which must remain under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. It fails to recognize the distinctiveness
of Quebec society and provides none of the guarantees required
to protect the francophone and Acadian communities in Canada.
René Lévesque, the former Premier of Quebec, used to
describe Quebec society as two nations within the same country.
This means we are in fact dealing with two majorities, two
complete and separate societies trying to get along within a
common framework. The fact that we were made into a minority
from a numerical point of view does not change a thing. Just as a
civilized society will never force a smaller man to feel inferior
to a larger one, civilized relations between nations demand that
nations consider and treat each other as equals in law and in fact.
What matters today and for the future it that we realize every
day more clearly on both sides that this answer has had its day
but now a drastic revision of the bill or a completely new bill is
urgently required.
The people of Quebec must preserve their collective
personality and, to do so, they need unfettered powers,
particularly in the areas of cultural rights and
telecommunications.
This bill enables the federal government to interfere with
cultural issues, because it has the power to make expenditures
without the consent of the provinces. This bill fails to recognize the
distinctiveness of Quebec society. Quebec is prevented from
setting its own priorities, as the federal government sets the budget
and makes decisions regarding the distribution of federal
6865
assistance without taking into consideration the basic needs of
Quebecers.
A similar line of reasoning culminated in the 1976 white
paper by Dr. Camille Laurin-who was again reelected in the
riding of Bourget-and became the Quebec policy on cultural
development. During its first mandate, the Lévesque
government demonstrated that Quebec could support its own
cultural development. In a context of political and economic
subordination, the cultural life of a people is weakened.
On October 12, in Paris, the federal Minister of Foreign
Affairs said that culture will become one of the priorities of the
Canadian foreign policy. The daily Le Devoir, in its edition of
October 13, 1994, mentioned the meddling of the federal
government: «Cultural relations will be, along with political and
economic affairs, one of three pillars of the Canadian foreign
policy, that the joint committee of the House of Commons and
the Senate has been mandated to review».
(1550)
The cultural services of the Canadian embassy in Paris will
benefit greatly from this change of direction. In this case,
Ottawa is making a complete turn around. We know that
Conservatives had decided to sell the large building the embassy
is using on the Esplanade des Invalides, in Paris. The Liberals
have now decided to give the building a new lease on life. The
other federal institutions currently leasing offices in Paris, like
Telefilm Canada and NFB, will move out of their present
accommodations and into this building.
This is only a first step. Next year, the building, probably
worth $30 million, will be renovated from top to bottom. The
improvements will cost approximately $2 million.
This recent example shows that the federal government is
trying to dilute Quebec culture in a pan-Canadian cultural
identity based on bilingualism and multiculturalism.
In the past, every Quebec government, even the Liberals,
claimed exclusive power over cultural matters. Why such
useless overlapping? Overlapping jurisdiction in the
management of cultural programs automatically leads to
confusion and dissatisfaction.
In 1992, Mrs. Liza Frulla, the Quebec Minister of Cultural
Affairs in the former Liberal government, said this to the
Standing Committee on Culture: ``Federal programs are
developed in an essentially Canadian perspective. Quebec must
constantly be on guard to ensure that it gets and keeps its fair
share. The same is true of federal legislation and regulations.
The CRTC ruling on French song quotas in broadcasting and
ongoing negotiations regarding the federal bill on the status of
the artist are cases in point''.
During this period of recession, Canadian taxpayers must pay
tremendous amounts of money to maintain this overlapping
jurisdiction over cultural matters. The Bloc Quebecois is
committed to honouring Quebec's cultural priorities.
First, the Bloc Quebecois will make sure that federal actions
are consistent with the main orientations of Quebec culture.
Second, the Bloc Quebecois will also demand that Quebec
receive its fair share of federal spending on the major cultural
institutions, such as the museums, the National Film Board and
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Third, the Bloc
Quebecois will also make sure that cuts at the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation do not have a negative impact on the
French network and, in particular, on Quebec artists. Fourth, the
Bloc Quebecois will also ensure that the Quebec cultural milieu
receives its fair share of grants from federally subsidized
organizations, such as the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada,
as well as program resource envelopes.
The arts, culture, heritage and communications must be the
four cornerstones of Quebec's cultural policy. The ultimate goal
of this policy must be to ensure the development of Quebec's
cultural and social identity through the introduction of
conditions conducive to artistic creation. Our goal must be the
distribution of creators' works, access by individuals to culture,
the growth of cultural industries, the preservation of our
heritage, and finally the development of communications.
On March 14, 1994, La Presse reported that a recent Gallup
poll asking Canadians their opinion of bilingualism found that a
small majority of them, 54 per cent, thought that official
bilingualism had been a failure in Canada.
I will conclude with René Lévesque's thoughts on what it
means to be a Quebecer. In his view it means, above all else, and
indeed on occasion to the exclusion of all else, that we have an
attachment to this particular corner of the world, the only one
where we can be fully ourselves, and that we know in our hearts
that Quebec is truly the only place we can call home.
Being ourselves, according to the former premier of Quebec,
consists essentially in maintaining and developing a personality
that has lasted for three and a half centuries.
(1555)
We cannot enforce this vital difference. That has not been
possible for some time now.
For all these reasons, I support the motion by my hon.
colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata proposing the
following amendment:
6866
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word ``That'' and
substituting the following: ``Bill C-53, An Act to establish the Department of Canadian
Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other Acts, be not now read a second time
[-]''
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate on the bill to
create the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The proposed legislation is a technical measure that officially
recognizes a departmental structure that combines official
languages, Canadian studies, native programs and state
ceremonials from the former Department of Secretary of State
of Canada. It combines arts, heritage, cultural and broadcasting
responsibilities from the Department of Communications. It
brings in multiculturalism programs from the Department of
Multiculturalism and Citizenship, amateur sports from the
Department of Health and Welfare Canada and Parks Canada
from the Department of the Environment.
At this juncture in our nation's history, with forces that are
trying to dismantle this entity we call Canada, and with
technology changing the borders of the world, combined with
the increasing diversity of our population at the same time that
dramatic changes are occurring within mature economies
throughout the world, I feel it more important than ever to have a
department such as Canadian heritage.
The department, although only a year old, has already begun
to face up to the dramatic changes that Canadians are facing.
The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism has already
recognized the daunting task of nation building in a culturally
diverse nation, reconciling that cultural diversity with national
identity and the overwhelming need to maintain national unity.
Another important aspect of the new department is
development of both cultural and heritage property. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage recognizes the importance of
new technologies and the burgeoning information highway. The
minister also understands that this information explosion will
have important ramifications for Canadian artists.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is of the utmost
significance to Canadians. Its programs are inextricably linked
to our everyday lives and their relevance, be it cultural or
economic, is felt by each and every one of us.
I believe that the new department embodies the democratic
principles that are inherently Canadian. Canada is a nation
forged on the principles of respect for and use of its two major
languages, of respect for cultural diversity, of respect for the
traditions and contributions of its aboriginal citizens and the
fundamental underlying respect for basic human rights and
values.
Another major sector of the department which should not be
forgotten is Parks Canada. Parks Canada commemorates,
protects and presents, 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.
The economic activity in tourism generated by the
department's operations are of significance to many local
economies throughout the nation. Our parks service has been at
the forefront of efforts for innovative partnership arrangements
with private and not for profit enterprises in carrying out its
mandated responsibilities.
In closing, the Department of Canadian Heritage
encompasses elements that set us apart from the rest of the world
with wide ranging concepts that are truly Canadian: cultural
development, official languages, multiculturalism, and human
rights.
With these principles in mind, I eagerly anticipate the
enactment of this legislation.
(1600 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
to speak on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts.
On October 18, 1994, as we are about to celebrate or lament
the first anniversary of the election, because that was when the
Liberal government came to power, we have to take a look and
say: ``What is this Liberal government trying to do?'' Here we
are 12 months after the election, the first time that the Liberals
have been in power after nine years. We would have thought that
they were bursting at the seams with new ideas, new policies and
new philosophies to get this country back on track, bring the
deficit under control, create jobs in this country and we find that
we have another of a long list of reorganizations that was started
by the previous Prime Minister who led a party that is no longer
even represented in this House. We can only assume how well
the Canadian people endorsed the idea.
Let me just quote Bill C-46, reorganization of the Department
of Industry, Science and Technology to change its name to the
Department of Industry; Bill C-47, reorganization of the
Department of External Affairs into the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade; Bill C-48, reorganization of the
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the Department
of Forestry and Department of Natural Resources; Bill C-49,
reorganization of the Department of Agriculture into the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food; Bill C-52,
reorganization of the Department of Public Works into the
Department of Public Works and Government Services; and now
we have Bill C-53; a long list but not I am afraid an impressive
list from a government that in its first year we would have
thought would bring forward some serious policy.
6867
As I mentioned these are strictly holdovers from the previous
government. I would like to ask the government of the day, the
Prime Minister of the day and all these ministers of the day
when we are really going to get down to the business of running
this country. The next election is going to be looming long
before the 1997 date that we had anticipated if they keep up
this speed.
The hon. Minister of Finance as we speak is talking about his
new paper, creating a healthy fiscal climate and economic and
fiscal update. Yet all the other ministers can talk about is
reorganization and renaming their departments.
We really do want to attack this gross budget deficit that we
have and the horrendous debt that we have accrued. I read in the
transitional part of the bill, clause 9(1), that nothing in this act
shall be construed as affecting the status of an employee who
immediately before the coming into force of this subsection
occupied in essence any other position in all these other
departments that are being renamed.
We have gone through all this for nothing, just simply
nothing. There is no effort, attempt, or serious recognition by
these departments. If they are going to reorganize surely this
would be the time when they would seriously review everything
that is being done by their departments.
The Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a
document a couple of weeks ago telling us how he was going to
review all the programs by the department under his control.
What did we end up with? It was hardly even rated a discussion
paper as Canadians still wait for the government to produce
serious policy on how it is going to handle the reorganization of
the major programs that we give to Canadians. As we speak, as I
mentioned, the Minister of Finance has given us another fluffy
warm statement that contains nothing, just nothing, about what
he is going to do to accomplish his timid objective of bringing
the debt down to $25 billion by 1996-1997. I have to admit I am
at a loss that this government cannot do more.
(1605)
The previous speaker talked about the great and wonderful
things this department is doing. One of them of course is (a)
under clause 2, the promotion of a greater understanding of
human rights, fundamental freedoms, and related values. The
Minister of Justice under his Bill C-41 wants to bring hate
crimes or sections of our community that many people find
abhorrent. We are not going to protect them with additional
rights because the Minister of Justice wants to bring in these.
I am questioning why the Minister of Canadian Heritage is
also responsible for doing the same thing. How many civil
servants are thinking and working and spending our taxpayers'
dollars trying to bring forth policies that Canadian taxpayers do
not want?
Next is (b), multiculturalism. We in the Reform Party say that
a Canadian is a Canadian and is equal from coast to coast. With
this policy of multiculturalism the government feeds and
channels large amounts of money to individual groups in our
society to keep us separate and apart, yet at the same time
hoping we will all come together. I find this mind boggling. If
we can offer any advice to this government then surely it would
be to abolish this whole idea of multiculturalism and start
talking about Canadians being equal from coast to coast.
Everybody is the same.
It goes on to the arts including the cultural aspects. These are
nothing new and surely we could review and save many millions
of dollars.
The public accounts were tabled this morning. I have not had
time to go through them. I will. I have not had the time. I have
had only had a few hours and there is a large amount of money,
$165 billion, spent by this government last year. We will be
going through that. We will find there are many instances where
this government is wasting taxpayers' money ad infinitum. We
can quite easily tell the Minister of Finance where he could cut.
I remember several months ago in this House we raised the
point that the Department of Heritage gave a $10 million
grant-I beg your pardon, it was a smaller grant-to a
conference in Vancouver that was racist. Because of the fact that
we raised the issue the minister of heritage withdrew the grant.
We are paying these ministers to do the job and I do not think
they are doing the job. They bring no policy. They bring no fresh
ideas. Therefore I find that this whole idea of reorganization to
accomplish nothing is totally abhorrent and a waste of
taxpayers' money.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
in this debate today on Bill C-53 to create the Department of
Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
I must say that I certainly do not agree with what I have heard
the Bloc Quebecois members say earlier today. It may come as
no surprise to you, but allegations were made to the effect that,
by amalgamating three or four departments into a single one, the
federal government was attacking provincial powers. That is
nonsense! As if it made a difference to have one minister
accountable for three or four departments instead of one
Secretary of State and different ministers, in terms of attacking
these powers. That is absurd! And the people of Canada,
particularly those living in Quebec who have heard these
remarks made by Bloc Quebecois members, must know the
truth. They must be told that what these members said is not
true. I have to use parliamentary language even if I disagree with
my colleagues opposite.
6868
(1610)
[English]
I have also heard the Reform Party say that it is wrong to
group those ministries together in an effort to save taxpayers'
dollars. I really do not understand the logic of the Reform Party
on this one. Of course that is true of most things Reformers.
The Prime Minister reduced the size of cabinet. I remember
there were as many as 44 ministers in the last cabinet. There
were so many of them that the area outside the west door looked
like a used car lot with all the limousines there. Our Prime
Minister cleaned that up. When he was sworn into office he
named 22 ministers. He cut it down to size. When you cut it
down to size you have to unite the departments under one
minister in an effort to save money. That is what the Prime
Minister did.
The people in the Reform Party pretend to be frugal. I know
that sometimes when you pretend to be frugal there are
allowances that make it otherwise. Shall I say that sometimes
the suit is a little different from the reality in that particular
party.
The fact still remains that the Prime Minister produced very
positive initiatives.
[Translation]
We have cut spending. We have cancelled projects, although
we have not yet been able to get rid of the aircraft bought by Mr.
Mulroney, the former Prime Minister. We have implemented the
Gagliano plan to cut costs here in the House of Commons. And
the list goes on. Just today, as we speak, the Minister of Finance
is indicating ways by which further savings could be made.
[English]
There are the people across the way who say that this is an
attack on provincial autonomy or some such thing. That is the
usual diatribe as indicated very eloquently by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister in her usual forthrightness and
eloquence. She indicates of course that this is complete and utter
nonsense. How correct she is. We do need a Department of
Canadian Heritage.
I want to tell members something. Last week I had a meeting
in my riding with a group of constituents in an effort to preserve
what is known as the Sir John Johnson manor home. Sir John
Johnson is one of the pioneers of this country. His body is buried
in the eastern townships of Quebec. He was the leader of the
United Empire Loyalists who came to Upper Canada from the
Mohawk Valley of New York in 1784. He brought with him the
community known as the United Empire Loyalist refugees.
Remember the word refugees. That is what they were known as
then.
Today the Department of Heritage owns that building, the
building of one of the founders of this country. You certainly
could call Sir John Johnson the founder of Ontario without
contradiction. After all he established a colony there in 1784.
He personally owned lands in that area. The John Johnson manor
home belongs to the Department of Canadian Heritage through
what used to be known as Environment Canada Parks Service.
That has been amalgamated into that department.
We had a meeting the other day with officials of that
department, recognizing the budgetary constraints, to see what
we could do to bring the community together with Heritage
Canada to save that structure. What do we get from people in the
people across the way? People in the Reform Party say that a
national treasure like that should presumably be disposed of and
the people in the Bloc Quebecois say there is no role at all for the
federal government to preserve national heritage and significant
sites.
I see them nodding in approval as if there were no such things
as founders of Canada. They have a lot to learn. I suggest they
spend some time in my constituency, or in their own, speaking to
constituents who know better, who know the truth. They know
that the national historic sites belong to all of us as Canadians. I
feel there is a role for the Government of Canada in this kind of
thing.
(1615)
At any rate, the people of Canada through their government
already own these assets.
[Translation]
And the same holds true for Fort Frontenac and other
structures elsewhere in Ontario and Canada, monuments and
historical sites that belong to the people of this country through
the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I cannot understand and never will understand this attitude of
the hon. members opposite, the Reform Party extremists who
advocate getting rid of everything because the people of Canada
are not entitled to their heritage, their buildings, their
monuments, as well as those from the Bloc Quebecois who
claim that Canada no longer exists as we speak.
No, I disagree with both positions held across the way. I for
one am very attached to the history and heritage of our country.
As the member of Parliament for Glengarry, this high place of
Canadian history, I must at least be an amateur historian. That is
part of the heritage of my riding.
[English]
It is the heritage of the great people of that area. I see
Canadians of Scottish origin who came to Glengarry, and the
mix they have had with the French Canadians who came shortly
afterwards, and also the Irish who came in the 1840s and 1850s.
Those three groups together created the area which I now have
the honour and privilege to represent.
6869
The parliamentary secretary just said very eloquently: ``That
is what Canada is all about''. She is right.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, B.Q.):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill to
establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
On reading the bill, I felt that I sensed Pierre Elliott Trudeau's
ghost reading over my shoulder. This bill contains everything
that has characterized Canada's federal system, especially since
the Trudeau years. First of all, Quebec's identity is diluted. At
the same time, an effort is made to create a culture and a heritage
that exist nowhere but in the minds of those who created this
artificial federal country, Canada.
The bill says that the Department of Canadian Heritage was
created to instill in Canadians a deep feeling of identity and
belonging based on bilingualism and multiculturalism. Well,
there is quite a long way to go.
Here are a few statistics on bilingualism, because you might
have lovely images, high-sounding speeches, but there is
nothing like reality to help you understand. Statistics Canada's
figures, which should not be challenged by the government or
other interested parties, show the assimilation rate of
francophones in Newfoundland was 24.7 per cent in 1986 and
55.3 per cent in 1991. What a success! In Prince Edward Island,
it was 42.6 per cent in 1986 and 47.6 per cent in 1991, an
increase of 5 per cent. These are signs that bilingualism, at least
the model that has been proposed, has not worked very well.
I shall give another example. In Nova Scotia, the assimilation
rate was 31.8 per cent in 1986 and 41.1 per cent in 1991, an
increase of 9.3 per cent. At that rate, in the time it takes to create
the Department of Canadian Heritage, there will be no
French-speaking minority left in the rest of Canada.
The second element is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism,
which is as difficult to pronounce as it is to understand, is a
product of the thinking of the Trudeau years.
(1620)
To support this statement, I will quote Claude Corbeau, the
rector at the University of Quebec in Montreal, who does not
boast about being a Quebec separatist. In his policy report, he
said that ``multiculturalism may marginalize Quebec's
identity''. This is a rector at a Quebec university who
popularized a certain image of Quebec's culture and reality.
His reasoning is not so hard to understand. Let us look at the
areas that will come under the purview of Canadian Heritage.
This is duplication country. On that there can be no compromise
from Quebec. These are not minor sectors; they are of vital
importance to Quebec.
The arts, heritage, culture, broadcasting are all in there. These
sectors are not purely economic. It is a matter of survival. In
broadcasting, for example, Quebec even created Radio-Québec,
not yesterday but in the 1940s under Duplessis. Since then, we
had to fight for every inch, while the Supreme Court, which
always leans on the same side, kept telling us that we had no
control over this important cultural element.
Culture gives us another good example of duplication, as we
have two stakeholders in cultural matters in one country. We
heard earlier the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tell us about the Canadian people
and therein lies the problem. As long as we do not recognize that
the Canadian Confederation was founded by at least two peoples
and by the Natives who were here before us, as long as we do not
recognize the equal value and contribution of these founding
peoples, we are developing what I would call an utopia, the
utopia of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Try to find
another country in the world where you have to qualify the word
``heritage'' by adding ``Canadian''.
Have you heard about the department of Norwegian or
Swedish heritage? A simple, normal, natural country would not
feel the need to add anything to ``department of heritage'' as it
should be understood that it is that country's heritage. The
problem is that, in Canada, people never realized that there are
in fact two countries.
There is another provision explaining the department's role. It
says that the department is to develop and offer programs which
support a strong sense of identity among Canadians. But you
cannot force a sense of identity on people. Let me give you a few
examples which show why Quebec cannot really identify with
the rest of the country.
During the war, when the referendum on conscription was
held, 96 per cent of voters in my riding of Kamouraska opposed
that measure. That response pretty well reflected the overall
results for French-speaking people in Quebec. In spite of that
strong opposition, the federal government went ahead and
imposed conscription. You will have to talk about Canadian
heritage for a long time and show pictures of those who died
overseas before you can convince us, considering that we did not
even want to go to war. This is not to say that we overlook the
contribution made by veterans, but the fact is that this episode
deeply affected people.
There is another episode which also deeply affected people. In
this case, it is the Liberals and in particular the current Prime
Minister who are responsible. I am referring to the 1982
unilateral patriation of the Constitution.
The government can say what it wants about a department
established to promote a strong sense of identity among
Canadians, it can try to force it upon us, but this will not work.
As long as we are not accepted for who we are and as long as our
6870
signature does not appear on the Constitution, the government
cannot expect us to promote Canadian heritage.
Let me give you one last example which is of particular
interest to me. In the seventies, the community of Forillon was
expropriated to create a federal park. Today, that park is a good
tourist attraction for the region, but I can tell you that back in the
seventies, those who were forced to move did not develop a
strong sense of Canadian identity, nor would they have seen the
need to establish a department with such a mandate.
There are plenty of sectors which relate to the French reality
in Quebec and in North America.
(1625)
We cannot be forced to accept that as a model for all of
Canada. Quebec has its own identity, which must be recognized
by Quebekers, by Canadians and by our society as a whole
because of our decent contribution to it.
To conclude, we are against the establishment of a Canadian
Heritage Department because this would be a constant negation
of the exclusive jurisdiction needed by Quebec to ensure its own
cultural, economic and social development. In order for Quebec
to contribute to the richness of North American life, its needs
must be met. As long as the Canadian government does not
recognize and acknowledge this reality, francophones in North
America will continue to insist on ensuring their survival.
Today, the proposed Canadian Heritage Department is yet
another proof for Quebecers that the only way to ensure their
development is to have their own country.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak on this bill to establish the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
This is a technical piece of legislation that formalizes the
structure and the sharing of departmental responsibilities
implemented when our government took over.
However, as several of the previous speakers pointed out, this
bill refers to fundamental areas over which, within the federal
government, the minister will have jurisdiction. These areas
include, for example, culture, national identity, official
languages, national parks, multiculturalism, etc. During the few
minutes I have, I want to address one of these areas, the issue of
culture.
Some of our colleagues opposite are questioning the
legitimacy of the role played by the Canadian government where
our culture and our cultural development are concerned. By
arguing that the federal role is not legitimate, they are
questioning the bill's rationale. Unlike them, I believe that this
role is crucial and has been tremendously beneficial to our
country and all the regions, especially Quebec.
Culture is not an exclusive jurisdiction; it belongs to
everyone. In this sense, and despite all the constitutional
exegesis put forward by the Official Opposition, the Act of 1867
does not give one level of government more jurisdiction over
culture than the other.
Cultural development concerns the provinces; it concerns the
federal government; it concerns all municipalities, professional
groups, the creators themselves of course, as well as the cultural
businesses, the volunteers and the private sector. Finally,
culture is also a question of individual choice, because if each
and every one of us is the product of a specified cultural
environment, the creation of a work of art, just like the decision
to appreciate this work of art, to read it, to listen to it, to watch it,
always results, in fact, from an individual choice.
I sincerely believe that, in order to offer a vast, fair and wide
array of choices, we need a large number of cultural
development officers and governments which play their roles.
The goal of the federal government in this area is to ensure that
the Canadian artists, creators and cultural businesses can work
and that Canadian citizens have access to their productions.
One of the great ironies of this debate in which the opposition
forces us to engage is that some people feel that we have to
apologize for having public policy objectives that are so
normal-to use an adjective of which the opposition is very
fond-for there is nothing in these objectives that is
unacceptable or threatening to anybody, especially not to the
province of Quebec.
It is also ridiculous that we should have to defend ourselves
against allegations that we are ignoring the cultural
distinctiveness of Quebec or of other regions in our country.
Ottawa plots Quebec's cultural demise? This could have come
from the Union nationale in the Duplessis years. By the way,
Duplessis had nothing but contempt for culture.
(1630)
The federal government, an agent of cultural standardization
imposed by a ruling group against the wishes of the powerless?
These sound like the cries of a people oppressed by one of those
totalitarian regimes recently condemned by history. The
Department of Canadian Heritage, a machine used to create an
official culture? If it were true, we would all be trembling,
starting with the creators of this country who do not seem to see
this as a serious threat. If we look closely at this issue, how can
we sum up the federal government's intervention in cultural
matters over the few decades in which it has played an active
role in this area?
The fact is that several generations of creators and performers
from Quebec have produced and presented their work to the
public through institutions created, managed or funded by the
federal government. Let us just mention Radio-Canada, the
Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, the
National Arts Centre or the department whose minister is
6871
responsible for these institutions before the House, namely the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
As far as I know, half a century of efforts by those institutions,
of support and assistance programs for artists, publishers,
museums, producers and the sound recording industry did not
hinder the profound originality of artists in Quebec, on the
contrary. Those efforts nurtured and developed their creativity,
and their works gained exposure not only in Quebec, but also in
the rest of Canada and abroad. In short, those programs and
institutions have been important contributing factors in the
cultural vitality of Quebec, and all Canada can be proud of that.
The works of the likes of Michel Tremblay, Jacques Godbout
and Denys Arcand did not lose any of their Quebecois identity
for that. It is absurd, sad and distressing that our colleagues
across the way cannot understand that what is done in Quebec
can also be considered Canadian.
Of course, the federal government must look after
Canada-wide, interprovincial and international aspects, but that
responsibility complements those of other levels of
government. In reality, except in sectors where it has a clear
constitutional jurisdiction, like copyright, federal action is
limited to cultural products with an interprovincial or
international scope like broadcasting. The federal government
is also active in the promotion and sharing of cultural treasures
outside provincial or national boundaries.
For art lovers, the names of Emily Carr, Alex Colville, Tom
Thomson, Geneviève Cadieux and Jean-Paul Lemieux bring to
mind landmark works that gained international recognition.
Should we be satisfied with saying that one belongs strictly to
British Columbia, the second only to Nova Scotia, the third to
Ontario alone and the last two to Quebec? They are also
Canadian artists.
That is why Canada created the National Gallery and supports
a country-wide network of museums and museum-related
institutions. That is why Canada encourages artists to attend
schools of higher learning like the National Theatre School of
Canada and that is why Canada supports artists who get to
perform across Canada and abroad and who even reach
international fame.
(1635)
In a world-wide marketplace where artistic recognition as
well as economic profitability is often decided abroad, the
Canadian government has a mission to accomplish. The
international free trade negotiations gave us a good example of
the role played by our country and of the complementarity
between this role and that of other levels of government.
When it negotiated the cultural exemption in the free trade
agreements with the United States and Mexico, Canada not only
assumed its responsibility but also maintained the
responsibilities of the provinces towards their own artists and
cultural industries.
Therefore, I would say that the Department of Canadian
Heritage is a basic institution if we are to carry on with our
cultural development which has given such excellent results
until now and which should be sustained by the federal
government and the provinces. If we do not provide ourselves
with the necessary tools to carry on this mission, we are
virtually abandoning a responsibility which has proven to be a
most profitable one for Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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
Honourable Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr.
Ménard)-Defence Industry Conversion.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-53. I do so
for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the inclusion of
a royal recommendation.
This provision allows the government to spend money
implementing the bill. If the bill is meant to streamline
government operations, why is there a need to spend money in
order to save money? How much will this cost and will it really
save tax dollars? We do not have the answers to these important
questions. These are vital matters for future debate.
I have chosen today to focus my remarks specifically on how
the bill relates to official languages. I would like to preface my
comments by clearly stating that the Reform Party in no way
discourages individual bilingualism. Unfortunately the bill will
legislatively entrench something we do not believe in. I am
speaking of the holus-bolus financing of any group which
claims to have as its mandate the furthering of official languages
in Canada.
While we support the efforts of these groups, we believe they
should be self-financing. With health care, unemployment and
welfare programs in jeopardy due to a lack of funds, how can we
continue to spend millions promoting something as divisive to
Canadians as official languages?
This year alone the Ministry of Canadian Heritage is poised to
give away over $31 million of hard earned taxpayers' money to
these special interest groups. Not only are many of the grants of
questionable value, the real travesty is that there is no way of
determining how the money is used.
6872
The government appointed watchdog of official languages
programs and policies is the Standing Joint Committee on
Official Languages, which meeting I just left to attend this one.
However that committee has openly stated that its mandate does
not include spending. In fact the committee has twice voted
down motions which would have resulted in comprehensive
studies on how much money, such as these grants, is actually
being used.
This brings me to section 88 of the Official Languages Act
which will be amended by this bill. This section refers Ministry
of Canadian Heritage reports, including spending estimates, to
the standing joint committee for review. As I have already
stated, this committee has neither the will nor the intestinal
fortitude to conduct any meaningful review.
(1640)
I make this statement not out of any sense of malice toward
the committee but because of what I experienced during my time
in it.
For example, when I proposed a motion to study all official
languages' spending, I was greeted with scorn and distrust. To
quote one of the hon. Liberal members, ``This
motion''-meaning Ringma's motion-``is inflammatory and
illegal and it calls national unity into question. The member
should be ashamed of acting like this and trying to divide the
country''. What nonsense.
I have sat on this committee since its formation under the
auspices of the 35th Parliament. It has only issued one brief
report to Parliament, which was more of a summary than a
report, and it has not submitted even one recommendation to the
House. In fact, my research shows it did not issue a single
recommendation during its last two years under the 34th
Parliament.
Given these facts, I have to ask how we can even consider
legislatively entrenching such an important duty to a committee
that is really more of a lapdog than a watchdog.
Another area of concern is the ministry's mandate for official
languages as spelled out in the bill we are discussing. The
mandate calls for the advancement of the equality of status and
use of English and French. Under this mandate the ministry will
spend $245 million this year on official languages in education.
The constitutions of 1867 and 1982 clearly state that education
is a provincial responsibility. Why then is this ministry spending
a quarter of a billion dollars in this area of provincial
jurisdiction?
Similarly, the ministry will spend $65 million to promote
official languages. Again I have to ask: Why? When programs
like old age pension, unemployment insurance, welfare and
health are under constant attack due to a lack of funding, why is
the government placing such a high priority on spending in areas
where it has no jurisdiction?
The government has shown it cannot even handle the areas
where it has responsibilities. Why on earth is it looking for ways
to spend money it does not have in areas where it does not
belong?
The biennial assembly, or convention if you will, of the
Reform Party which was held here in Ottawa a few days ago
passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the Official
Languages Act. At the same time, it passed another resolution
which would give responsibility for language and culture to the
provinces. We believe this arrangement would be practical and
would get the federal government out of the business of
promoting languages.
The federal government has a responsibility for language
equality clearly expressed in the Constitution, in section 133 of
the BNA act and in sections 16 through 23 of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Let the central government exercise its
responsibilities under the Constitution. Let the provinces and
special interest groups do whatever promotion of whatever
language they want without a subsidy from Ottawa.
Reform supports freedom of speech, not comprehensive
language legislation. Reform recognizes that the linguistic
reality in Canada is that French is predominant in Quebec and
English is predominant elsewhere. We support the philosophy of
territorial bilingualism which will recognize this reality.
(1645 )
Reform believes all Canadians are equal and oppose funding
of special interest groups which are claiming distinct status. As I
said, we endorse individual bilingualism and extend this to
languages other than French or English in recognition of the fact
that over 12 million Canadians are of an origin which is neither
French nor English. These other languages also give Canada
strength and character.
Other than the constitution, if Canada needs other language
policies these should be decided upon by the people as a whole
and not by an elite here in Ottawa.
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this bill confirms
the structure of the Department of Canadian Heritage and brings
together the various components that promote our national
identity. My colleagues who have already taken part in this
debate have well established the importance of this grouping to
the new Department of Canadian Heritage.
Personally, I think that it will be a useful tool that will allow
us to face the new realities and new challenges of the Canadian
society. One of these major realities is the multicultural nature
of Canada which is evolving very quickly.
According to the 1991 census, no less than 42 per centof Canadians say that at least one of their parents is neither
French nor English. In fact, in all major urban centres in
6873
the western part of Montreal, for example, a majority of the
population is neither French nor English. It is expected that, by
the year 2000, the percentage of Canadians from visible
minorities will go from 13 to 18 per cent.
Some even maintain that this percentage could reach up to 50
per cent in Toronto. This rapid growth of Canadian diversity
raises deep challenges that our society will have to face very
quickly.
There is no question that Canada is a land of welcome and that
our country provides a peace and a security that are seldom seen
elsewhere.
Finally, we recognize that Canada is a country of openness
and opportunity which millions and millions of people all over
the world only dream about. We have the chance to live in this
country and we are fully committed to its continued economic
and social development.
We must avoid conflicts and maintain social harmony. That
can only be achieved by defining wise policies based on the
equality of every Canadian. Better still, we must ensure that all
Canadians, whatever their origin or religion, can participate and
fully contribute to the life in our society. We must make more
efforts to develop policies that are well adjusted to Canadian
diversity.
I believe that all the members in this House understand why
Canada is a country that foreigners wished they lived in.
Sometimes, some people do not seem to understand how we all
benefit from the numerous cultures that the people who chose to
live here bring with them. Too often, we understand
multiculturalism in terms of ethnic food, and the folkloric
dances and customs of the various ethno-cultural communities.
There is much more than that. Thousands and thousands of
immigrants have developed the resources of this country. They
have colonized vast territories and they have helped to build our
cities.
(1650)
Most Canadian regions have inherited the characteristics of
various cultural groups. This diversity gave a unique character
to the Canadian identity and to our culture. Canadian
multiculturalism has two main characteristics. It encourages
Canadian citizens to contribute actively to our society in either
of our official languages.
Multiculturalism also encourages us to eliminate the barriers
to a full and equal participation. Teaching of heritage languages,
supporting artists in ethno-cultural communities and the
promoting of transcultural activities are initiatives that help
develop cultural harmony in our country. We acknowledge the
fact that the roots of every citizen play an important part in his or
her identity.
In Canada, no one is forced to forget his culture to be
welcome. This is what makes Canadians a unique people. While
acknowledging that our roots constitute an important part of our
identity, Canadian multiculturalism is calling on us to commit
ourselves to Canada. It respects the cultural identity of every
citizen, it encourages creativity and intercultural exchanges.
Multiculturalism helps us to become aware of our duties but
also of our responsibilities towards society. The
multiculturalism program will now become very logically a part
of the Department of Canadian Heritage. I must pay tribute to
my colleague, the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
and member for Mount Royal, for the outstanding job she is
doing, building bridges between the ethno-cultural
communities and the rest of the Canadian society.
I admit that we are all taken aback at one time or another when
we see how quickly the face of this country is changing. All too
often, we claim to be open to multiculturalism in Canada, but
not next door, not in our backyards. That is why so much remains
to be done to make all Canadians aware of the advantages and
benefits of multiculturalism.
One major benefit we derive from our diversity is that it acts
as a valuable asset in our trade relations on the global market.
The chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada explained just
recently that our future as a nation depended on our capacity to
channel this wealth arising from our diversity to improve our
competitiveness internationally.
Canadian businesses must open up new channels of trade.
This is certainly easier and faster to achieve by drawing from
our cultural communities a manpower that knows the languages,
ways and customs of target countries. In the end, that is how our
business leaders develop local resources and assests to get ahead
of their foreign competition.
My point is that we must continually ask ourselves about the
kind of country we are building. We must be confident and
serene enough to shape our national identity according to our
reality and our needs. In that sense, the establishment of the new
Department of Canadian Heritage opens up such fascinating
prospects.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, B.Q.):
Madam Speaker, on October 3, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata tabled an amendment to Bill C-53.
This bill is ambitious, because the purpose of this big shake-up
is to shamelessly take control of what is called Canadian culture
in this country. It is not surprising that, with this amendment, the
Bloc Quebecois seeks to return this bill to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage.
In other words, what the Official Opposition is saying to the
House is this: Members of Parliament, show political maturity
and demand that the government do its homework again. In his
speech on October 3, the minister gave us the following
definition to think over: ``Heritage is the set of signs that enable
us to recognize ourselves as individuals who belong to a group
or
6874
even a country. Heritage is closely linked to questions of
individual and national identity, which is why it can have such
far-reaching and important influence''.
(1655)
While the traditional definitions of heritage as found in the
dictionary refer essentially to a specific past which we
recognize as our roots, the minister speaks of the set of signs by
which Canadians would define themselves as belonging to the
same reality. Some questions come spontaneously to mind.
What do you think Quebecers, even federalists, will choose as
the sign of what they are and what they want to be: the maple leaf
or the fleur-de-lis?
Who can say out loud that our national anthem, which was
written by Basile Routhier, generates the same sense of
belonging from sea to sea as La Marseillaise in France or God
save the Queen in England? And what about the Rockies, the
Mounted Police and our coins bearing the effigy of the Queen?
The minister's plan, you will readily admit it, goes way
beyond these heritage symbols. Suffice to quote here very
briefly the minister: ``We hope to rally the mighty forces of
multiculturalism behind a cultural identity that is uniquely
Canadian''.
Since he only referred in his speech to the French Canadian
culture when he talked about the official languages and the TV5
network, how could we not infer that we must absolutely bring
back not only the Quebec culture but the aboriginal culture as
well in the ideal and so-called safe melting pot of
multiculturalism, in this world where the American culture is
prevailing everywhere?
Madam Speaker, you will easily understand that, given all of
this, it would be suicidal for the Official Opposition to support
Bill C-53.
In spite of the minister's noble intentions, how can the
Canadian Parliament not be concerned that today's culture, our
writers, our artists, what I call our heritage in the making, are
considered to be an industry in the same way as steel, shoes and
chickens?
As for the review of the Copyright Act, for example, who will
eventually have the last word? The Minister of Industry or the
Minister of Canadian Heritage? We can safely assume that the
Department of Industry, which already has this power, will
retain it, since nothing in Bill C-53 clearly allocates
responsibilities to either department.
Here is another example which should be cause for alarm in
this House. With the emergence of the information highway, the
speed of communication is approaching Mach 2. Is it reasonable
to limit the stakes to marketing fibre optics? This is however, the
conclusion we must reach since once again the Minister of
Industry will be the project manager. But it also means that we
are refusing to recognize that the major revolution brought
about by the information highway is bound to rapidly and
profoundly change the global culture.
It is often said that war is too serious a matter to be left up to
generals; could it be that culture is too serious a matter to be left
up to businessmen? Quebec culture is too precious to be left up
to the goodwill of the federal government. The State of Quebec
must have exclusive jurisdiction over Quebec culture.
For the past 30 years, the federal government, using its
powerful spending authority, has shamelessly interfered with
Quebec culture. Its objective was clearly to weaken Quebec
culture. It has resulted in overlapping and duplication and
created a dependence on the federal manna on the part of our
creative minds.
In 1991, the total budget of the Quebec government for
cultural institutions amounted to $426 million whereas that of
Ottawa was $2.8 billion.
(1700)
I wonder whether I understood what the minister meant when
he said that both official languages ``are inextricably linked to
Canadian identity and culture. For this reason it is vital to
promote them and broaden their sphere of influence''. Am I
naive in thinking that Radio-Canada's budget is sizeable enough
to make a major contribution to the survival of francophone
communities? Is it naive to think that when a number of the
French network's stations were closed down recently in the
regions, this was a clear indication of the strong position of
French in these regions, a position so strong that these stations
were no longer needed?
I am not naive, and few Quebecers are, as we can see in the
following extract from the conclusion of the Arpin report:
``Harmonizing action by both levels of government has never
been easy''. The federal government has always refused to
recognize Quebec's leading role in cultural matters.
In 1992, Mrs. Frulla-Hébert, at the time Minister of Culture
in the Bourassa government, went even further, saying there was
little or no consultation on programs by the federal government
with Quebec. Genuine co-operation was practically
nonexistent, and when it did occur it was often at Quebec's
request.
Recently, UQAM president Claude Corbo criticized the
tendency of federal policies to downplay and ignore Quebec's
identity. I hardly think Bill C-53 would change his mind.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage referred to Bill C-53 as
the flag ship of Canadian identity. Metaphors are often not very
apt, and this one is no exception. The cargo does not seem to be
6875
properly stowed, and the ship may not be able to weather the
storms ahead.
Any admiral worth his salt does not go out to sea with a ship
that is poorly equipped. In concluding, I would therefore like to
offer the Minister of Canadian Heritage some thoughts by
Marcel Rioux, whom he must have met, considering his abiding
interest in things cultural: ``Why, at the slightest spark of life,
do we go on hoping and manage to resist the pessimism and
cynicism that lies at the root of so many foolish and unthinking
decisions? To me, it is an act of faith in all those who built this
country, and that is why I keep on hoping against hope''.
[English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, N.D.P.): Madam
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join the debate today. Bill C-53
is an important bill because it establishes a very important
department, the Department of Canadian Heritage. Yet I am
afraid I will have to vote against the motion and the bill in front
of us.
May I hasten to add for entirely different reasons than the
reasons I have heard from both opposition parties today that I
cannot accept the arguments put forward by members of the
Bloc. There is a need in Quebec and in other parts of Canada for
a cultural presence by the federal government. I think the first
people to recognize that would be the artists in Quebec.
The artists in Quebec would abhor just having to depend upon
the Quebec government. Just having to depend upon one source
of support and assistance in the arts is not in the interests of the
artists. All too often they have found in terms of past
governments, and I suspect the present government as well, that
the political agenda of the provincial government is at variance
with the artistic interests of the artists.
Artists in Quebec also want to have the federal government,
the Canada Council, the National Film Board, the SRC, all the
federal cultural institutions. They also want them. I am not
surprised by the objections raised by the Reform Party though I
am saddened by them. Surely they also must recognize that
cultural institutions are really what define the people in a nation.
(1705 )
Our cultural institutions help define what Canada is. They
allow us to be able to see and hear and listen to other Canadians
without the intervention of the government. Surely the Reform
members are not so naive to assume that if you just leave it to
market forces Canadian culture would be totally swamped by
American culture. The economics would dictate that. Surely it is
a naive belief in saying the federal government should get out of
this area. They will do as much damage as what the Bloc is doing
to the well-being and the maintenance of this country. Once you
destroy the cultural identity you have destroyed this country. In
this way the Bloc and the Reform are indeed in cahoots and
working well together in that.
May I quote quite an excellent article that appeared in the
Globe and Mail on May 8, 1994, by Michael Valpy. ``Why,
indeed, maintain a multibillion dollar military
establishment-when what is under attack in Canada is largely
militarily indefensible; the alien control of our commerce, our
resources, our jobs, our entertainment, publishing and other
forms of communications''. Mr. Valpy was discussing a paper
that was written by University of Toronto political scientist
Franklyn Griffiths. He quotes Mr. Griffiths and this is the quote I
wish to put on the record: ``The state of our cultural life'', he
writes, ``is now of greater importance than the state of our armed
forces in determining our ability to make choices for ourselves
in a world where military challenges to our country have
diminished relative to non-military or civil dangers''.
Again, I wish to agree with Valpy's thesis which is that the
attack on Canada as a nation is really more in terms of
non-military areas like our cultural sense of identity and sense
of who we are.
I oppose this bill because this government's record in this area
has been dismal. We have a weak minister and a weak
department. It was referred to by members of the Bloc when they
expressed their concern about issues like copyright and as well
questions concerning the information highway, whether it is the
ministry of industry or the ministry of heritage that is really in
control.
I suspect it is the ministry of industry rather than the ministry
of Canadian heritage. We have a weak department and a weak
minister. The Canadian cultural institutions and values are not
being well protected.
The other reason why I would have to oppose this bill is that
the government as well as the previous government when it
signed the FTA and the NAFTA continued to refuse to release
the documents both on the FTA and the NAFTA on cultural
discussions. We really do not know yet what is allowed and what
is not allowed under the free trade agreement and under the
NAFTA. How can we operate in terms of defining, strengthening
and protecting Canadian cultural institutions when the public
and as well those cultural institutions do not know what has been
given away? How can we continue?
Historically in this House all political parties have supported
the notion that the federal government has a role to play in our
cultural institutions. That is why Conservatives started the CBC
as well as Liberals, generally supported by New Democrats or
the CCF, even the Social Credit Party when it had members in
this House.
There was a recognition by those who are part of the English
culture part of Canada, standing so close to the American border
with its dynamic and very powerful cultural industries, that
6876
unless we had an interventionist government, unless we
followed something other than just market forces, our cultural
identity as a country would be swamped.
(1710 )
There is a belief that all political parties in this House have
traditionally agreed to, that as Canadians we have some identity,
some values as Canadians that are unique, that are important and
that are worth preserving. This is our contribution to the
civilization of the human race.
It is worth the money we invest there. Without that
investment, the Canadian cultural identity would disappear and
then one has to once again ask oneself: ``What do we have as a
country?'' We might as well then join the United States.
There is another important reason that I wish to mention in my
remarks in terms of the importance of Canadian cultural
industry. It creates jobs, many jobs. There are more jobs in the
cultural sector than in fishery or in forestry. It is also a source of
foreign earnings.
I hear members of the Reform Party talk about our taxpayers.
Yes, indeed, taxpayers' dollars are involved but artists also
create tax revenue. There was a study that was done in Toronto in
the spring of 1993 which showed that the cutbacks in the Canada
Council in fact decreased government revenues greater than the
cutbacks.
They went through numerous performing companies after the
cutbacks of their support by the Canada Council. They
determined how many musicians were laid off, how many
productions did not occur. Those performers, musicians, artists,
actors and actresses were no longer working, were taking UI or
welfare and were no longer paying taxes.
There was the loss of tax revenues from the loss of admission
tickets. They found in this study that the government lost more
money through revenue loss than had it continued to support the
arts the way they it had formerly done.
I am also concerned, very much so, with our deficit. There is a
need as well for wise spending and for trimming government
expenditures. Let us do it with intelligence because in some
areas when one cuts one will create more harm and there will be
a greater loss of revenue than the money one will save from the
cuts in those areas.
In conclusion I wish to restate that it is with sadness that I
cannot support Bill C-53 because of the reasons that I have
stated in my speech.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-53, an
act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I want to use this opportunity to talk about what it means to be
Canadian. In 1993 when the Right Hon. Kim Campbell
announced the reorganization of her government, the big selling
point was the reduction of federal departments from 32 to 23 and
the elimination of all minister of state positions.
She further justified the new structure by selling it as a
significant step toward streamlining government. This was
going to give Canadians a leaner, more accessible government.
Multiculturalism was placed under her new Department of
Canadian Heritage together with a mishmash of other programs
and responsibilities.
Recognizing the level of public support for reducing the size
of federal bureaucracy, the new Liberal government kept most
of her changes and multiculturalism remained quietly buried in
a new superministry of Canadian heritage.
This Liberal government failed to inform the Canadian people
that the public perception of a government commitment to
downsizing is unfounded. We have fewer ministers than we had
under the previous government but now we have nine secretaries
of state in addition to the full fledged ministers.
One of these new secretaries of state has a portfolio solely
devoted to multiculturalism and the status of women.
(1715 )
The only major difference between a secretary of state and a
minister is the name. Secretaries of state are not allowed to sit in
cabinet and must report through the minister, but they have
offices, staff and responsibilities for policy development in the
departments to which they are assigned. They also receive an
extra $35,000 a year salary and a car allowance.
This is not downsizing. What about the Canadian heritage
department itself? Will taxpayers save any money through this
restructuring and reorganization? Apparently not. When
announcing the official establishment of this new department,
top bureaucrats made it very clear that there would be no layoffs.
Civil servants are being shuffled between new ministries but
their jobs are secure, even if the future of some of the programs
is not.
The number of employees in the multicultural program will
remain at approximately 6,000, the same as 1992-93 levels.
Multiculturalism now falls under another department but it is
possible to compare current funding to that of previous years. In
1992-93, $39.8 million was spent on multicultural programs.
Last fiscal year it was $36.9 million, and this year's forecast is
$38.8 million. This does not include some of the spinoff
programs that fall under the government's multicultural agenda.
For example, although the proposed Canadian race relations
foundation is not functioning yet, the federal government
6877
earmarked $24 million for it. This is hardly what I would call a
stellar performance in cost reduction or downsizing.
Why do we have the multicultural policy we do? Why do we
spend money to support special interest groups to maintain or
rediscover their differences, rather than for the promotion of our
shared symbols and positive Canadian qualities?
Immigrants have come to Canada for countless reasons over
the years. For many it represented a place of safety to rebuild
lives shattered by wars. For others it was a land of opportunity;
if they worked hard they could become financially secure, send
their children off to university and express their will within a
democratic society.
These people came to Canada to become Canadians. They
willingly left their country of birth and chose Canada as their
new home. They came here to build a new life and a new reality
for themselves and their children. To them, Canada symbolized
hope. It was not just a place where they could become rich. It
represented freedom from oppression or tyranny, from hunger or
civil strife.
It was a land that, for the most part, accepted them as
newcomers and tolerated their differences until they learned
more about their chosen country and its culture.
Refugees come to our shores for many of the same reasons.
Because Canada is isolated from refugee generating countries
by vast oceans and by the United States, refugees must make a
conscious decision that this is the country they want to move to.
They must make extensive plans and pool their resources just to
get here to claim refugee status. I believe they choose Canada
for the same reasons that immigrants have in the past; an
opportunity to get ahead in a country they are proud to be part of,
a country that respects human rights and freedoms, a country
where they will not have to live in fear.
Although immigrants and refugees left their homes to find the
Canadian dream, what do newcomers to Canada find today?
They discover a government that promotes cultural diversity,
that tells them it is more important to maintain the identity they
left behind than it is to become a Canadian. How many years is it
before they are truly considered a Canadian? With our
multicultural policy, how many generations will it take before
people start thinking of themselves as Canadians rather than as
outsiders? How can we eliminate racism or ghettoization if we
perpetuate hyphenated Canadianism? How much time will it
take for this government to understand that being a Canadian to
a Canadian is more important than where you or your ancestors
came from?
Everyone should be proud of their roots but they should also
be proud to be a Canadian. We should be working toward the
creation of a single national identity that we can all live with.
Being Canadian is more than holding down a job, it is people
pulling together for a common purpose and a common goal. This
country is built on the efforts of people who came from all over
the world to help create a nation they are proud to call home.
Throughout our history immigrants have worked hard to help
forge the country we see today. They started out as immigrants
but they built it as Canadians, for Canadians.
(1720 )
We are among the most tolerant people in the world.
Regrettably, we have also had black periods in our history
during which certain groups were not respected for their
contribution or were denied access to our institutions and to
some fundamental human rights.
We have grown a great deal over the past several decades. We
have abolished institutionalized discrimination and promote
respect for human rights at home and abroad. We must remain
vigilant to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians but
we must not let the pendulum swing so far toward
accommodating special interests that we lose sight of who we
are.
By promoting all cultures we will end up with none. What
glue will hold our nation together?
As the make-up of our population changes, our national
culture will naturally evolve to reflect that diversity. It is not
something government can legislate or control. When
government steps in, as it has, to encourage differences between
people rather than fostering unity by encouraging common
Canadian values other segments of our society will feel
threatened because they will perceive their cultural values to be
under siege.
When the cultural make-up of our population has changed to
the point that our institutions no longer reflect the Canadian
identity then there will be overwhelming public support and
pressure for those changes to occur.
Government cannot dictate culture and government cannot
control its expression. The government's role should be to
clarify our similarities, not aggravate our differences. Cultural
change occurs over generations but a nation must have a
touchstone for its national identity, a reference point that
immigrants from other countries can refer to.
We leave them floundering, having to rely on our
multicultural policy of celebrating diversity as a guide to what it
is to be a Canadian.
Canada has a distinct identity. We can all feel it. We know it is
there but most Canadians cannot articulate it. When asked what
it is to be a Canadian, many people used to respond that it is not
being an American. We are more than a negative. We have our
own positive sense of national identity and it must be
communicated to all newcomers to this land.
6878
To me being Canadian is many things. Being Canadian is
truly believing in our inherent right to freedom of speech and
expression, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and to
demonstrate peacefully, freedom of the press, tolerance for
differences and respect for human rights and democratic
institutions. These are some of the common values I believe
make us Canadians.
There is also an expectation held by the majority of Canadians
that we will continue to support and, if necessary, defend our
individual and collective rights to these freedoms.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the members of the Bloc and the
members of the Reform Party, particularly on their views on
multiculturalism. It is obvious they do not have a clue what
multiculturalism means and what it is all about.
I want to tell them a little bit about what multiculturalism is.
Multiculturalism is a vision of Canada. One of the things that is
really lacking on that side is a vision of Canada. It has no real
vision of Canada. It does not understand that multiculturalism is
valuing our cultural diversity and how important it is to value
our cultural diversity.
As someone who came to Canada as a young boy at the age of
six, I know a lot about multiculturalism. I know a lot about some
of the barriers that immigrants face when they come here. Our
family came here in 1906. If some people would read the history
of what happened in British Columbia they would understand
that at that time we did not have a policy of multiculturalism and
there were laws that discriminated against certain groups. If we
talk about the Komagata Maru, I ask everyone to read about that
or the exclusion act. All of those things will give members a
better idea of why multiculturalism is so important.
One of the Reform members said that everybody is the same.
Everybody is not the same. I have three children and they have
different needs. They are not the same. For some reason the
Reform Party thinks if we treat everyone the same we are
treating them equally.
(1725 )
People have different demands. People have different needs,
just as the aboriginal community has different needs. As a
society we have to recognize that. We have to make sure that
they participate.
The Reform Party members are the same people who took the
lead to campaign against Sikhs in the RCMP even though it was
against the charter of human rights. The legal courts have shown
that. Do members think they will change their policy even
though the courts have ruled it is against the charter in a recent
decision?
The Reform Party members actively have a policy which
discriminates. I say that they do not understand what
multiculturalism is. It is about bridging, about communication.
That shows how little they know because they are not interested
in listening when somebody has a different view.
Multiculturalism is about communication between different
cultures. It is about bridging, about participating, about
including Canadians. That is what multiculturalism is.
For members who want to talk about treating people equally,
in their convention they had a resolution that says that
immigrants should not get any social benefits for the first five
years, but they want them to pay the same taxes. They do not
want to give them a break on the taxes. They do not want to give
them any social benefits for the first five years. Is that treating
people equally? That is not treating people equally. That is about
dividing Canadians. That is what we do not want. We want to
include Canadians, not divide them. That is what the Liberal
Party is all about and what this Liberal government is all about.
I am very proud of my culture and heritage and I believe it is
very important that people know about their roots. If you do not
know your roots you do not know where to go. I have learned
that it is very important.
There are many business people in the Reform Party and they
should understand how important multiculturalism is in this
global economy. In the province of British Columbia people
recognize that. The recent government has said in the schools it
wants to be able to teach Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi
where the needs are. That is important for the global economy
and for us from an economic point of view to have growth in
jobs. We cannot work in isolation. That is why it is so important.
In my own riding there is an area called the Punjabi market
where many Indo-Canadians have their shops. The other day I
opened a convention at the Pan Pacific and a tourist from the
U.S. said: ``I have heard about the Punjabi market. I would like
to go down there and do some shopping''. That is how important
it is from an economic point of view to have that cultural
diversity.
In the area of arts and culture the members of the Reform
Party think that we can cut all the funding for arts and culture
and then when we have the money all of a sudden all the artists
and the infrastructure will come back; that sure, we can cut all
the funding for arts and culture and five years from now it will
be very simple to all of a sudden fund it again and all the art and
culture will flourish. Life is not that simple. Art and culture are
very important to this country and it is very important to
maintain them.
I was on a trip to Europe this summer and when you visit a
museum like the Louvre or a city like Edinburgh you really
understand how art and culture are very important. I hope
members of the Reform Party will also look at that with an open
6879
and broad mind, not in a narrow focus. I am sure they will
understand a lot better.
Multiculturalism is ensuring that all Canadians participate
fully in Canadian life. Recently when I was vice-chairman of
B.C. Hydro it adopted a vision that its employees should reflect
the community it serves. That is what multiculturalism is all
about. It is about equal opportunity. I will not go any further
because my time is running out.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of Bill
C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to
amend or repeal certain other acts, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5:30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on Mr. Easter's motion at
report stage of Bill C-49. Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division):
(Division No. 86)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bryden
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Easter
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-103
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-133
6880
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Collenette
Goodale
Guay
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Mercier
Sauvageau
Vanclief
Wells
(1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
negatived.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of
Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; of the amendment; and
the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the amendment to the amendment of Mr.
McClelland at the second reading stage of Bill C-46.
(The House divided on the amendment, to the amendment,
which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 87)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-48
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
6881
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-189
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Collenette
Goodale
Guay
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Mercier
Sauvageau
Vanclief
Wells
(1815)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the
amendment to the amendment negatived.
* * *
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed with the taking of
the deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Canuel at the
second reading stage of Bill C-48.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 88)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-45
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
6882
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-189
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Collenette
Goodale
Guay
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Mercier
Sauvageau
Vanclief
Wells
(1820)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the
amendment negatived.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to proceed immediately with the main
motion on second reading of Bill C-48 and that you would find
unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote just taken, in
other words the vote on the amendment, in reverse to the main
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 89)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-189
6883
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-45
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Collenette
Goodale
Guay
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Mercier
Sauvageau
Vanclief
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Therefore the motion of
Ms. McLellan is agreed to.
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.)
* * *
(1825)
[English]
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Marchand at second
reading of Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote at report stage
on the amendment to Bill C-49 to this vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have unanimous
consent?
Mr. Lee: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would be
delighted to participate in the unanimous consent for the most
recent division.
I was absent from my seat and I would ask that as the votes are
being applied my vote be applied with the government caucus.
Ms. Meredith: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
was also absent for the vote on Bill C-49 and I would appreciate
if my vote would be recorded on Bill C-52 as supporting it.
Mrs. Cowling: Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained;
I was not able to be here. However I would have voted with the
government had I been here.
Mr. Bryden: Madam Speaker, I would like my vote to be
recorded as being with the government on this amendment, if I
may.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had
an agreement with the government whip that we would apply to
this vote the same as we voted on Bill C-49 and the last member
of Parliament who just rose to say he wanted to vote with the
government voted opposite to the government on Bill C-49.
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, I just want to be sure that this
vote is opposite to the report stage motion, or is it the same as
the report stage motion and not the recorded amendment?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. This motion is
opposite to the amendment of the hon. member for Malpeque on
Bill C-49.
Mr. Easter: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
would wish that my vote be applied in the reverse to what it was
on the amendment to Bill C-49, in other words with the
government.
(1830 )
Mr. Dromisky: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to
vote with the government on this motion.
Mr. Steckle: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I also wish
to cast my vote on the side of the government on the motion
itself.
Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would
like my vote to be applied-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
6884
(Division No. 90)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-100
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-138
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Collenette
Goodale
Guay
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Mercier
Sauvageau
Vanclief
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The amendment is
therefore negatived.
6885
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other
acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent that the vote on Bill C-46 be applied in
reverse to the bill that we are discussing now.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we agree but
there might be some on the government side who might want to
change their minds.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 91)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-189
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-48
6886
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Adams
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Collenette
Goodale
Guay
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Mercier
Sauvageau
Vanclief
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Accordingly I declare
the motion adopted.
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.)
_____________________________________________
6886
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-251, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a
holiday in public service collective agreements, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I know the hour is late and we have
just been through a number of votes but I am hoping that the
members who are still here, or those that are watching from their
offices or on their way to their offices, could take a few minutes
to pay some attention to the bill presently before the House.
(1835 )
This is actually the second time that I have brought the bill
forward. I presented the bill in the last Parliament as Bill C-289.
The title of the bill is the Remembrance Day Act.
One of the problems we have had in the past in dealing with
Remembrance Day is that the farther we get from the time that
we have actually had a conflict where loss of life has taken
place, the more likely it is that we will forget the sacrifices that
were made by the many men and now women of the Canadian
Armed Forces in the pursuit of liberty and freedom for people all
around the globe.
Remembrance Day goes back quite far. It used to be called
Armistice Day and it was celebrated at Thanksgiving. Then
around 1931, it became Remembrance Day. Everybody in the
country believes that Remembrance Day is a holiday and I guess
by definition that is what it is.
What exactly holiday means is quite another thing. Does
holiday mean, as I used to think it meant, that it is a day set aside
and nobody, unless they are deemed to be an essential employee,
goes to work? Does holiday mean that it is time to go to the
beach or to take a few hours off and relax?
The Remembrance Day holiday is quite different. It is
different than any other holiday on the books. It is different
because it is not meant as a time for people to take time off. It is
meant as a time of solemn remembrance of those who fought for
liberty, for freedom, for those who have given up their lives in
pursuit of these very noble goals.
Every member in this Chamber represents veterans. In
Canada today there are over 700,000 veterans, many of whom
were wounded, many of whom have lost very good friends. They
saw their best friend die in front of them far away in a foreign
land with no shoulder to cry on. It was done in the pursuit of that
tangible called freedom.
It seems the further we get away from the date of a conflict
where lives are lost, we forget. It is far too easy for me as a
39-year-old and certainly for my children who are three, eight
and ten to forget how important that contribution has been for
us.
I introduced Bill C-289 in the last Parliament. The
importance of that bill at the time was to make sure that at least
in the area that we control as a government in the agreements
that are entered into under the Public Service Staff Relations
Act, we ensure that we honour the memory of those who have
given their lives and of the veterans who are still are out there,
many of whom have been wounded.
There are people like my father, Sharkey, as they called him
because he was a good boxer in his day, who was shot twice. He
fought in the Italian campaign after the liberation of Holland,
and lost many of his friends. The bill will ensure that my
children see the example set by the federal government in
ensuring that every collective agreement that is entered into by
the Government of Canada, that this holiday, this special time of
remembrance, is not traded away.
Members are going to ask: ``Is that not the way it is?'' Yes,
that is the way it is. The reason I introduced the bill two years
ago and the reason I reintroduced it is that there seems to be a
possibility-and if it is a possibility, it is a probability-the
federal government negotiators through Treasury Board-it is
no different even though the government has changed-with the
same mandate who hammer out collective agreements may
change the holiday. I support the collective bargaining process.
However there may come a time, because it always happens,
that the federal government through its Treasury Board
negotiators and a union of the Public Service of Canada through
its negotiators will decide to trade away Remembrance Day for
another holiday. It darned near happened two years ago at
Canada Post.
That is when this came to my attention. My father who is a
veteran, president of the Cape Breton Highlanders Association,
6887
called me and said: ``What am I reading in the paper? They are
trying to trade Remembrance Day away, maybe for an extra
benefit, maybe for a little bit more hospital coverage''. That was
never the purpose of the holiday in the first place.
(1840 )
I introduced the bill and it received an unusual amount of
support, so much so that the Conservative government, even
though Treasury Board told Tory members not to support it, rose
above partisanship and supported the bill in sufficient numbers
that even a lowly Liberal backbench opposition member's
private member's motion passed at second reading.
It was one of the proudest days I have had as a member of
Parliament. It showed that this place can work. If the principles
are noble, the motives of members will be above reproach and
they will support the right things. Unfortunately it did not get
through committee.
Therefore I introduce it again today in honour of the 60,000
men who died serving our country in the first world war and all
those who died during the second world war. Over 1.1 million
Canadians served proudly, people like my father. During the
Korean war over 300 Canadians gave their lives and hundreds,
perhaps over 1,000, more were wounded. We must not forget
those who served in the Persian gulf-thank goodness there was
no loss of life-and our peacekeepers who are out there in some
of the worst conditions in the world. They are down in the hell on
earth that is Rwanda. They serve us proudly in Bosnia, where
some have been injured and killed while serving our country
abroad.
I reintroduce the bill and I seek support from members. This
bill will not encumber Treasury Board. That is bogus. I heard
that argument from Treasury Board officials. Tomorrow I will
try to get some assurance from the minister that before decisions
are made about what does and does not encumber Treasury
Board that they at least consult with the members who put the
bills forward.
The bill does nothing more than seek to entrench in law the
current practice and that is to make sure that Remembrance Day
is a holiday in federal collective agreements. It does not do
anything to the business community. It does not do anything to
collective agreements under the labour code. It simply says that
for agreements entered into by the federal government with its
own employees, under the Public Service Staff Relations Act,
that unless one is a designated employee whose services are
essential, one shall have Remembrance Day as a day of solemn
remembrance for those men and now women who have been
injured or killed defending peace, liberty and life abroad for our
country, and that day will always be in federal public sector
agreements as a day of solemn remembrance.
I ask the members who are prepared to speak to keep that in
mind. When we last raised this in the House I could not believe
the response from nearly every legion in Canada. The president
of the Royal Canadian Legion came to see me. Letters were sent
in. Veterans from the second world war feel as they are getting
older that it is far too easy for their grandchildren and maybe
their great grandchildren to forget the sacrifices that many of
them have made.
I am seeking the support of the House to debate this bill. It
will tell the veterans across Canada that the contribution that
they made for this country and also what they gave up, is not
going to be forgotten by the Parliament of Canada. It is a very
small thing to do. Remembrance Day must always be held as a
solemn day of remembrance for those who have gone before us
in serving their country.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on behalf of the Official Opposition in
this debate on the bill that would include Remembrance Day as a
holiday in public service collective agreements.
This is not the first time that the member for Dartmouth has
proposed such a thing. Indeed, he presented a similar bill in the
previous Parliament. Unfortunately for him, the Conservative
government arranged to defeat his bill when it was considered in
committee. That was on February 18, 1993.
That bill, like the one before us, was intended to prevent the
government from putting the Remembrance Day holiday on the
negotiating table with the unions. It was feared that this holiday
would be traded for an extra day after the Boxing Day holiday.
(1845)
Some guarantee had to be provided to enshrine this sacred
holiday in our collective memory. This is the day when we
remember the ultimate sacrifice made by those who went to war
and enabled us to enjoy again the most precious gift: peace.
This initiative reflects numerous decisions made over the
years to that effect. This holiday is already in the official list of
holidays included in section 166 of the Canada Labour Code,
part III. It is also included in the Public Service Terms and
Conditions of Employment Regulations. Every collective
agreement signed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada with
Treasury Board includes Remembrance Day in the list of
holidays.
Already in 1921, a day of commemoration was established in
the Armistice Day Act, which said, and I quote: ``Throughout
Canada in each and every year-the eleventh day of
November-being the day in 1918 in which the great war was
triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday
and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of
Armistice Day''.
6888
In 1931, another act specified that this legal holiday would be
called ``Remembrance Day'' and would be observed on
November 11. In the Holidays Act, chapter H-5, Revised Status
of Canada, 1985, Remembrance Day is the second holiday
mentioned, right after Canada Day.
One might wonder why have a bill to protect a holiday which
already seems to be formally recognized. The purpose of this
legislation is to eliminate the risk that this holiday might be used
as a bargaining tool and be replaced by an additional day
elsewhere in the calendar, a measure which would be at odds
with the purpose of Remembrance Day, which is meant to be a
day of commemoration and respect.
The fact is that such a substitution is a possibility. There is a
provision in section 195 of the Canada Labour Code which says
that ``Any other holiday may be substituted for a general
holiday''. Consequently, this substitution is a right which can be
exercised or claimed. According to section 195, the parties to a
collective agreement can notify in writing the Minister of
Human Resources Development that a specified day has been
designated as a holiday in lieu of a specified general holiday.
Under the same section of the Canada Labour Code, where no
employees of an employer are represented by a trade union or
where a class of employees is not provided for under a collective
agreement with regard to general holidays, the Minister may
approve the substitution of a designated holiday, at the request
of the employer, if satisfied that a majority of the employees or
class of employees concur with the application.
This goes to show that such provisions do exist and continue
to exist, unaltered, without excluding holidays like
Remembrance Day. We therefore take this opportunity to
caution the sponsor of this bill. This piece of legislation would
give a clear indication to the government. It would send a clear
message to labour, but it would not eliminate the present
loopholes that allow the substitution of general holidays and are
likely to continue to allow it after this bill is passed.
(1850)
We know how important the eleventh hour of the eleventh day
of the eleventh month is since 1918. It is important not only for
the veterans for whom this day represents the quintessence of
their existence, for the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice
in order to restore the world peace we now know, for the civil
servants and the workers, but also for the children, the future
generations who need tools to remember all the lessons passed
down to them, from the most marvellous to the most tragic. We
must protect the Remembrance Day to preserve our collective
memories, pay tribute to the past and accept responsibility for
the future.
I am convinced that the government as well as the unions and
the citizens realize the importance of the Remembrance Day, a
day to pay tribute to our veterans, to remember the horrible
lessons the war has taught us, and to pass on a message to future
generations.
In brief, we support this bill in principle. We hope that the
Remembrance Day will never be abolished, moved or replaced
and that, in order to achieve this goal, all current federal labour
legislation will be modified accordingly.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to speak on this motion. I, too, have lost
relatives, in fact close relatives, due to these tragic wars. It has
always been in my heart to make certain that these memories are
not forgotten.
We have before us Bill C-251 to provide that Remembrance
Day be included as a holiday in public service collective
agreements. This bill asks that Parliament negotiate on behalf of
the public service.
Parliament should never be involved in negotiating contracts
for the public service or any other union. Bargaining is the role
of union officials, union employees and union bargaining teams,
not members of the House of Parliament. It is my understanding
that the public service has already bargained for its workers to
observe Remembrance Day as a holiday. Why then is this bill
before Parliament?
It seems that under the current negotiated contracts that
workers deemed essential for the public safety or public interest
must work on Remembrance Day but do not receive extra
remuneration. Essentially this bill will provide extra payment
for those deemed essential or required to work for the public
safety.
Let us think for a moment why it is that we pause at the
eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month to
remember: Lest we forget the sons and the daughters of
Canadians in the time of the country's greatest need who chose
to travel to foreign lands and defend this country against tyranny
and dictatorship. Lest we forget many of the sons and daughters
who did not return to the arms of their loved ones following the
long, long journey to fight for democracy and freedom, yet they
ensured that the same highest qualities remained in our
government. Lest we forget thousands upon thousands of
Canadians who offered up the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, so
that we at home could remain free to choose how we should live
our lives.
I have heard tales of the carnage of war. I have listened to
veterans of the wars talk about their time over there. Not too
often do these men and women talk about the battles over there.
They talk about the times that bring fond memories, the detailed
preparations for battle, the training for battle, or the nights of
quiet reflection remembering home.
6889
The reason those who faced the horrors of battle do not talk
of seeing friends or comrades in arms who entered the fray but
did not return is because of the pain that such recollections
would bring.
Those of us who have not experienced total war do not really
understand the cost in human lives and human memories that
such conflicts inflict. Those veterans of such times recall the
horror, and believe me, none I know of say that those times were
filled with glory.
(1855 )
Veterans ask us all to remember those who gave their lives for
our freedom because they want Canadians to recall the total
price that war brings. Veterans want those living today to
remember total war costs. The cost is lives.
No one in this House would dare ask Canadians to not honour
the memory of those who offered the supreme sacrifice, their
young lives, so that we today can stand on Remembrance Day to
thank and remember them.
By not supporting this bill, I do not make light of the sacrifice.
None of those who died sought death. They were seeking to give
life to this country and in doing so they died.
I cannot support this bill, not because I do not believe we
should not remember them but because I believe this House
should not diminish the freedom of workers and management to
choose on what terms they will agree to work together.
As for the portion of this bill that will make it mandatory for
those required to work on Remembrance Day to receive extra
remuneration, I say this. If those we are remembering could
freely choose to give the ultimate sacrifice so Canadians can be
free, surely Canadian workers can freely choose to work on
Remembrance Day without complaining about extra money.
Our young of years gone by were prepared to travel across the
sea, live in mudholes and dwell in the cold and damp to preserve
our freedom. They chose to do that. Surely it is not too much to
ask those required for public safety or essential services in these
times of peace to do so without thinking of their paycheques.
Members of this House must never allow the memory of our
young men and women who died so we may be free to diminish
in this land. We must honour them so we will continually recall
the price we must pay when we involve this country and our
young in war. Surely we can remember them without a bill that
essentially removes a freedom they fought for, the freedom to
negotiate working conditions. Surely those who are needed to
labour on Remembrance Day can do so without demanding extra
pay.
Our young of the past died so we could be free. Our young of
the present can pause at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of
the eleventh month to remember those who died and why we
must remember that war has a price.
Surely that price is more than time and a half on a paycheque
and that price is more than removing one freedom from those
who fought and died for our many freedoms.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-251 has in this House a history which today I
would suggest we have a chance to rewrite, not in the sense of
being revisionist historians but rewrite perhaps out of a sense of
duty.
On May 20 of last year this bill died in this Chamber-it was
known as C-289 at that time-because of many factors, the
principal of which was somewhat of a disagreement among and
between parties and interest groups. That is, I would suggest,
tragic because an act of remembrance is not a political or
partisan fact.
We have seen in this same House in the past several months
debates concerning the role of Canada in its military and
peacekeeping. Although we as a country are not necessarily one
of the major military leaders globally, we have garnered much
respect internationally because of the extreme competence of
our personnel and their effectiveness on these missions.
I really should ask the question: Why have we for many years
been sending soldiers and our armed forces everywhere in the
world? I think the response is quite simple. It is simply because
in this country there is a belief that we Canadians should try to
look for and from time to time make peace.
I believe that Canadians share a common set of beliefs,
attitudes and values and that one of these elementary or core
principles is our role as makers of peace on this globe. Surely I
do not need to tell those present in this place of the hundreds of
thousands of lives lost in this century.
(1900 )
These were lives that were freely given because we as a
country believed that it was a basic value shared in this country
and the importance of our place in the world order. Of course,
those who contributed the most are not here to ask us as a
national collective to remember them.
Next year, 1995, will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of
World War II and one would expect and undoubtedly there will
be many national and international ceremonies to mark the end
of the war. One obvious conclusion to be seen at these
ceremonies is the fragility, the aging process, of those who were
directly involved.
Wars or armed conflicts always operate on two distinct levels.
On an individual basis it has a profound effect on those who
6890
were directly involved. Today the veterans of World War II in
this country are on average in their seventies and are declining
rapidly in number. That unfortunately is a simple fact of life.
There is a second level to this. Wars have affected and
moulded national identities and impressed, which is surely the
case in this country, and reinforced the attitudes and values in
our dealings with other sovereign states.
In Canada there is no doubt a realization that we as a country
became an international entity and acquired a national
conscience and identity because of our role in the major
conflicts in the first half of this century; conflicts in which,
unfortunately, the youth of this country fueled our endeavours.
Today we do virtually nothing as a country or on a national basis
to recognize the importance of the sacrifices made.
I know that this bill has reached the point of national
consensus from a provincial perspective. There are a number of
individuals in this country who are vitally interested in this bill.
One principal proponents of this bill is a lady by the name of
Mrs. Wilma McNeil, to whom I spoke this afternoon. She has
written to all ten premiers. The responses have been unanimous
in support.
It is interesting to note and to put on the record here today that
at least one premier in this country believed and put it in writing
to her that he thought it was some sort of a holiday already. He
did not realize the lack of the role of the federal government in
this day.
Mrs. McNeil has also waged an information war to advise
veterans organizations in this country about this bill. These
groups, the core of which represent those who survived the war,
have unanimously endorsed this bill.
Finally, I am speaking here today in support of this because I
think it is an opportunity for the government and for members of
Parliament to recognize the importance of this, not only on an
individual basis because that will fade with time, but we as a
national collective, as a country, recognize that this represents a
day which has great importance to the national attitude and
belief and, most important, the national values of this country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in addressing Bill C-251, members will recall that this same bill
was introduced by the same member three years ago. It was
designated a votable item at that time and it passed first and
second reading and was referred to committee. The committee
voted against the bill four to three, even after appearances from
the army, navy and air force veterans and the Treasury Board.
After that the bill was returned to the House and eventually
dropped from the order paper.
It seems that the subject of this bill has already been carefully
considered and the substance of it rejected by the House. With so
many other priorities in the House of Commons and so many
other good private members' bills that have never seen the light
of day, I am perhaps not all that surprised to see that this bill has
come back to the House.
Why would the committee choose this particular bill and this
particular topic unless it somehow intends to choose bills that
have been rehashed or bills of little import, unless it intends to
make the business of Private Members' Business even less
relevant than it is already?
(1905 )
Perhaps the committee choosing these bills is trying to deflect
the political troubles that inevitably arise when this House
considers weighty topics that are truly relevant to the issues of
the day.
We must not avoid talking about the things that Canadians are
talking about. The direction of this government should be put
into reverse by tackling the tough issues first instead of putting
off the repairs until tomorrow, wall papering over the cracks and
ignoring the holes in the ceiling of Canada's national House.
On to Remembrance Day in this particular bill, it appears to
me that this bill really is redundant because in many ways the
matter is already entrenched in federal legislation. Canada's
labour code lists Remembrance Day as a general holiday. It is
also included in the regulations attached to the Financial
Administration Act and the Federal Holidays Act lists it as one
of three national holidays.
If Remembrance Day were the subject of much dispute it
might be different. If hundreds of thousands of public servants
were not already receiving Remembrance Day as a holiday I
might be more inclined to agree that the heavy hand of
legislation must be applied to this matter.
This is not the case and on the contrary allow me to quote from
article 12 of the master agreement between the federal
government and the Professional Institute of the Public Service
of Canada a union representing about 31,000 federal employees:
``The following days shall be designated paid holidays for
employees: New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, the
Sovereign's birthday, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving
and Remembrance Day''. The list goes on.
This is a voluntary agreement arrived at in a consensual
manner between 31,000 federal public servants and the
Government of Canada. The master agreement already
designates Remembrance Day as a paid holiday.
There is even a more sweeping document that says the same
thing. It is the master agreement between the Public Service
Alliance of Canada and the government representing another
total of 170,000 federal public servants. It too designates
Remembrance Day as a paid holiday.
6891
It is clear that I must oppose this legislation for a number
of reasons. The first reason is that it is not necessary. Treasury
Board tells me that a grand total of 382,000 federal employees
already stay home on November 11, receiving time and a half
pay, giving them the opportunity to consider the tremendous
price that was once paid by so many courageous Canadians.
This bill must also be opposed because from a Reform Party
point of view we believe there should be a minimal involvement
by the state in these types of matters. The state should not be
legislating on matters that can be negotiated voluntarily
between parties. This of course has been a problem with
Canadian governments for far too long.
The government needs to become involved where there are
clear practices of obvious abuse but we can see from the master
agreements I have quoted from that the government has been
very generous to give the day off even when many private sector
workers do not receive Remembrance Day as a holiday.
Do you know the costs to the taxpayer of this part of the
agreement, Mr. Speaker? The Treasury Board estimates it at $50
million to $75 million for this one day's pay.
We have already paid a big price for Remembrance Day
observances. Obviously there is no need whatsoever for
government involvement in this case.
That leads naturally to the second reason for my opposition to
Bill C-251. Why should the federal public service have another
holiday entrenched in law when the private sector does not? If
the member for Dartmouth really thought that Remembrance
Day was important enough to be included in collective
agreements why stop at the public sector? Why not extend this
bill to include the private sector?
Perhaps he does not realize what he is doing, that he is
unwittingly offering a special privilege to the public sector
toward enlarging the benefits and powers enjoyed by
governments and government workers.
I would ask the member also to consider an unfortunate side
effect to this bill which is to unconsciously deepen the wedge
between private and public sectors. While the private sector has
already weathered the storms of recession, while it has
experienced massive layoffs and is now leaner than ever before,
the member for Dartmouth would entrench public service
benefits even more deeply than they are already. In essence he
would further secure the isolation of public servants from our
devastating fiscal problems, problems that may one day bring
this government crashing down.
We have a public service that is respected worldwide. Our
public service is the equal of any and as much as we might like to
shield our public servants from decades of indulgent spending
by federal governments, the chickens are proverbially coming
home to roost.
(1910 )
Yesterday the finance minister could do nothing but crow
about the debt and deficit and warn that government services
and programs and yes, even jobs, must tumble in the coming
months. This is the third reason I oppose the bill. It is not
financially possible to guarantee the benefits that public
servants have now, much less offer them more security and more
insulation and isolation from what is happening in the real
world.
The final reason for my opposition to this piece of legislation
is more broadly philosophical. A collective agreement is by
definition an agreement between two parties. This implies a
process of negotiation in which items are traded back and forth
until both sides agree on an acceptable package of items they can
both live with. It is a process of mutual compromise.
When the government begins to legislate more and more
elements of collective agreements it puts both parties at a
distinct disadvantage because it reduces the number of possible
compromises that can be made by either party. This makes
agreements harder to negotiate. It is sort of like trying to sell a
car with a precondition that the buyer must be willing to pick the
car up in another city. It makes the sale much harder to negotiate
when some of the terms are set beforehand.
I would remind members that the president of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada has mentioned that it might be
possible that all holidays will be subject to negotiation between
parties in the months ahead. I wonder if even the union
representing our federal workers would support this type of
legislation.
My opposition to this legislation has nothing to do with
Remembrance Day. It has nothing to do with the respect and
gratitude I feel for those who sacrificed so much to bring me and
my generation peace and prosperity. I guess I would be called
one of the baby boomer generation and I have never experienced
the agonies of war. However, I am not that far removed, even
from World War II.
My father joined the air force during the war. Allow me to
read from a book written about my father entitled A Canadian
Story: ``On October 26, 1943 he went to the number six
recruitment centre in Winnipeg to enlist and when he arrived he
was informed that he could indeed sign up but that anyone under
the age of 18 had to have his parents' permission. Bill'', my
father's name, ``took the necessary form, walked outside the
building, forged his mother's signature and went back in''.
My dad was just a 17-year old kid but he was willing to do just
about anything to do his part for the country. He served with the
air force for two years even here in Ottawa: ``On October 9, 1945
Bill was discharged from the air force. His two years in the
6892
service of the king was similar to that of many other young men.
He had volunteered to serve his country when it needed him, as
did millions of others''.
I am not untouched by the war and I am not untouched by the
sacrifice of people like my father. In the end, he only had to
spend two years of his life in this cause, but he was willing to lay
down his entire life if that is what his country asked of him. I can
only hope that if, God forbid, the necessity arises again, I would
be willing to do as much to serve my own country.
Remembrance Day is a vital reminder of the price Canadians
paid for the things we hold dear and let us hope that Canadians in
both the private and public sectors, in homes and in businesses,
in their personal and public statements will remember the
sacrifices made by our ancestors.
Legislating additional public service holidays is both unwise
and unnecessary in order that they may be remembered.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-251,
this piece of legislation.
I want to commend my colleague for having brought it forth. I
want to correct a couple of things. First of all, this is now a
recognized holiday in the collective agreement. It can float.
That is the issue. The point about an extra $50 million to $70
million is totally erroneous. One could counteract by pointing
out that if it is worth that much in a collective agreement it could
be traded off.
What my colleague is seeking to do is make absolutely certain
that it is a holiday on that day. Why is that? It is because of the
sacrifice of the soldiers and their families and their supporters.
Because of their sacrifice, we want to set this day aside to make
absolutely certain that we remember what they contributed to
this nation, the freedom that we have today, the greatest gift
apart from health that anyone could possibly have. Because of
their sacrifice we have one of the finest, if not the finest, nations
in the world. We started with a real head start because this is a
wonderful country, but when we think of what they have
contributed to the very fabric of the nation surely we can set a
day aside throughout the nation to remember what they have
contributed.
(1915)
Unfortunately we take what we have for granted. I remember
going to church services where the pastor indicated that we take
our good health for granted until we start losing it. Then we
suddenly we start to remember how important it is.
We take our freedoms for granted. We take the greatness of
the country for granted. We take this wonderful, magnificent
country of ours too much for granted. We have to stop and
reflect, to think, and to say thank you. That is what we want to
say. We want to say thank you to our soldiers. We want to say
thank you to their families. We want to say thank you to those
who supported them. That is what this is all about.
We want to set a day aside to remember the wars, remember
the destructiveness of wars, and remember that war should be
passé. We want to remember those who died. We want to
remember those who were wounded. We want to remember
those who came back but who have passed on. We want to make
sure that we do not forget their sacrifice, their tremendous
contribution to the country, this free country.
[Translation]
My hon. colleague wishes to have this day set aside in
memory of the sacrifices made by our soldiers, their families
and those who supported them. We want to remember the wars.
We want to remember those who died on the battlefields. We
want to remember those who were wounded and those who came
back, but have since passed on. We want to remember their
contribution to our country, to what is probably the most
beautiful and perhaps the best country in the world. We want to
remember that they gave us a country where we can live in
freedom.
[English]
That is really all I really wanted to say. This is an important
initiative. This is an initiative that we should all be supporting.
This is not an initiative that should be somehow shunted aside
because of supposed costs. There are no costs. We simply ask
that we set a day aside that is consistent throughout Canada so
that we can remember those who served.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-251 this
evening in the House. The bill will ensure that Remembrance
Day is respected by public servants in the way that it was
intended. For this reason I fully support the hon. member's bill
and would like to commend him on bringing it forward.
Remembrance Day is much more than a holiday or a day off
during the longer days of fall. It was introduced into our country
as a day to do just that: to remember, to remember those who
gave their lives so that we the people who stand before you
today, Mr. Speaker, would be able to enjoy the freedoms we now
have. It is to remember those who fought, those who made the
supreme sacrifice with their lives, and those who sacrificed here
at home during the two world wars and in Korea. It is to
remember, simply so that we will not forget the sacrifices that
touched so many Canadian families.
Children growing up today have no recollection of the
sufferings that took place during those times of strife. To them it
is another story in our history books. The recognition of
Remembrance Day sparks questions in these children and in turn
they will become informed. In this way the sacrifices and the
6893
tragedies will never be forgotten, for it is when we forget that
history repeats itself.
Remembrance Day has always been and should always be
recognized on November 11. As it now stands the day can be
used as a bargaining chip to obtain an extra day off at some other
time of the year. Remembrance Day was not intended to be part
of a lengthened festive season. It is a time to be solemn, to
remember, to respect, and not to rejoice.
(1920)
Of course there are exceptions in the bill for those people who
provide services that are essential to public safety or interest.
These people will naturally have to work on this day and will be
compensated appropriately. However in general Canadians
should not be required to work. The country must hold on to
those things that are most important to our history, not put them
aside as if they belong to another era. We must teach our
children it is important to respect those who died, fought and
sacrificed so that we would be able to stand in front of the House
today to debate the issue.
In my constituency of Carleton-Charlotte there are many
veterans and many families of veterans who gave their all, in
many cases loved ones who gave their lives, so that we might
enjoy our Canadian freedoms. I shudder to think what might
have happened to our world without their sacrifices.
I urge all members of the House to think of future generations
and what will happen if we are allowed to forget.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in
the debate and to pay tribute, as have past speakers who are
either for or against the concept of Remembrance Day.
I had the opportunity to follow my father to Europe in the
early 1950s when the Canadians went over and I saw the
devastation in the countryside. I spent a lot of my younger life
serving in the NATO forces. Nothing can teach like visiting a
graveyard with the headstones of 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers. I
refer to the second previous speaker who mentioned his father
joining at 18 years of age. I went into Beny-sur-Mer and saw 19
and 20 year old sergeants; they hardly let them lead a section
today. These young people gave their lives. I saw their graves
for miles.
Nothing struck me more than when I went to Vimy Ridge and
saw the massive battlefield and the Canadian monument which
is part of Canada in France. Later I went to Verdun and saw on
the hill, as far as the eye could see in the trees, the white markers
where a million people had died in the first world war around
Verdun, both German and French soldiers. The slaughter in
those periods touched me deeply.
I hope we never have to see it again, but the remembrance of
such an event was burnt deeply in my mind. As a consequence I
hope we can teach in school about the history of wars. Although
it can be a vicarious kind of experience for the teacher and the
students, it can ask people to remember not to make the same
mistakes of the past. We can imagine what it must feel like never
to have returned.
Those are questions that are deep and piercing. Neither the
teaching of history nor the experience of imagination come
close to explaining the depth and intensity of the experiences of
generations of Canadians who went through the first war, the
second war and the Korean war. Some of them had such horrible
experiences they will never talk about the war; they have a bond
of silence concerning their experiences. Sometimes we can
never get some people to stop talking about them, but that is the
spectrum of the effect of those experiences on them.
(1925 )
That is why we gather as Canadians to remember and to give
thanks in our hearts for the peace and freedom our forefathers
brought to us from those wars. Never as Canadians have we ever
sought to go to a war with unjust cause. We have never sought to
go to war to take a piece of another country's land. We have
always gone for an honourable and just cause. For that we should
be proud.
Some older people know about the personal way of the
sacrifices but they are fast leaving us. There are few working
people who experienced the second world war. There are some
who experienced the Korean war. There are no oral histories to
be given in the future. There must be some tangible recognition
of that sacrifice which gives people a moment to reflect.
One thing struck me. Every family had a right to select what
would go on the headstones. I was 21 years old when I saw the
headstone of a 21-year old corporal from the Winnipeg Rifles. It
read: ``To all the world he was a soldier. To me he was all the
world''.
It was a rather choking experience because I never really got
too emotional about it. I got into it as a young guy, all gung-ho,
ready to go and do my bit for my country and to gain some
experience. That may have the motivating force for some of our
soldiers. However that headstone struck me as very sentimental.
These kinds of things are very tangible. I wish someone would
make a reasonable video to capture the spirit, the headstones,
the actions that took place on D-Day, and all other events they
experienced. They should keep it short and sweet because war is
hell. We must keep that in perspective. We never want to step
into it.
6894
The older people remember the dark days of war. It left great
impressions with them. In my father's family there were three
boys. One joined the army. One joined the navy. One joined the
air force. They all had different experiences but all came back
with different attitudes. However one thing they had as a group
was that they never wanted to go to war again. That was
significant. However the cause being just can be presented in a
way that may motivate people like them to go at it again.
I have seen the news coverage of D-Day re-enacted and the
role that Canadians played in a proud way, giving up their lives.
When I was there I represented my regiment, the Queen's Own
Rifles of Canada that landed at Beny-sur-Mer. I was serving
with a fellow in the regiment who was had been there. He was a
platoon commander. Of all 110 men in the company that went in,
19 survived. It is an awful to think about what we left on the
beaches. We had with us some of the sergeants who had served in
other companies at the same time. They kept our history alive by
making an attempt at their objectives on D-Day, which as we
know eventually broke the back of the Nazis and brought peace
to the world for a short period of time until the Korean war.
I ask members to give due consideration to tangibly
recognizing that sacrifice. The people in the employ of the
government are perpetuating governmental institutions to some
effect. That is why I stand today to support the bill.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to follow my hon. colleague from Stratford to speak in
support of this bill.
Several years ago I had perhaps one of the greatest
experiences that one could have as a member of Parliament. I
had the honour to go with the Canadian delegation to the 75th
anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge in the company of 14 of
the veterans of that battle, which was Canada's first. Many of us
say it was perhaps the battle that forged our country. All of the
veterans were over the age of 90.
I remember one, a mere lad of 93, chasing one of his comrades
age 95 around one of the monuments. I was astounded at the
energy and the drive of these people at their great ages. I guess
one had to have the constitution of a tank to survive in the
trenches of 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918.
I saw some of the cemeteries that my hon. colleague talked
about. I remember going through the largest Commonwealth
cemetery. I cannot remember whether it was in France or
Belgium. There were rows and rows of those little white
headstones with maple leaves that said over and over again: ``A
Canadian soldier known only to God''. I defy anyone not to be in
tears after going through that.
I also briefly went with some veterans of World War II on this
trip to Dieppe. I saw that fearsome and frightening beach where
young Canadians fought and died in such great numbers.
Consequently, I would like to add my voice as the member for
Halifax, the largest navy base in our country, a place where from
all corners of Canada we remember with thanks and respect. I
think that we should see Remembrance Day as a statutory
holiday so that never, ever will we forget and so that the children
and future generations will also know what Canadians have done
to preserve their freedom and their heritage.
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from
the order paper.
It being 7.33 p.m., this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.33 p.m.)