House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was heritage.

Topics

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

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?

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

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.

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

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?

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

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

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.

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

I would ask the hon. minister perhaps to withdraw the word "duplicitous". It is a little bit strong in the circumstances.

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Douglas Young Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that word and replace it with one that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition understands: double talking.

Coast Guard College In SydneyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

West Coast FisheryOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

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?

West Coast FisheryOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

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.

West Coast FisheryOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

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?

West Coast FisheryOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

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.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

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?

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Michel Québec

Liberal

André Ouellet LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

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.

Pearson International AirportOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

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

supporting an immoral, illegal and unconstitutional cover-up of Liberal election strategy gone bad?

Pearson International AirportOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

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.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Dromisky Liberal Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON

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?

ImmigrationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

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.

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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

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.

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

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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

St. Boniface Manitoba

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

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.

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.

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-

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.

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.

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.

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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

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.

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

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.

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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Glen McKinnon Liberal Brandon—Souris, MB

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.

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.

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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

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.

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.

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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON

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.

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.

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.

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.