Debates of Oct. 18th, 1994

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

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

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.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

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.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

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.

I have also been looking at the grants issue to various ethnic groups and I have found during the last government a correlation

between payments to ethnic groups and election years in which the actual payments increased.

Would he care to comment on those two points?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

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.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

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.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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.

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.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

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:

1. (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,

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

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

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.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

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.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

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.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

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.

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

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.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

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.

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

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:

"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.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

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.

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.

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.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

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.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

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.

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.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

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.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

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.

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.

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,

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.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.