Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Bill M-364, a motion advocating the transfer of responsibility for cultural preservation to individuals by discontinuing federal multicultural programs, proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. Today I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the arguments utilized by opponents of Canada's multicultural program.
Unfortunately, over the past few years the spread of misinformation regarding our federal multicultural policy has been prevalent. The popular misconception of multiculturalism is of
a government-funded program that pays people to, first, keep their native cultures and languages, and, second, that serves to divide the country. These myths have, to an extent, been further propagated following the release of Mr. Neil Bissoondath's recent book, entitled "Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism". Although I certainly welcome this interesting publication as a means of stimulating debate in this area, I must also state my reservation about the unsubstantiated assertions made therein.
Mr. Bissoondath has misread the effects of multiculturalism by insinuating that money spent on multicultural events will reinforce stereotypes and lead to a break-up of the country socially.
I find perplexing the assumption that, for example, the display of a community's traditional dance could lead to divisiveness and negative stereotyping. This conclusion clearly is not credible. We know that multiculturalism does not promote or reinforce negative stereotypes.
In reference to the dance, I and my family, as individuals and collectively, felt that we must preserve certain customs, traditions and beliefs. Based on those needs, because of our ethnic background, we preserved what we wanted, what we felt was honourable and desirable to preserve and pass on from generation to generation. One of those activities was Ukrainian dance. Everyone in my family learned how to do the Kolemyka, the Hopokola, and other dances, which we all immensely enjoyed, not only with our members of the family but with other people in the community.
In these dances, there were not only those who were of Ukrainian ethnic background but of a multitude of ethnic backgrounds. That was the composition of the community in which I was raised. We all lived in perfect harmony with each other. No one decided that there should be a barrier between the Italians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Ukrainians or the Slovaks. We all had basically the same needs.
Moreover, Mr. Bissoondath draws a link between multiculturalism and the marginalization of immigrants. He relates the story of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson, who, in a 24-hour period, was transformed in media sports from "the Canadian who had won Olympic gold through effort to the Jamaican immigrant who had lost it through use of drugs". It was from the positive to the negative, from the Canadian to the Jamaican immigrant. In my mind it is very clear that this type of media report is a result of ignorance and unconscious prejudice. It is certainly not a result of multiculturalism's assumed marginalizing effects.
The reality is that multiculturalism brings strength to this country. It is, however, a human characteristic to react in a reflex-like and emotional manner when confronted with unsubstantiated stories about certain communities. We should not allow rumours and hearsay to determine our policies. Unfounded stories are not based upon educated opinion and most certainly are not based upon facts.
I expect that the Reform Party's position is the result of sloppy and inaccurate research because I certainly do not want to believe that they are intentionally misguiding the Canadian public. Not for one moment do I believe that they would do such a thing.
However, Mr. Neil Bissoondath in his book, when referring to the Reform Party's opposition to multiculturalism, indicates:
my attitude is at best suspicious. Reform strikes me as a party that suffers from an astounding lack of social generosity and counts among its membership too many who are either racially minded or, to coin a phrase, knowledge-challenged.
Multiculturalism was officially introduced into Parliament on October 8, 1971. It was expected to be a vehicle through which we would achieve a cultural mosaic, as opposed to the U.S. melting pot. Today, 42 per cent of Canadians have origins that are other than British or French. While people with European origins still make up the largest number of Canadians, more and more immigrants are coming to Canada from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.
This is changing the face of the Canadian population. In the 1986 census, visible minorities accounted for 6.3 per cent of the Canadian population. By 1991 this figure was almost 10 per cent. The visible minority population of major cities is greater. For instance, in Toronto it is 26 per cent; Vancouver, 24 per cent; and in Montreal, 11 per cent.
Canada's multiculturalism policy is one expression of leadership. The multiculturalism policy is rooted in Canadian values. It is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which establishes the fundamental freedoms and democratic rights of all individual Canadians, irrespective of national or ethnic origin. It is also consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act and the Citizenship Act.
Multiculturalism, as described under federal policy, is concerned with helping people become full participants in the life of Canada. It is certainly not concerned with the mandatory retention of culture and does not encourage cultural isolation, as some critics erroneously charge. There are the so-called ghettos of our communities where we my find, as we find in Thunder Bay, a large gathering of a certain group of people with a specific ethnic background. We find this happening because they choose to be neighbours. They choose based on their every day needs to be in constant contact with each other, to help each other, until they reach the point where they can communicate with anyone in their neighbourhood in the common language of
the area. In our case it could be English or, as in Quebec, it could be French.
In 1993-94, $25.5 million was spent on the federal multicultural program, which is less than Brian Mulroney spent on his prime ministerial aircraft. The notion that $25.5 million per year, which is less than a dollar per citizen, could ensure the isolation of Canadians into cultural-ethnic cliques is hardly believable. Moreover, one must keep in mind that an important component of the original policy was founded on the assumption that encouraging people to be confident in their own cultures would allow them to be accepting of the cultures of other groups. The official policy encourages Canadians of all ethnic origins to participate fully in the economic and social life of Canada, sharing their cultures and histories with each other.
It is unfortunate that members in the opposition benches are insinuating that multiculturalism and cultural diversity somehow preclude national unity and inhibit our ability to be part of the whole. This could not be further from the truth. Canadians of all origins do maintain a sense of their own cultural identity and at the same time adhere to the Canadian values of democracy and tolerance. There is no reason to believe that the two are mutually exclusive. That is a notion that has somehow been propagated by opponents of multiculturalism and it is extremely misleading and irresponsible. The proof for this is in the Canada of today. We are culturally diverse, and yet if we ask the majority of immigrants they will tell you that they are first and foremost Canadians.
I would like to conclude with a quote from a Toronto Star article dated June 21, 1991. It refers to the experience of an author. Her name is Myrna Kostash, grand-daughter of Ukrainian immigrants that settled in Alberta. She stated:
Multiculturalism policy and its institutions allowed me to take part in Canadian life. It allowed me to get out of the ghetto. During my own childhood, ethnic cultures were private, taking place in Ukrainian churches and in youth groups. I was aware that I was dropping out of my peer group in order to be Ukrainian. But with the advent of multiculturalism, I felt that when I spoke as a Canadian-Ukrainian writer, I was doing it within the mainstream institutions of Canadian literary life. I became a Canadian through this sense of entitlement. I didn't have to choose between public and private cells. Both came together through multiculturalism.
