Debates of Oct. 18th, 1994

Criminal Code

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise during debate at second reading of Bill C-41, legislation which is a comprehensive package of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.

I know that my constituents have a number of concerns about elements of the legislation. Because we are at this stage in second reading in which there are some 10 minutes remaining, I want to take this opportunity to focus on one particular provision of Bill C-41 which has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy.

It is the provision of Bill C-41 that deals with the question of so-called hate crimes, crimes which are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, and which are based on a number of criteria set out in Bill C-41. Those criteria include race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim.

The question of the inclusion of sexual orientation of the victim has been the subject of some debate both inside and outside the House. I want to take a couple of minutes to explain why I believe it is profoundly important that sexual orientation be included in the hate crimes provisions of the bill.

However, before I get to that specific subject, I want to note that the reference to hate motivation as a factor in sentencing already exists in the province of Ontario. The Ontario attorney general has directed crown attorneys to argue that sentencing should be increased when a crime is motivated by specific hatred. A number of guidelines are in place to guide the work of crown attorneys in this.

I want to give a couple of examples of circumstances in which sentences have been increased because a crime has been motivated by hatred. Lelas was a case involving the desecration of synagogues. This crime was quite clearly motivated by hatred, by anti-Semitism, by the hatred of Jews. The Ontario Court of Appeal increased the sentence as a result of that. Another is the case of Moyer, a neo-Nazi skinhead who urinated on gravestones in a synagogue. This was considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing and the sentence was increased.

There is the case of Hoolans who went to a so-called hate rock concert and was urged to go coon hunting at this concert. Well he did. He went out and beat to unconsciousness a Sri Lankan dishwasher. When the judge looked at sentencing for this particular crime, because the crime was clearly motivated by hatred on the basis of race, the sentence was increased.

In that light I want to ask what are the implications of the argument of the member for Central Nova and other members of this House, including the members of the Reform Party? What are the arguments for excluding sexual orientation from Bill C-41?

The arguments are very clear. They say that it is just and right and appropriate to increase sentences if a person is motivated by hatred on the basis of religion, race or sex, but it is not if you are motivated by hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. What kind of message would this House be sending to Canadian society if we accepted that message?

Just last weekend in Toronto two men on a downtown street walking home from a cafe, the Second Cup coffee shop, were attacked. Six young men piled out of a van and beat up these two men with fists, boots, and beer bottles, right in the heart of downtown Toronto. As they beat them and injured them, in a pool of blood and broken glass they were calling them faggots. That is gay bashing. Gay bashing occurs tragically too often in my home community of Vancouver, in Toronto, Halifax, and New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and in many other communities. It is not always bashing of people who are gay or lesbian. In some cases it is bashing people who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. They are not gay or lesbian at all but because these thugs, these people who are motivated by hatred, believe they are gay or lesbian they beat them.

This legislation is saying that is wrong. It is saying that if we are to sentence people who are convicted of serious crimes of assault and other crimes and those people are motivated by hatred that judges should take that into consideration as an aggravating factor.

Frankly, I am astonished that a party like the Reform Party which says it believes in law and order would not understand that importance. I am very surprised and very disappointed at that. I have to say I am even more disappointed in the position taken by the member for Central Nova and a number of other Liberal members of Parliament on this issue. That member has said that sexual orientation should be taken out of Bill C-41, not the other grounds in section 41, but sexual orientation.

The implication and the message which is sent out by that is that it is okay. There is one standard if you beat up people based on race or religion and there is another standard if you beat up people based on sexual orientation. That is the message that goes out. If there is a different interpretation let her silent colleagues get up and say so. Let the member for Toronto stand up and say what he thinks about that kind of hateful language. That is what we are talking about here.

In fact, even the vice president of the Central Nova Liberal riding association, Janet Rosenstock, has said she is opposed to the position taken by the MP for Central Nova in this debate. She said the legislation does not single out sexual orientationany more than it does physical disability. It does not give special rights to gays or any other groups. That is the vice president of the riding association of Central Nova. She says, and perhaps Liberal members might find this interesting, that in its simplest terms if the hated are not named specifically prosecution of hate crimes is virtually impossible.

We in this House want to send a very clear and strong signal that we believe that prosecution of hate crimes must not only be possible but must be vigorously enforced. That is the message we want to send out.

I urge members of this House to support this legislation. I urge members of this House to recognize that this is an issue of fundamental justice. It is not an issue of any kind of special rights or treatment. I urge that that be recognized.

To those who say it is necessary to somehow define sexual orientation, I have something to share with them. Sexual orientation has been in legislation in this country for a number of years. There has been absolutely no need to define it to avoid abuses.

I appeal to members of this House to support this provision. Recognize that to do otherwise would be to send out a message of intolerance, a message which this House surely does not want to send to the people of this country.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes a long way to improving our criminal justice system. Yes, it will be debated pro and con.

Moves must be made. We as a Liberal Party made these commitments during the last election campaign and we will carry them out. Improvement in the way sentences of probation are decided in the courts and handled in the community for example by specifying the information that should be in a presentence report and increasing the penalties for offenders who break the conditions of their probation are a very important part of the provisions in this proposed legislation.

We know that during probation period many people have not been apprehended, could not be apprehended and went on to commit other crimes. The streets in this country have to be made safe. The communities across this country, rural and urban, have to be made safe. There has to be respect for decency and law and order.

Canada is looked upon throughout the world as a very civilized, law-abiding and internationally interested partner on the international scene. It is this government's aim to bring that respect to the legal system, the parole system and the justice system in general in Canada.

There have been horror tales in the media and for just cause over the last number of years. The decay of any system must be stopped. We must put in its place the barriers and the inhibitions that are necessary for that to happen.

There also has to be a change in the treatment of these people. We are not going to gain anything by simply throwing people in jail for long terms. They are going to come out the same as they were before, or worse. This point has been argued time and time again.

It is going to be very important that there be proper liaison among the national Department of Health, the justice system and health ministers across this country to make sure that people in prison are treated so that when they do get out they are not a threat to society. If they are not ready to be released, they should not be released. That has to be a reality in our justice system.

We heard of the person who a few years ago was stopped at the Canada-U.S. border at Niagara Falls by American customs people and turned over to Canadian authorities. The Canadian police were notified but nothing could be done under the then legal system because the person had committed no offence. That person committed two murders before being apprehended in London, Ontario. He ended up shooting himself. In the interim he had shot two women in the head.

These things have to receive as serious attention as the crime itself. If a person is breaking parole or is out on bail, they must be monitored. One iota of disobedience to the bail and parole system must be cause for apprehension. That individual should be taken into custody so that he or she will not commit other crimes.

The Government of Canada in co-operation with the provincial governments must be absolutely serious about putting these new rules into the system. They may never be enough so amendments must follow to tighten up the system and protect the public. There is no way in a growing society that we can allow these offences and unsafe conditions to continue.

We have seen examples from around the world where growth in the areas of crime and the justice system have been handled badly. They ended up with the problems they have today for example in Chicago, New York, and other major cities across the United States, as well as in England and other countries. We as a nation that has grown rapidly in population over the last 20 years cannot go in the same direction.

The justice and legal system must serve the safety of the citizens of this nation today, tomorrow and on into the future. A mentality must be built up whereby we will not allow any decline in the safety of today's citizens or future citizens of this country. Canada can indeed be recognized around the world not only as an internationally caring country but as a nation that pays great attention to the safety and well-being of all its citizens.

A big challenge, yes. A big start here, yes. It must be continued. We must work on new ideas, a vision of building a nation that is safe and respected and will carry on with the qualities that our forebears wanted for Canada.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate today is going to be relatively short but I hope important.

I would like to caution the government, the minister, the committee about the danger of some of the aspects of this particular bill. I want to use a specific example which came to mind when I was listening to the debates.

I was thinking of little Randy. Randy was a young boy about two years old who lived for a while with a very close member of our family as a foster child. In order to reunite him with his sister, he and his sister were adopted by a couple. Imagine how shocked we were when we heard that Randy and his sister and their adoptive mother had been murdered. It really hurt our hearts. I can hardly speak of it now without the emotion of that occasion returning.

One of the things in this bill is the government proposal to get into the mind of the perpetrator of the crime to find out what motivated him. We really do not know what motivated the person who did that evil deed.

I am greatly offended when I stop to contemplate that someone would venture to say that a person took the life of another person simply because he had a different coloured skin, simply because he had a different religious background, simply because he had a different sexual orientation. If that could be proven and that person is now subject to a more harsh sentence than the person who took the lives of Randy, his sister and his mother, leaving that husband and father bereaved in that way, I am deeply offended.

I believe this government makes a colossal error by starting to say that we are going to base sentencing on what we think was in the mind of the person.

I would like to also say something with respect to sexual orientation. The hon. member has talked about that. He has added to what other people have said imputing somehow to the members of the Reform Party an improper motivation, which I think is against the rules of the House in any case. He has said that we somehow hate these people because we are talking about these ideas.

Again, I have some level of resentment being told that I cannot openly and honestly debate an issue without getting into

name calling. That is wrong. I believe we ought to have total freedom of speech in this place particularly if we are going to be able to debate and to bring in laws which are absolutely the best for the future of this country and for its citizens.

I do not know how to communicate to the member and to all the members of that community that we do not hate them. A friend of mine was of that particular orientation. His funeral was this year. The hon. member can say that I hate homosexuals and he is totally wrong. In the case of this friend of mine who died this year of AIDS I know and every thinking person in Canada knows that if he would have behaved sexually he would not have had that disease.

I would like to promote very simply that what we need to do in this country is promote sexual fidelity. We need to promote a lifestyle which is healthy, right and good. In no way should we be promoting a lifestyle which has such dangers, even according to what the Minister of Health has said in this House.

I would like to urge all of the members of this community to recognize that we are trying to do what is right, we are trying to do what is good. To legitimize the homosexual lifestyle in this way is a wrong direction.

Further to that, it is again misguided. I remember when I was a young man. Members should all recognize looking at me sideways now that I have a propensity for a little wider girth than others. I have had that all my life. I was some 180 pounds when I was in grade 8. I remember coming into the big city school as a farm kid from Saskatchewan. One day some of the mean city kids beat me up. The best I know the reason was that they were taunting me for being fat and then they proceeded to beat me up. It was not a happy experience. It was many years ago and I still remember it. It was a traumatic event.

By the same token, I do not believe that any citizen in this country for any reason whatsoever should be subject to being beaten up. It is my understanding that there are laws in place right now which would provide for punishment for people who do things like that. I submit to the different people who are classified specifically in this Bill C-41 proposal that they are already included. If you are beaten up the person who did it should be found and punished in a substantial way so that there is a deterrent to this type of thing.

I think we should simply say, as the Reform Party always says, a good country, our nation is going to be strong if we can come to the place where we treat our citizens equally without regard to how they are classified into subgroups, without regard to what race they belong to, without regard to whether they are male or female, without regard to any of these other classifications.

I implore, I beg, I plead for the minister and the committee to think very carefully of the implications that are being included in the proposal that is being given here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division to a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until this afternoon at 5.30 at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of The Department of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to speak in support of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Over the past few months it has been my privilege as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to work closely with him in advancing the department's initiatives on many fronts. I have had occasion to journey to the farthest reaches of our department's operations, visiting and consulting with local officials and community groups. Most striking among my findings was the intense enthusiasm of our Department of Canadian Heritage personnel whose zeal I am sure is fueled by the value they attach to their work.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is not some distant or insulated agency. It is an active participant in countless commu-

nities. In a real sense the department is a large part what makes many towns and cities into strong communities, very often the focal point, the gathering ground for communities, events or institutions that might not exist were it not for the support of the ministry.

From museums, parks and orchestras to sporting and multicultural events, literally millions of Canadians are attracted to our programs every year. The Department of Canadian Heritage is the guardian of our inheritance as Canadians. This department, this minister, stands at the gate protecting rich and unique elements of our culture, our vast stretches of unspoiled habitat, national historic sites, buildings and monuments, which offer Canadians a glimpse of the struggles that built this country.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is the protector of our artistic tradition, our sporting tradition, our official languages, the multitude of contributing cultures from our native citizens to the newest Canadian.

This is not a department which regulates a commodity. Our product is a better Canada, enriched with its natural and historic treasures.

Up to now, the debate taking place in the House has highlighted a number of interesting points, not the least of which being the diversity of programs administered by the new department.

Bill C-53 reflects very well the mandate sought by Heritage Canada and the scope of its field of endeavour. Although this has been mentioned by others, I should repeat that Heritage Canada incorporates programs from five existing or abolished departments.

It is easy for some to say that these programs have little in common, but this is a very superficial way of seeing things. A more thorough examination reveals that the three main areas of activity in the department have a lot in common, and I will come back to that later. More than that, they mesh very well and contribute to the prime goal of the department which is developing Canadian identity centres and encouraging the contribution of all sectors of society to the growth and vitality of our culture.

One of the major sectors of the Department of Canadian Heritage is Parks Canada, formerly a part of Environment Canada. National parks, national historic sites and the historic canals under the stewardship of Parks Canada represent some of the best examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage. These gems are to be found in every region of the country. The economic activity and tourism generated by the department's operations in this program area are of vital significance to many local economies.

The parks service is mindful of its importance to these communities and has been at the forefront of efforts to fashion innovative partnership arrangements with private and not for profit enterprises in carrying out its mandated responsibilities.

The second major sector of the department encompasses those programs which are aimed at the promotion of Canadian identity and civic participation. As one would expect with such a broadly based mandate, this sector includes an impressive sweep of program areas. In fact some of the government's most important initiatives are being implemented in this sector. They include the promotion of official languages, the pursuit of excellence in amateur sport, the promotion of our cultural diversity, and the encouragement of the full and open participation of every Canadian in society.

Here then are the programs that speak to us regarding what it means to be Canadian, that set us apart from the rest of the world, and that have helped Canada earn its top ranking by the United Nations for overall quality of life.

The third main activity of the department is cultural development and heritage. This includes arts, broadcasting and heritage preservation, as well as cultural industries like film, video, sound recording and publishing.

As regards the wide variety of activities involved, the best way to describe them is to quote the short statement in the government's red book on the importance of culture. Here it is: "Culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride. At a time when globalization and the information and communications revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development".

This shows not only the importance of the department's programs, but also stresses what its prime objective should be: To develop policies and mechanisms to ensure a steady growth of artistic and cultural sectors both strong and dynamic.

During debate on the bill we have heard the Minister of Canadian Heritage outline the important connotations imparted by the term heritage. For me one of the most meaningful uses of the term is to capture myriad ways in which we express ourselves not only to our fellow Canadians but to the world. In my view heritage conveys the idea of the link between the past and the present in matters of human endeavour, whether they be related to culture, language, shared values or common experiences.

When I think of Canada and its heritage what springs to mind is a nation forged on the principles of respect for the use and

equal treatment of its two major languages, French and English; of respect for the cultural diversity, the traditions and the contributions of its aboriginal citizens and their languages; and of fundamental respect for basic human rights and values and an all encompassing and abiding devotion to democratic principles. It is no exaggeration to say that all these sentiments and ideals will find expression and action within the programs embodied within the Department of Canadian Heritage.

It is vital not to lose sight of what will be accomplished by the passage of Bill C-53. Moreover the bill should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a greater reorganization of government being effected through the passage of various pieces of enabling legislation now in different stages of parliamentary review.

This redistribution of programs and responsibilities, as we are all aware, had its origin in steps taken by the previous government last June. The current government has put its stamp on the reorganization, redefined it and refined it. We are now proceeding with the task of confirming these changes in law.

This exercise, however, is but one component of our overall effort to provide Canadians with the most effective and open government possible. Toward that end it should be emphasized that the government's program review is ongoing and that the tabling of the various pieces of enabling legislation is part of the process.

The wording of Bill C-53 establishes the overall responsibilities of the Department of Canadian Heritage without being prescriptive as to how the mandate will be delivered. In other words the bill does not limit the types of changes that government may implement to make services more responsive and efficient in the current fiscal context.

The enactment of the bill will summon the coming wave of re-engineering efforts in the department that can only yield even greater efficiencies and more focused services. We must not allow Canada to grow pale from the leaching of its natural and cultural resources. We believe in a Canada infused by the advancement of our sense of Canadian identity and participation as a society and by the continuation of our cultural development and the protection of our priceless natural and cultural heritage.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for her presentation, which could not be any clearer or more interesting.

With regard to her quote from the red book about culture being really important, why did the Liberal government not take this opportunity to establish a department that could have been

called something other than the Department of Canadian Heritage? I, for one, would have called it the department of tutti frutti, since it includes a little of everything whether or not it belongs there. So why not give us a department other than this one?

Why did the Liberal government not take this opportunity to do the right thing? When they were in opposition, they criticized the Conservatives for creating such a department; now that they are in office, they do the exact same thing the tories did.

How is it possible, now that the information highway is just around the corner, that no mechanism has been provided for in the Department of Canadian Heritage to deal with this subject, that there is no regulatory power over the information highway, that telecommunications remain separate from communications, that the CRTC will continue to be split between culture and industry, and that we will never be able to resolve copyright issues because this government lacks courage once again and does what others did before it? It must go back to the drawing board. How can they justify this according to the Liberal party's philosophy? I wonder.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois complaints only make the achievements and importance of Canadian heritage stand out. We often hear that Canadian culture belongs to all Canadians wherever they come from. I think the hon. member should be the first one to admit that we save taxpayers, including Quebecers, money. She should applaud us instead of criticizing us because we do not do exactly what she wants. The Bloc's goals are different from those of the department.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

What are the Bloc's goals?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

You do not understand me? She wants me to speak in English. But I want to practice my French but, as you can see, she will not give me this opportunity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I would like to remind you that comments must be made through the Chair and not directly from one member to another. You can use the official language of your choice.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that Canadian culture belongs to all Canadians wherever they come from. I read the hon. member's speech and I am surprised by her suggestion. She proposes that francophones be confined to local cultural resources only.

I want to add that Canada's culture and history were built by all Canadians together. Sharing our culture and history is the basis of Canadian heritage. It is easy to see why the Bloc

Quebecois is against our goal. I think that Quebecers and Canadians agree with us.

When the hon. member talks about telecommunications coming under the purview of the Department of Industry, is she aware of the growing role of telecommunications as an important source of Canadian economic activities? Broadcasting is easier to integrate into the mandate of Canadian Heritage, as it relates to Canadian culture, identity and content.

Departments work in close co-operation-and I think the hon. member will agree with this-in order to manage these sectors efficiently. I wonder why the hon. member is laughing, when she should be applauding us for saving Canadians, including Quebecers, money. I think that she should be applauding.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary was talking about looking for ways to cut spending in government. I would like to offer one right now.

The department of multiculturalism is redundant. Not only do Canadians not want to see a department of multiculturalism but people in various multicultural communities around the country do not want to see it. I refer to a recent article in Saturday Night magazine wherein noted Canadian writer Neil Bissoondath talked about doing away with the whole idea of multiculturalism. He happens to come from the West Indies, but he is a Canadian writer and that is what he calls himself.

There are people in the Liberal caucus who say we must do away with hyphenated Canadianism. I urge the parliamentary secretary to use her influence on the minister, in conjunction with other members of caucus who feel the same way, to do away with the department of multiculturalism which is absolutely and completely redundant in the eyes of the Reform Party, many Liberals, the Canadian public and the ethnic communities around the country.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel the Reform Party should be called the 1 per cent party because it spends all its time criticizing 1 per cent of the government programs.

The government believes in communities, strong linkages among communities and promoting understanding from wherever people come. The government is committed to pursuing programs which foster understanding and harmony.

However it is a dark day for members of the Reform Party; they should be promoting and endorsing the bill. How does the opposition permit itself to criticize an administrative change that saves all kinds of moneys for taxpayers and actually reduces bureaucracy? The number of assistant deputy ministers has been reduced from 14 to 3. It increases efficiency. Actually the administrative cost savings will be $7.3 million. They may scoff at that, but it is $7.3 million of Canadian taxpayers' money. Members of the Bloc and Reform should unite and applaud us for this initiative rather than indulging in tangential tirades about programs. These improvements would actually increase efficiency. It should leave the Reform speechless but they prefer to remain groundless rather than speechless.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting exchange. I rise to oppose Bill C-53 because it affirms the continuation of officially sanctioned multiculturalism. It encourages division along racial, linguistic and cultural lines.

We are going to continue to have anglo Canadians, French Canadians, native Canadians, Chinese Canadians and a host of other hyphenated nationalities, but apparently no plain, ordinary Canadians. John Diefenbaker must be spinning in his grave.

It is ironic that a department dedicated to "the preservation and enhancement of Canadian heritage" should be charged with state sponsored multiculturalism. This is a contradiction in terms.

For generations Statistics Canada, which used to be called the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, has been obsessed with our ethnic origins. Until fairly recently one could not even if born in Canada be recorded by the census taker as a Canadian. Ottawa now accepts the reality that we Canadians exist. However the 1991 handbook for census takers assures us that they must continue to inquire into the racial origins of our ancestors, again I quote: "to ensure that everyone, regardless of his or her cultural background, has equal opportunity to share fully in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada".

I am not sure what that pretentious bureaucrat slop means but one interpretation could be this. The government wants to know where the money should be sent to buy votes, where to distribute the pork and how to tailor certain government policies to appease voters whose first loyalty is still to the old country.

The Liberals and the scattered remnants of the other two traditional parties endorse official multiculturalism. This foolishness began with the racially and linguistically biased concept that Canada is a coming together of two founding nations, French and English. This understandably irritated native Indians, western Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry, Newfoundlanders whose ancestors were here centuries ago and just about everyone else. As a pedigreed Heinz 57 Canadian I was a little ticked myself.

To resolve the problem it was ordained that everyone belongs to a distinct subspecies of homo-Canadiansis, another of the Trudeau government's wonderful legacy of destructive policies. The maintenance of ancestral culture should be a matter of

personal choice at one's own expense. That would be commendable.

What we do not need are federal politicians saying: "Here is money to preserve and promote the cultures of the societies which your ancestors wished to escape from". This is an absolutely immoral abuse of the power of taxation.

It is the Reform Party's position that official multiculturalism is a divisive force that encourages ghettoization and wastes our tax dollars to do it-$25 million last year. This annual slush fund is doled out to hundreds and hundreds of entities without justification.

Why for example should the various Ukrainian committees get hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funding? If they want to dance the prysyadka, more power to them. They are better men than I, but why should I help to pay for their athletics? Most of them are at least fifth generation Canadians. The first and second generations living in rude cabins in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan got all the exercise they needed clearing land and working away from home to earn a little hard cash. They prospered, helped to build a nation and preserved their language and culture with no help from anyone.

Four years ago I spoke at a Reform Party organizational meeting at a hamlet north of Yorkton, Saskatchewan. The meeting was held in the Ukrainian hall, a 70-year old building made from hand hewn logs, nicely finished and decorated with icons, scrolls and pictures of patriarchs. No civil servant had had a hand in it. That is multiculturalism.

Why do the descendants of these Ukrainian settlers have their hands out now? I suspect it is because they see everyone else lining up for grants. Being practical people they want some of the action.

According to clause 7(a) of the bill the minister may provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments to any person. That is outrageous. One of the principal functions of Parliament is the approval of appropriations. This legislation gives the minister, in other words the bureaucrats, carte blanche to give away money without even cabinet oversight.

The long list of grants to cosy little social and cultural organizations contains such gems as $12,000 to the Icelandic League-more fifth generation Canadians-to finance a convention; $22,575 to the Institution of Ethnic Minority Writing; $72,000 to the National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations-we are going to dance the tinikiling too-$20,000 to the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Here is a beauty: $19,254 to the Lu Hanessian Productions: Love Notes, to produce a musical review of 27 songs and musical vignettes about human relationships.

The government has apparently become a little sensitive about these long lists of grants that appear in newspapers. More and more of this stuff is being camouflaged in grants to umbrella groups like the Canadian Council for Multiculturalism Intercultural Education, $205,000; the Cross Cultural Communications Centre, $114,000.

I have been thinking of organizing a club for my particular ethnic group. I will call it the Mixed Origins Line Dancing Association for the Genetically Challenged. That should be good for a grant of at least $100,000, provided I make the application in a red envelope.

I grew up in an ethnically diverse community. All of western Canada had been ethnically diverse for generations, when Toronto was still a WASP enclave where on Sundays travellers could starve or die of thirst right on Yonge Street. Times have changed; I will not pretend that we lived in a sea of brotherly love. Every group felt superior to some other group, but we got along. We were glued together by a common language, shared history, the adverse conditions of that time and place and, above all, by a lot of intermarriage.

Now the federal government by stressing diversity instead of human commonality is weakening that glue and it is weakening the social fabric of our nation. Ghettoization is in; adaptation to new surroundings is out. Why learn the language and social customs of your adopted country when you can hide in an enclave from which emissaries are sent out every day to come back with sustenance and interface with the wicked outside world.

Every few years a politician will stop in your community, figuratively pat people on the head and patronizingly solicit your votes as a vehicle to combat racism or preserve cultural diversity.

Now lest any hon. member dismiss my deeply held convictions on this matter as the insensitive views of one white guy in a suit, somebody who does not understand, I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting a few recent immigrants.

Dr. Rais Khan is a very wise new Canadian who heads the department of political science at the University of Manitoba. A couple of years ago he was guest speaker at the Reform Party assembly in Winnipeg. I would like to quote some of his remarks verbatim. He said: "I did not come here to be labelled as an ethnic or as a member of the multicultural community or to be coddled with preferential treatment, nurtured with special grants and then sit on the sidelines and watch the world go by". Later in the same speech, he said: "If I want to preserve my

cultural heritage, that is my business. If I want to invite you into my home to eat some spicy traditional food, that is our business. If I expect you to pay for my cultural activities, that is your business".

Bharati Mukherjee, a writer who emigrated to Canada from India, felt marginalized here. She blamed Canada's obsession with multiculturalism for making her a psychological expatriate, so she moved to the United States after being here for 15 years. She says that Canada has chosen to be a mosaic but by preserving differences it also preserves bias.

One of the most eloquent opponents of multiculturalism is Al Meghji, a professor of law at Dalhousie University. I believe he is Canadian born but in the eyes of the multiculturalists he is an Indo-Canadian whose fragile identity must be preserved from the dark forces of assimilation. I will quote him at some considerable length.

He states: "Multiculturalism undermines the efforts of those who are seeking to forge a national identity and prevent the disintegration of an already fragile nation. Whatever the purpose of multicultural policy, the net result is that it highlights and accentuates differences among Canadians. What is needed is not a policy that emphasizes differences but one that promotes common goals and nationally shared values while at the same time allowing the expression of individual identity".

I have one last name on my list. He has been previously mentioned. I would like to quote him at a little more length. Neil Bissoondath is a prominent Trinidad born Canadian author. Some of you may have read his collection of short stories Digging Up the Mountain . He was a darling of the chattering classes until he had the temerity to question the doctrine of official multiculturalism. Now he is in big trouble for saying things like multiculturalism is a policy that seeks merely to keep a diverse population amenable to political manipulation.

A very prominent and very white chatterer who is well known to most of us in this House has asked a snide question. Now he wants to reject his brothers, his sisters, his nieces, his nephews. So much for politically correct tolerance.

It is the responsibility of government not to encourage immigrant people to maintain their separateness but to help them, especially through language courses to integrate into Canadian society. Even that would be more than the old timers got. They put down their roots, helped each other and thanked the stars that they had arrived here. Their children became unhyphenated Canadians through their own efforts and now this government like those that have preceded it for the last 20 years is trying to rehyphenate their great grandchildren. You cannot bind a nation together with hyphens.