Debates of Oct. 27th, 1994

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

It is the incompetent minister who hands those moneys out.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

My friend has mentioned that it is the incompetent minister who hands these things out, a minister who at the drop of a hat will interfere in affairs or try to manipulate the applications of some special interest group.

People are appalled at this. They ask: "Has the government not got the message yet that we want the government to be accountable directly to the people?" The government remains silent and goes on its merry way without answering these questions.

People are not happy with what is happening here. They feel that if bills are introduced into the House they ought to be substantive and they ought to meet the needs of this nation.

Then they ask: "What's going on at that national art museum?" I say to them: "I went there for a visit. I walked through". As I viewed the various so-called pieces of art I wondered if the people of Canada could see this whether they would actually contribute directly to these paintings, this art that was displayed there. I describe to them some of the things I saw. I told them that I walked into a large room which would cost something to heat and to keep under those nice glass domes. I saw what looked to me like a piece of baling wire running from that corner to that corner. I asked the security person if they forgot to put the art in this room and he said no, that is the piece of art.

[An hon. member]

How much was it?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I do not know what it would cost to string a piece of baling wire from one corner to the other but I question that. Then I saw a toilet bowl hanging in a doorway and I thought: "That is interesting. I wonder how you use that or why is that regarded as a piece of art?" Things like this are unbelievable.

I had heard of the "Voice of Fire" so I looked for this painting that had cost us over $1.5 million. I walked into a quite large room and saw what I thought was a replica of this painting. I asked the security guard: "Where is the real thing?" He said: "That's it. That has actually cost us over $1.5 million". I told this to the people of Saskatchewan and they said: "Do you mean they are cutting back on health care so that we can have that sitting there?" They asked: "Why are we not being given more of a choice as to whether we want health care preserved in Saskatchewan rather than it being cut back so that it is almost inaccessible to some of the people in remote areas or that art?" I told them: "Ask your government".

We asked the government today and it cannot give us any answers. I think that is very unfortunate.

During the election people made it very clear that multiculturalism is not a priority and that official bilingualism is not a priority. They feel that the government should be looking at these areas.

When I was in the constituency last week I listened to the radio. We hear a lot about how the CBC preserves culture and so on in the province. I listened very carefully to the news reports. I realized as I did that it concentrates on certain kinds of items and in that way it can manipulate what people think about. Then I listened to the so-called balance that it is purported to have.

I heard a very good economist give a three or four minute account of what is happening in the country. I thought good for you, this is excellent. However it was given at 6.30 in the morning when very few people were listening. At 7.45 there was a long interview with someone who had allegedly been abused because of their sexual orientation. In that way they begin to manipulate what people are thinking about.

Eighty per cent of the people in my province want to hear more about certain issues but they cannot get the CBC to address them. Instead, they have to put up with a lot of things that they feel are not priorities in their lives and their society. They feel the government is trying to manipulate what is happening in this country, that it is trying to force a culture upon them that they have no control over. That is why we advocate that people who believe in certain things should pay for them. The government should not be free to use their tax dollars in any way that the elitists can and do.

I was surprised to hear the Liberals and the NDP in the House defending the fact that the elite should be making these decisions because they know better. People are appalled at this kind of attitude. It is high time that it changed. A culture that is paid for by the government tends to be very phoney. It is not a real culture. That is what people are telling me.

Many decisions are made on projects because money is there to spend on those projects. If you can apply for the money you can have the project, but if you had to pay for it yourself it probably would never take place.

My wife is of Norwegian ancestry. Her family has been here for over a hundred years. They have preserved their culture and their language. My wife is fluent in Norwegian. They have preserved these things because it is important to them. There is something real about that culture because it has not been funded by taxpayers' dollars.

My first language is not English or French. Some of you may smile and say: "We can tell that by the way you speak". We preserved our language and our heritage because it was important to us. That is the message people want to get.

Ukrainian people in my area have preserved their culture and their language because it is very important to them. I enjoy going to their gatherings and meeting with them because it is real. The government has not interfered with it. I feel that is the kind of culture we need in Canada. We do not need a culture that is imposed on us from the top, that is manipulated by bureaucrats and people who think they know better what is going on.

If there is one message I hope the government will get, it is that people are tired of the elite in society deciding what is good for them. If we believe in culture we should preserve it.

The government does not really understand what culture means and what people want. We should let people define their own Canadian culture here in Canada. The bill entrenches multiculturalism. It enforces official bilingualism. It preserves funding for special interest groups. People do not want that. They do not want the government misspending their money. The government is giving the impression it is doing something. The bill is symbolic of the fact there is nothing substantive happening in the country today.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a very short intervention to reply to some of the nonsense I have heard today in the debate.

The debate has focused on what culture means to a society and to a nation. I have come to the conclusion there is very little understanding on the other side of the House when they can ask how many gallons of paint does a painting take to determine the worth of the painting.

I had the privilege and the pleasure this morning of being at breakfast with the director of the National Gallery. We were talking about "Voice of Fire". We were talking about other things too. Next year, and I am sure members opposite are not aware of this, is the 75th anniversary of the Group of Seven. I asked the director of the gallery what she thought the media reports would have been about and the outraged comments of the House of Commons would have been at the time our National Gallery was purchasing paintings of the Group of Seven, when the popular taste was pastoral landscapes in the European style. Those purchases were very unpopular and yet what is one of our great Canadian icons? The Group of Seven.

A gallery that was independent of political control 75 years ago had the foresight to recognize something uniquely Canadian in the style of Canada, something not based on imitating what was being done elsewhere.

I am not qualified to judge "Voice of Fire". I really do not know if that is the kind of painting that 75 years from now we will be extremely proud to have had the foresight to buy and have in our national collection. I hope so. I do not know.

I do know that I want a gallery that is free to buy what it believes is the best being produced. I thank the gallery for having fulfilled that role and for having preserved for us something as uniquely Canadian and valuable as the paintings of the Group of Seven, among others.

I want to make another comment. We have heard about multiculturalism today as if all it does is support cultures that are unique to specific groups. What in fact it does is build understanding among Canadians.

Members on the opposite side have demonstrated that they really do not know a lot about what they are saying because they consistently talk about certain ethnic groups which do not rely on government funding not being aware obviously that in fact those groups do rely on government funding and are quite competent in getting it.

Let me report another incident recently. I attended an award ceremony at the Boys and Girls Club in my riding not too long ago. It was a wrap up of their summer program. I saw young people whose families have been in Canada for generations and whose skins are white. I also saw young people whose families have been in Canada for less than six months, Somalians, Ethiopians, people from southeast Asia, people from all over the world playing together, working together, and getting to know each other.

I know that many of those Somalia youths are involved in the community to the extent that they are because of organizations like the Somali integration and settlement agency, which gets funding from the very program that the members opposite are criticizing.

They get funding because they are coming here as refugees. They have left everything behind. The majority are women with young children coming here for safety. These people do not come here with a lot. This agency gives these people coming to our country job training, language training, access to services so they have the ability not to separate themselves, but to integrate more fully and more completely into Canadian society. One of the results of that is young Somalian, Ethiopian and Cambodian children and children from all over the world I see playing together at the Boys and Girls Club in my riding.

I want to say one final word about special interest groups. The people who talk about special interest groups frankly are the biggest special interest group in the country. They are the ones who by tradition and by the practice of all our laws, our courts and all our systems are the privileged class.

If we fund certain groups in our society it is because without government support the poorest, the disabled, women, children would not have a voice in our public debate. I do not want a public debate on public issues on the future of this country that is dominated only by those who already have the wealth to make their voices heard.

I do not want the decisions we make in the House made on the basis only of opinions from those who can afford to travel to Ottawa, to write to Ottawa, to hire lobbyists, to hire lawyers and to hire accountants. I want the voices of all Canadians to be part of what we decide in the House, what we determine in our committees and what the future of Canadian society is. Canadian society is not just for the privileged few; it is for all Canadians.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill today. To begin, I would like to address the issue of federal multicultural policy. We will hear several Reformers speak against this policy and the former government's policy of multiculturalism but we will not hear the discontented backbenchers of the government side speaking their views.

There are many on the other side now who share the Reform position on multicultural policy. Multiculturalism is currently under debate at all levels of our society. Recently CBC aired two special episodes highlighting this very debate. The thrust of its broadcast was whether multiculturalism policy brings us together as Canadians or does exactly the opposite, pulls us apart.

Even a member of the Liberal Party, the party that first put forward its multicultural agenda and proposes to entrench it into the legislation, came forward to oppose multiculturalism. It is a fact that there is a great deal of support for the Reform position on multiculturalism everywhere within the House.

During this televised debate the Liberal member for York South-Weston referred to multiculturalism policy as a fraud that continues to be perpetuated on Canadians.

The member referred to multicultural policy as a policy that separates Canadians. He pressed that it is time for change. Remember this is a Liberal. The member opposite proposed that Canada dump its multicultural policy and begin to promote what Canadians have in common, not their differences.

I am pleased to see such progressive and logical thinking coming from the opposite side, as the member has come up with some very valid points.

It is my hope that the government will consult with all elected members in the House before it passes the legislation because Canada's multicultural policy is a fraud. Rather than take a different approach to Canada's multicultural landscape as the member has suggested, I believe the federal government should get out of the social landscaping business altogether. The government should not be funding or promoting one ethnic group over another. This is not the role of government.

A true liberal democracy simply does not try to legislate culture. Twenty-three years ago, the architect of multiculturalism, Pierre Trudeau, implemented the policy in a misguided attempt to assure the cultural freedoms of Canadians.

These freedoms were already there. Canadians were already free to nourish their own culture, speak their own language, sing their own songs, play their own music and wear their traditional clothes.

Canadians do not need government multicultural grants to practice their cultural freedoms. Canadian culture is not created or sustained, nor is it maintained through government grants. Canada is a multicultural nation not because of government policy but as a result of each individual who comprises this great country.

Multiculturalism exists regardless and in spite of government policy. Canadians do not need a song and dance fund to maintain their individual cultures. Canadians do not maintain or develop their culture through conferences or workshops or through dances or craft shows.

Culture is not something that we buy at the corner store. It is something that we learn at home mainly from our parents and our grandparents. It is an acquired attribute. It is not something that we buy.

In addition, the multiculturalism program is nothing more than a funding program for special interest groups. Last year grants to special interest groups for dances, conferences, film making, books and other miscellaneous projects totalled $25.5 million. Grants from the previous three years totalled $27 million annually.

The government may argue that $25 million or $27 million is not much in the larger scheme of things but when we are spending $100 million a day more than we are taking in, it does put it into perspective. It is a program that one, we do not need and two, we cannot afford.

We desperately require fiscal restraint. If we are going to save our social programs this government must be prepared to trim its funding. Canada cannot sustain the spending binges of this and previous Liberal governments.

Canadians are facing severe fiscal restraint with our health system and social systems deeply in trouble. The government cannot argue to maintain transfers for health care at the same levels and yet it seems determined to wander back to the Liberal spending days of the 1970s with wasteful multicultural spending.

The time has come to get with the times and show some responsibility and leadership. Canadians do not want a song and dance fund. They want jobs. They want health care. They want pensions, higher education and a clean environment.

Spending priority is not the only issue here but regardless of fiscal constraints, government should not be in the cultural policy business. It is not the business of government to ensure that Canadians maintain their cultures and traditions. That is the responsibility of the groups themselves and should not be financed with taxpayer's money.

Federal government activities should enhance the citizenship of all Canadians regardless of race, language or culture. It should be up to the provinces to choose whether they wish to promote language and culture within their individual jurisdictions.

I have another major concern. The program does not work. Even the chairman of the human rights commission admits that the program is not working. All the grants for miscellaneous conferences, workshops and dances are not achieving the intended goal. According to the human rights chair, racism is growing.

Multiculturalism policy actively categorizes people on the basis of race and countries of origin. This is wrong because it is active discrimination. Multiculturalism policy separates people on the basis of their origin instead of treating all Canadians equally regardless of race.

The Reform Party is the only party that actively promotes equality of all Canadians. It is the only party that officially recognizes that all Canadians are equal and should be treated equally.

We support programs that involve the elimination of discrimination and the right of individuals to participate in Confederation without discrimination. Such programs would be more logically transferred to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as the CHRC's mandate clearly states that the commission has statutory responsibility to develop and conduct programs to foster public understanding of the principles enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In conclusion, we oppose the current concept of multiculturalism pursued by the government and would end all funding for multiculturalism programs. Whether an ethnic group preserves its cultural background is the group's choice, not the government's.

In short, Canadians do not need nor do they want a song and dance fund enshrined in legislation.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was asked if I would like to say a few words I was of two minds. This being a debate on heritage it does bring in the minister of heritage. That brings in the letter in the press today in which the minister of heritage, I think quite innocently, used his office or wrote a letter in support of a constituent asking for the support of a constituent in an application before the CRTC.

As I say, I was of two minds just how I would approach the matter because a minister of the government is still a member representing constituents. Therefore how do you balance your responsibilities as a member of Parliament representing your constituents and as a minister of the crown? What would be the fiduciary responsibilities implied in both?

My concern was further complicated because I was asked just after the election when we were all rookies, including the minister opposite, to write a letter in support of an application for a television station licence in my constituency. I did. I wrote a letter to the CRTC and asked that it look favourably upon an application. I thought about it for a while and I sent another letter in rescinding the first letter because I recognized that I did not have knowledge on either side of the issue. We hire people at the CRTC to make these decisions. These decisions should be made by the people who are being paid and who have the ability to make the decision based on fact.

Additionally other people have asked for my support in establishing or getting a licence for radio broadcasting. I wrote in support of that because in my capacity as a member of Parliament I should have the obligation to support members of my constituency and Canadians in general who come to me for help. I use my wisdom and I use my office after deciding the merits of that case.

The difference of course is that I am a humble backbencher in the third party. The minister-

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

You are a frontbencher. You are a frontliner.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

My hon. colleague tells me I am no longer a humble backbencher. I am a humble frontbencher in a third party very close to the door.

The difference is that a minister of the crown has a very different fiduciary responsibility than a humble backbencher of any party. This is the gist of the problem we have facing us today.

[An hon. member]

If he does not know the difference he should step down.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

The thing that concerns me most is that our country has suffered under nine years of almost visceral dislike and hate for the Tories who were displaced by most here in the Chamber today. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. They were dumped by the electorate and we were elected because the Canadian people lost their trust in the people who were governing them. They felt that the people who were in power were more interested in protecting their friends, hubris, getting rich, looking after their own interests than they were in looking after the interests of the ordinary people, the people who pay the freight $10 at a time.

The consequence is that we were elected to the House. We have a profound responsibility. Our country is going into a time of distemper never before seen in this land. We have in the loyal opposition a party dedicated to breaking up the country. We have a third party, all but one of whom are absolute rookies. We have the Liberal Party in power, the vast majority of whom are absolute rookies. We have to use the opportunity and not squander it. We have to use it to make some very fundamental changes in the way our country is governed and the way we inter-relate one with another and the way we get things done.

Everything ministers do is based on a foundation of trust. If that foundation of trust between the electorate, the Canadian citizenry, and Parliament, those elected to lead, is broken then we lose our reason to be here. We have lost the moral authority to provide leadership to a country desperately in need of leadership.

That is the reason I asked to speak in the debate. It is not that I have an axe to grind with the hon. minister opposite. I do not in any respect. In my view this was an honest mistake made by a rookie, just as I am a rookie. When one makes a mistake it is an opportunity to learn. Rather than stonewalling, rather than saying: "Hey, I did all right. I did the right thing. You have it all wrong". He should have the courage to come to the table and say: "Look, I made a mistake. I have learned from it and it will not happen again". It should be a caution to all of us.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

He did.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Then it becomes experience. We put it behind us and we go on from there. That is the very least we in this Parliament and Canadians in general should expect from a minister of the crown.

I would like to speak to the issue of multiculturalism and the department of heritage. Much has been said in recent times about the value of multiculturalism in Canada. We are a much stronger, much finer, much more varied and rich nation because of our multicultural heritage, because by and large people get along with each other. We respect each other for our differences.

Let me give a personal indication of what is so wonderful about our country. Perhaps it is just serendipitous that this happened to me this morning. I was walking to the House and I stopped at the Apollo Restaurant on Bank Street for breakfast. I sat down. I did not know a soul there. I was reading the paper and having breakfast. The people next to me were speaking to each other in Greek and in English. There would be four or five words in Greek, four or five words in English, a sentence in Greek and then a sentence in English. I was sitting there thinking it was marvellous that they could go back and forth in these two languages. This is part of our common culture.

I started chatting with them and it came out in conversation that the reason these two people were speaking in English and Greek was because they noticed that when I ordered I spoke in English and they assumed that I could not speak Greek. They did not want me to feel out of place or that they were saying something I should not know or whatever. They were trying to make me feel comfortable in the fact that I could not speak Greek.

Here we were having breakfast and talking about how wonderful it is that we have this multilingual heritage in our country and that we have it because we want it. We have it because it springs indigenously from the hearts of the people to whom it belongs. It is not something that is force fed or cultivated by the government.

As this debate unfolds, we need to draw a distinction between multiculturalism that springs naturally from the fact that our nation is built up of people all over the world and government multiculturalism that is force fed to us in order to curry favour with multi-ethnic groups. It is a very important distinction.

Therefore I would like to move:

That we add after the words Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:

"and the standing committee report back to the House no later than June 23, 1995".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The subamendment moved is in order.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am provoked to speak in the debate today because of the misrepresentations being placed before the House by the members in the Reform Party who are suggesting that somehow the Minister of Canadian Heritage has done something wrong and therefore ought to resign his post.

I want to argue against that proposition because it is palpable rubbish and nonsense. The minister came into the House this morning and made a very clear and succinct statement, as suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast in his

most reasoned address. It is the only beam of reason we have heard from the other side of the House on this issue this day.

The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast presented a veritable feast of reason in his address because he made it very clear that the minister should come and do what in fact the minister did earlier this morning.

He came into the House. He apologized. He said he was sorry that he made an error in sending a letter. This was not the case of a minister who had been exposed having done something improper.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I say to hon. members, listen to the facts. Some of them were not here this morning when the minister made his remarks. Of course they did not have notice of it so they probably did not understand it when he delivered it. The minister came into the House and said: "Here are the facts of the case". He produced his letter of March 13, tabled it in the House, and read the letter into the record.

Let me read what the minister's letter says. He says he is writing about a problem and then he said: "I would be most grateful if you could give this application due consideration". Did he say special treatment? No. Did he say fancy treatment, something out of the ordinary? No. He said due consideration. Then he said: "I trust that you will keep me abreast of any developments in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information", a standard letter that a member of Parliament representing a constituent would send.

If hon. members opposite will not send that kind of letter I suggest to them they are not doing their job for their constituents. Here was a minister diligently doing his duty as a member of Parliament for his constituent.

As he said, he realized that was not the thing for him to do. It came to his attention soon after when another constituent wrote, had noted the letter, and wanted to know if this was support for the application. He wrote back on September 30 and he tabled that letter in the House this morning. Hon. members opposite in their speeches often conveniently neglect to mention this. I tried to remind them in my remarks from my seat, but of course they do not pay much attention to that.

"This is further to your letter of September 20" and so on. He wrote: "My letter of March 15, 1994 to the CRTC simply asked that due consideration be given to the application. It is not intended to convey support for or opposition to the application". He sent a copy of this letter to the CRTC to reinforce the message that this was neither in opposition nor in support. It was a very decent letter and he did it in a timely way.

That is what the minister did. It is not as though he sent this after there had been an exposure of the facts in the press or in the House. He did the honourable thing as soon as he realized there was some mistake. He came into the House this morning and gave this explanation so all hon. members could hear.

As I said earlier, he did not send an advance copy to the Reform Party so maybe they did not understand it. He did not send it to them last night. Maybe they had trouble reading it. I do not know what happened with the Reform Party members. However I invite them to get the blues which are available to them and read the minister's statement. Then they will agree with me that this minister has acted with complete propriety. He apologized for sending the-

[The Speaker]

Order. 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.

Multiculturalism

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on October 18 of this year the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia in his speech to the House referred to today's generation of Ukrainian people as having their hands out for grants. I find this an absolute insult.

My children have attended and continue to attend Ukrainian cultural events that are totally paid for by the families and the local churches. Such comments of the hon. member do nothing to advance multiculturalism in this country.

Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry are asking for redress for the internment of Ukrainians during World War I. This is not a request for a handout but, instead, is a demand for return of property seized from these new Canadians and never returned to them after the war.

I hope this hon. member joins with us in this request for restitution of property wrongfully seized and retained by the Canadian government.

Israeli-Jordanian Accord

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Israel and Jordan initialed a historic agreement ending a state of war between the two peoples which lasted more than 46 years. The agreement is even more exemplary because it was achieved despite provocations from extremists.

By common consent, Prime Minister Rabin of Israel and King Hussein of Jordan agreed to work together to make the desert valleys bloom again in peace.

Such an agreement is only possible if the parties persevere in their desire to improve the situation step by step so that it becomes a lasting peace.

We are pleased with this agreement, which seeks to improve the lives of Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians. We hope that the next step will extend to Syria as soon as possible.

Court Challenges Program

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total disbelief that this government has reinstated the court challenges program. This program is nothing more than government funding of special interest groups, which more often than not exhibit bias or promote a view that is not in accordance with the majority of society.

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the Liberals managed to find almost $3 million floating in some abyss to fund this wasteful program. Yet this same level of government is contemplating raising personal taxes, implementing a carbon tax, taxing RRSP contributions and doing little to fight the debt or deficit.

Our national debt is rising by $1,743 every second and is now $538,860,511,635.87.

Environmental Assessment Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its amendments seek to improve key elements of the federal process. The Act contains mechanisms whereby different levels of government can harmonize their processes through administrative agreements and reduce duplication and uncertainty.

These mechanisms are intended to facilitate the delegation of environmental assessments to the provinces and thus to make things easier for developers. Almost all the provinces in Canada are now negotiating harmonization agreements with the federal government. I sincerely hope that the Government of Quebec will do the same and negotiate a harmonization agreement as soon as possible, so that Quebec developers can enjoy a level of service comparable to that available in the other provinces of Canada.

Bovine Somatotropin

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on August 17, on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the federal government obtained from manufacturers of BST-bovine somatotropin-in Canada a promise to voluntarily defer the sale and use of BST until July 1, 1995. I was delighted to learn that the Government of Canada has just appointed a seven-member task force that will also review the safety of recombinant bovine somatotropin for animal and human health.

I wish to bring to the attention of this advisory group and of the Minister of Health that, contrary to what was said and written, some studies show that BST alters the nutritional quality of milk, producing more fat and less protein. I am concerned about the impact this change in the percentage of milk components might have on the future health of our young consumers.

Psoriasis Awareness Month

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, October has been proclaimed Psoriasis Awareness Month.

One to three per cent of the Canadian population suffer from this chronic and recurrent skin disorder. Although not contagious, the impact can be disruptive physically emotionally, socially and economically. Health care costs are enormous. In addition, sufferers pay out thousands of dollars for over the counter and prescription drugs.

During this month chapters of the Canadian Psoriasis Foundation are hosting public information activities across the country explaining the disease, its treatment and recent advances. We commend the many volunteers of the Canadian foundation for their diligent attention and for their caring help to fellow Canadians.

Human Rights

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really against his will that the Prime Minister finally agreed to raise the issue of human rights during his trip to China, but not officially, quietly, in private, above all, not in broad daylight. To do more, he tells us, would be "unrealistic".

In fact, if we did more than that, according to him, a small country like Canada would become a laughing stock. How many more prisoners of conscience will have their basic rights violated during the Prime Minister's trip? That, he would rather not know.

Some of Canada's prime ministers managed to convey the people's values; they showed vision and dignity by embracing universal values; they gave a soul to our foreign policy. Then, Mr. Speaker, there are the others.