Debates of Nov. 16th, 1994

Petitions

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to euthanasia. The petitioners request that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or passive or active euthanasia.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in the last petition the petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from all across Canada and contains 2,340 signatures. It is quite a fat document.

The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a 6-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.

The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 51 Albertans, many of whom are my constituents.

These petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Am I pleased not only to present this petition but to endorse it as well.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. The first petition contains 61 signatures from citizens and residents of the town of Frankfurt, Ontario.

They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the same community concerning what is being shown on television.

The undersigned pray and call on Parliament to ensure that the CRTC recognizes that Canadians do not need to be shocked to be entertained. Foul language, excessive violence and explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality entertainment.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Lanark and Perth, Ontario. The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The Late Hon. Eugène Marquis

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness yet with serenity that we learned yesterday of the passing of the Hon. Eugène Marquis, who represented the riding of Kamouraska in this House at one time.

Mr. Marquis was born in St. Alexandre, Kamouraska, in 1901. He was the son of Joseph Marquis and Eveline Michaud. Upon completion of his classical studies, Eugène Marquis received his law degree from Laval University. Upon being admitted to the Bar, he was appointed susbstitute to the Attorney General of Quebec.

In 1931, Eugène Marquis married Véronique Chabot -who happens to be my aunt as she is my mother's sister- in Ste. Claire de Dorchester. Destined for politics, he ran in the 1945 general elections as a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada, when the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister of the country, and the voters of Kamouraska put their trust in him. They did so again in the next election, in 1949, when the Right Hon. Louis Saint-Laurent was Prime Minister of Canada.

On August 24, 1949, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon. Eugène Marquis was appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec, of which he would eventually become the associate chief justice.

Mr. Marquis's legal career spanned both criminal and civil law, and whether on the bench or in private practice, whether representing the State or the Attorney General, his great humanity was recognized by all.

I have the honour of having four parishes in common with Mr. Marquis, parishes that were in his riding when he was a member of Parliament and have now become part of the riding of Bellechasse: Saint-Damase-des-Aulnaies, Tourville, Sainte-Perpétue and Saint-Omer. Eugène Marquis was also an active member of the Knights of Columbus, making a valuable contribution to the furtherance of this organization's social mission.

To his children, Monique, Louise, Yves, Michel and Jean, I offer my deepest sympathy, as well as to his colleagues from the Barreau du Québec and all those who worked with him in the judicial system in Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express the sorrow of members in our party on the death of Mr. Marquis. I do know that the hon. member for Bellechasse is that gentleman's nephew. I am sorry for him, his family and the family of the deceased that this event happened today. I extend to the hon. member all the respect which members of this House have for former members and that certainly applies to this member for Kamouraska who served his country well a long time ago. I offer the sincere condolences of all members on this side of the House to his family.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the Reform caucus to also express our sympathies to the family on the passing of a former member of the House of Commons, Mr. Eugene Marquis.

Although no one from our caucus has known him, I do know that Mr. Marquis was a farmer and those of us who are farmers share a kindred spirit. We do express our sympathies on behalf of our caucus to the members of his family. We also know that he was committed to Canada, a strong united Canada, before we perhaps got entangled in some of the more recent concerns in Canadian history. We all salute the former member for his contribution to the country and his commitment to it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I too would like to convey my deepest sympathy to the family of one of our former colleagues.

The House resumed from November 15 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.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to resume debate on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Although the proposed legislation will officially establish in law this new department, more than a year has gone by since the department was formed from the components of no less than five different federal departments. This exercise we are going through is part of this government's effort to streamline the way the federal system is organized.

That interim period between the practical establishment of the new department and the present regulatory establishment of it has, to say the least, proved to be very interesting and challenging not only for the new department but for the government and for the entire country.

The different sectors of Canadian heritage have had to get used to their new organizational relationships. In many cases this has meant breaking established links with their former organizations and forming new ones with the various entities brought together to create the new Department of Canadian Heritage.

To take one example which interests me, let us look at Parks Canada. Formally a part of Environment Canada, Parks Canada is now a vital and active member of the new ministry. Parks Canada is the steward of our national parks and our national historic sites which collectively represent some of our most precious natural and cultural heritage resources.

Some have questioned the move of parks to Canadian Heritage. In my view it makes good sense to have the program of Parks Canada housed in a department devoted to our heritage.

The historic sites and national parks are tangible expressions of our culture and the geographical realities that have helped to instil in Canadians a unique perspective on the natural environment.

It seems to me there is a special relationship between Canadians, aboriginal Canadians and immigrant Canadians, and the environment. This is expressed through Parks Canada and so it is part of our heritage.

In listening to various speakers regarding this bill, both those on the government side and colleagues in other parties, what has struck me is the fundamental nature of feelings that have been expressed. Truly this new department, the Department of Canadian Heritage, has responsibility for areas that strike a deep and resonant chord in all Canadians.

The Department of Canadian Heritage-I must admit it is a new name, but a new name that I like-is a department that is concerned about all those things that make us what we are, those things that set us apart in the global community. Anyone who takes the time cannot fail to be impressed by the range and diversity of the new department's program areas.

I do not intend to list each of these areas of endeavour, but I do want to note some of the major sectors for the benefit of those who have been following this debate. I have already mentioned Parks Canada. In addition the new department has responsibility for the arts, broadcasting, heritage conservation, cultural industries including film, video, sound recording and book publishing.

It is also responsible for the federal programs dedicated to the promotion of official languages; the pursuit of excellence in amateur sport, Mr. Speaker, which interests you and me greatly; the promotion of our cultural diversity and the encouragement of the full and open participation of every Canadian in society.

In short, the Department of Canadian Heritage is active in areas that have as their common objective the promotion of Canadian identity. I think everyone listening to this can relate to one or another of those areas of interest which this new department has that I have mentioned. In my riding of Peterborough, and I have only been a member of Parliament for a short time, I have already had personal discussions with constituents about virtually every one of those areas of heritage activity that I have mentioned.

As one can see from the proposed legislation we are discussing here, this bill will give sanction to a federal department that has programs that touch each and every Canadian. The department is a rich amalgam of sectors. Indeed I believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the privilege to direct one of the government's most exciting and challenging new portfolios.

The word heritage means different things to different people. To me one thing is clear. Particularly this year at this particular time in this House one thing is clear: Our heritage matters and the department dedicated to it are necessarily of great importance at this time, at any time, to this country. I have no doubt whatever that the new Department of Canadian Heritage will prove to be an able and vital player in the federal arena as it goes about carrying out the responsibilities conferred upon it by Parliament.

Although the bill before us says a technical purpose, confirming as it does the creation of the department in statute, to me it nonetheless represents a far-sighted and enlightened step on the part of the government, a step that will benefit our children and for which I think they will thank us. In my view this department will help ensure that Canada remains a country that others will look to as an example, a nation built on its aboriginal foundations that is confident enough in its identity to embrace the peoples of the world, not only accepting their cultural differences, but welcoming and acknowledging them for what they are, living examples of human expression that link us to the past, link us to the rest of the world and provide us with the foundation and certainty necessary to face the future with confidence.

I have taken note of concerns expressed by some members about the rationale for placing responsibility for broadcasting within Canadian heritage while the telecommunications policy will reside in the new Department of Industry. These members pretend to worry about whether the government will be hamstrung by this arrangement and therefore be incapable of action in these two vital fields. I can only say the truth is far from that.

Canadians can be assured that both departments are co-operating, teaming their efforts and finding innovative and effective ways to satisfy their respective mandates.

We need look no further than the recent joint announcement of my colleagues the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry regarding the government's request to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to seek input and report on a number of regulatory and policy matters relevant to the development of the information highway.

Both ministers recognize that the interests of all parties, consumers, business, creators, in short everyone, will best be served by an open and transparent information gathering process.

Accordingly the government has asked the CRTC to consider such issues as the regulations in new services, the contributions to the objectives of the broadcasting act that these new services would be required to make, and the transition to fair competition between the various players on the information highway, particularly the cable television and telephone companies.

It is all too easy to sit and wring our hands and worry that the two departments will not be able to deliver on their mandates. Those that do so have their blinders on and refuse to see what can be done or accomplished if the will and effort are there.

We have heard many speakers on this bill talk about the dawning of the so-called information age and what that will mean for you and me today and for our children tomorrow. Although no one can be sure about the future we can all be certain that adaptations will be the prerequisite for success.

With respect to the future viability of our cultural sector this government is committed to ensuring that Canadian content services have a strong visible and audible presence on the information highway.

For me, debate at second reading has proved both interesting and telling in this matter, interesting because of the breadth and scope of the issues discussed and telling because it has pointed out the fundamental differences in the perspectives of this government and members of the opposition parties.

The negativism expressed by those in opposition to this bill is in stark contrast to the confidence shown by the government in tabling this legislation and in the various pieces of legislation that will establish the other large new departments.

Never has our national heritage and its expression been more important than at the present time. The government's actions in this regard are founded on a sense of optimism for the future, yes, optimism in continuing ingenuity, skill, and energy of our fellow Canadians toward ensuring a thriving and prosperous future for this country.

I want to assure each and every Canadian that they have an elected government that is committed to serving them in the most effective, efficient way possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this time and I look forward to early passage of this legislation.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again to Bill C-53 which establishes the Department of Canadian Heritage. In my first address to the House on this bill I discussed the issues of multiculturalism and copyright. Today I wish to address the issue of the national parks system. Yes, these inherently different areas all fall within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Canadian heritage.

I continue to be puzzled as to why Parks Canada is now part of the Department of Canadian Heritage. While it is very true that our national parks provide educational opportunities to all Canadians to learn about Canadian history and culture, our 36 national parks and national park reserves across the country seem to me to have greater environmental importance. Prior to the introduction of this bill by the previous government, Parks Canada had been part of the Department of the Environment.

Parks Canada states in its "Guiding Principles and Operational Policy" that it contributes to "an understanding and collective sense of Canada's identity as well as a shared sense of pride. We celebrate this rich heritage through national historic sites, national parks and park reserves, heritage railways stations, historic canals, marine conservation areas, heritage rivers, federal heritage buildings and historical markers".

Parks Canada has redefined its purpose in the following manner: "To fulfil national and international responsibilities in mandated areas of heritage recognition and conservation and to commemorate, protect and present both directly and indirectly places which are significant examples of Canada's cultural and natural heritage in ways that encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this heritage while ensuring long term ecological and commemorative integrity".

In 1930 the National Parks Act proclaimed that: "The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment and such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations".

Over time the mandate and purpose of Parks Canada has moved toward the greater emphasis on environmental protection and less emphasis on public enjoyment. By its placement in the Department of Canadian Heritage, I have to ask the question: Will the environmental concerns of Parks Canada become lost within the heritage issues?

Throughout its history, Parks Canada has been faced with the same challenges, balancing development while protecting and preserving the ecosystem and funding, administration and fiscal accountability of the parks system.

I wanted to know more about the concerns of the people who live in the townsites and earn their livelihoods from parks. Our mountain parks are world renowned and people travel from the four corners of the globe to visit them. The economic value of this tourism is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and impact directly on hundreds of jobs.

This summer I met with people from Banff, Jasper and Waterton National Park. The single largest challenge facing parks today is balancing development of parks while protecting the parks' ecosystem. There is no question that Parks Canada contributes to Canadian culture and heritage. Development of the park resources ensures that visitors to the parks are able to fully understand and appreciate our natural and cultural heritage. This development also ensures the livelihoods of those who live and work there. Since their business is based on visitors' appreciation of the natural wonders of our parks, protection of the sensitive ecosystem is as important to business people in the parks as it is to environmentalists.

This government is continuing its inaction by stating that it is consulting the Canadian public on many issues. This is also true of parks. Currently in Alberta and B.C. mountain parks alone there are numerous reviews including the four mountain parks five-year plan update which separates studies for Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay. There is also the Bow Valley study in Banff, including a two-year moratorium on development. There are operational reviews for the townsites of Waterton, Jasper, Wasagaming, Waskesiu, Field and Lake Louise; a study concerning the closure of the Jasper and Banff airstrips; an action plan update for Lake Louise and a study concerning the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through the parks. This is symptomatic of a government wrapped up in reviewing, discussing and studying. But is it really listening? I ask this question over and over. The focus of all of these studies is directed at environmental concerns, not the cultural benefits of our national parks.

I would like to address another major challenge facing Parks Canada: funding, administration and fiscal accountability. According to figures obtained from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada 1993-94 budget shows expenditures of $170.2 million and revenue of $32.5 million. According to the mathematics I learned in school, this leaves a shortfall of $137.7 million. In these economic times it is impossible to understand how Parks Canada can maintain its administration and operation, let alone preserve our parklands for generations to come. Without a strategic and long range plan sustaining the parks at current levels it becomes more and more impossible for a cash strapped government.

As has been demonstrated time and again there is a lack of access to information about specific parks expenditures. For instance, the residents of Waterton National Park have been invited to participate in an operational review. This review is based on three suppositions. First, those receiving government provided services should pay an appropriate and fair amount. Second, Canadians should receive fair market value for the use of their land and assets. Third, subsidies should be eliminated. This sounds like more do nothing mumbo-jumbo from the Liberal government.

At a public meeting in Waterton residents were informed that the annual budget of their community was $750,000 while only $75,000 was generated. It is astounding. The community is willing to pay its fair share. In fact they welcome the opportunity to be more involved in the decision making and operations of their community. However they have not been given access to examine the expenditures to determine where the money is being spent and where it can be saved. The 85 year round residents are being asked to make up a shortfall of nearly $700,000 without full and detailed information. Isn't it a ludicrous expectation?

These residents are questioning such things as the necessity of having the equivalent of 59 year round employees within their small park of 505 square kilometres and annual visitors numbering only 330,000. Meanwhile their public school is now closed, and I saw this. Their children will have to be bused out of the park to get an education. Their swimming pool has been closed and there are grass and weeds growing through the cracks. This is stark evidence that community input has not been heard.

Yet Parks Canada's vision statement clearly states: "Stewardship of historic and heritage areas is a shared responsibility. Canadian citizens must be more aware and involved in decision making and in the delivery of heritage programs".

On August 3, 1994 the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that he was looking at the matter of user fees for Parks Canada facilities. It is not clear from the documents I have seen what exactly the minister is targeting with these user fees. Parks Canada is already spending more than $170 million per year on national parks alone, not including other heritage sites.

Raising visitors' fees should only be considered when the government demonstrates its willingness to open its books and show Canadians where their money is being spent. Anything less becomes another unjustifiable tax grab and a government that is casting its greedy eyes to the already empty pockets of taxpayers.

In all my speeches to the House from the issue of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to multiculturalism and other heritage issues I have spoken of the need for fiscal responsibility and sound management practices. In closing I would ask some questions. Are we prepared to pay more to maintain our parks, or will our government continue to fund the parks system blindly and without accountability? How much more can the taxpayers of the country afford?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-53 to continue my opposition to it.

In my first speech, I reminded this House of some important considerations. First, I said that Quebec's problems are due to the very nature of the federal system since the federal system in Canada completely ignores the reality of Quebec. The original intention of Confederation has been gradually replaced by a strong central government in which one of the founding nations no longer has anything but the status of a small minority.

I also reminded this House that the existential questions of English Canada in no way concern the Quebecois and even harm the development of Quebec. We can only hope that English Canada can solve its existential problems for the good of our nations. Thus, the decision was made very unilaterally to spend huge amounts on the search for this elusive Canadian identity that supposedly supersedes the Quebec identity, which is very much alive.

In the same vein, I mentioned the harmful effects of the federal government's immense spending power. For example, in the referendum debate which is now just getting under way, we can already see the real impact of this spending power on the form and direction that the debate will take. For the sake of Canadian identity and its promotion, as provided for in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill, the federal government will subsidize various groups and organizations to defend the "no" option, directly contravening the spirit of the Quebec law on referendums.

The newspapers told us again yesterday that the Council for Canadian Unity was setting up three organizations for the Quebec referendum. One of the means being used is the Terry Fox Centre, financed-you guessed it-with federal funds. This is just the beginning of federal money being wasted in provincial jurisdictions.

Experience in Quebec has taught us that these well-financed groups will grow rapidly in the coming weeks. As I already said, all this is contrary to the spirit of the Quebec law. This shows how much consideration the federal system has for Quebec's distinct character. In my first speech, I mentioned that it is important for the development of Quebec culture that the Quebec government control this whole area.

Does the federal government care about this? Not in the least. With this bill, they are getting ready for a systematic invasion of all cultural areas, including the arts, the status of the artist, cultural heritage and industries, conservation, exportation and importation of cultural property.

I remind you that the federal government's cultural investments will amount to almost $1 billion a year in Quebec. That is what I mean when I say that the federal government's spending power is harmful to Quebec. I put forward these arguments only two weeks ago. Since then, new elements have confirmed how important it is to reject the Canadian heritage minister's bill.

First of all, we realized that the Minister of Canadian Heritage sees no limit to his power to take action. That in itself is very disturbing. We may well wonder how far the government would be willing to go if it felt that the Canadian identity was threatened. Would it be tempted to spend the money allocated to the Department of Canadian Heritage and to other departmental programs on promotion, without wondering at all if it is a legitimate investment?

The Minister of International Affairs is about to promote Canadian culture through his foreign embassies and his cultural centre in Paris, which, incidentally, the Conservatives wanted to close. The evidence given at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage raises similar questions. The mandate of the CBC seems to throw the door wide open to an extensive promotion of the Canadian identity. Curiously, except for one or two well-known exceptions, after two months of sittings, nothing has been said yet about Quebec culture.

Is it necessary to specify that the vast majority of those who watch national television live in Quebec? What culture other than Quebec culture are they trying to reflect? Another element to be considered is the central government's attitude towards the new Quebec government's legitimate practices. Following an old tradition, the Parizeau government is working to revitalize the relationship with France and promote Quebec products in that country.

As we know, Quebec has felt for a long time that it enjoys exclusive educational and cultural powers at the international level. Cultural products are an important part of these international exchanges. How can Quebec protect and promote its culture, when the central government is making laws such as the bill before us today that would give it control over Quebec culture, which is unacceptable?

Once again, Quebec's specificity and autonomy are being denied. The right to control Quebec's culture belongs to the Quebec government, not to a government controlled by a majority representing English Canada. This is not a whim: It is a necessity. In fact, this is what the Bloc Quebecois reaffirmed in its dissenting opinion on the report tabled yesterday on Canadian foreign policy:

Successive Quebec governments have always rejected this argument of indivisibility and developed distinct international policies and relations that aim to serve Quebec's national interests and promote its influence and development, particularly in commercial, cultural, economic, political and social fields.

Since she was sworn in, the new Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications has been asking for the patriation of Quebec's control over the electronic highway and communications, which is essential to the development of Quebec's culture. In so doing, the minister reflects the collective will of Quebecers.

It is imperative that the federal government withdraw from Quebec's cultural sector and that it gives fair compensation to the Quebec government. For all these reasons, we oppose Bill C-53.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me much pleasure to take part in the debate concerning legislation that will establish in law the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As an opening comment I must say I am astounded by the determined attempts to turn a transactional piece of legislation into a seemingly complicated bill. The legislation before us is simply intended to give legal effect to a department that has been in effect for well over a year.

The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together the various elements that define us as a diverse and vibrant nation with a rich and bounteous cultural and natural heritage. The department's activities range from cultural development to arts, broadcasting, national parks, historic sites, amateur sport and multiculturalism. The department also administers social languages, state ceremonial and native programs, all of which contribute in a significant way to what makes uniquely Canadian.

The mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage which states "building our future together: strengthening a shared sense of Canadian identity which respects the diversity of the land and the people" reflects the broad range of activities that define the Canadian society. Direct support to our cultural industries, protection and preservation of our national parks and historic sites and the promotion of Canadian excellence in sports and culture are just a few examples.

Each and every part of the department is connected in some way to what we could refer to as the spirit and soul of Canada. Together these units form a striking panorama of our past accomplishments, our current reality and our aspirations for the future.

As the chief custodian of natural and physical heritage, Parks Canada commemorates, protects and presents both directly and indirectly places of significance to Canadian cultural and natural heritage as a means of encouraging public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment. The economic activity and tourism, generated by the department's operations make a substantial impact on the growth of many local economies. As well the parks service is setting new trends in its approach to the forging of innovative partnership arrangements with private and not for profit enterprises as a means of carrying out the responsibilities that fall within its mandate.

The Department of Canadian Heritage also plays a key role in the enhancement and development of English and French linguistic minority communities. Respect for Canada's two official languages, for the traditions and contributions of our aboriginal peoples, for our cultural diversity and for basic human rights makes Canada stand out among other countries as a nation that truly values and appreciates its diversity.

Multiculturalism is essential to Canadian society. Countries throughout the world are trying to find the formula that will allow them to create a real sense of national identity among groups of different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and racial backgrounds. Many of these countries are now taking a serious interest in the 100 per cent Canadian model we have created.

Members will note that in the act creating the Department of Canadian Heritage the government undertakes to advance the equality of all Canadians in their country's social, economic and cultural life. It recognizes the need to eliminate obstacles that divide Canadians and to forge bonds based on confidence and respect. The goal of multiculturalism is after all to create social cohesion and to strengthen national identity.

The Department of Canadian Heritage also focuses its efforts on the enhancement of culture and the development in Canada of a means of communication. Both are crucial to the future of our country not only in maintaining the uniqueness of Canada but also in acting as a powerful instrument of economic development.

No one will argue that we live in challenging times. At this particular juncture in our country's history unfortunately there are forces working to dismantle the entity that is Canada. Within this context it is imperative that government foster an environment in which Canada's rich cultural heritage can flourish and that all Canadians have access to their own products.

Moreover the march of technology is relentless, changing and in many cases erasing traditional borders. We are also witnessing changes which are taking place on a dramatic scale and are affecting the economies of our established trading partners throughout the world.

Within this backdrop and keeping it in mind now more than ever Canadians will benefit from the creation of a department such as Canadian heritage. I believe that the minister of the department has the privilege to direct one of the government's most exciting and challenging portfolios.

The legislation to create the department presents a far sighted and enlightened step by our government. This department will help ensure that Canada remains a country others look to as an example. It is a nation that is confident enough in its identity to embrace peoples of the world not only accepting their cultural differences but welcoming and acknowledging them for what they are: Living examples of human expression that link us to the past and provide us with the foundation and certainty necessary to face the future.

I believe that as a nation we need a Department of Canadian Heritage. I hope that the bill will receive speedy passage.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the second reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, which should be renamed the department of government waste and overlap. Hon. members across from me consider this bill nothing more than routine housekeeping yet to us in the Reform Party it is much much more.

Canadians want change. The Liberals are finally beginning to understand this and I commend them for it.

The Reform Party has been advocating decreases in immigration levels since the early 1990s and now the Liberals have adopted this idea. The Reform Party has been screaming loudly about the inadequacies in the criminal justice system and now the Liberals are reviewing the criminal justice system. The Reform Party has been pleading for serious amendments to the Young Offenders Act and the Liberals are also reviewing this issue.

The Reform Party has been talking about the critical levels of our debt and deficit. Our debt now stands at $538,181,397,919.00. Just like magic, the Liberals are beginning to think there is a problem in this area as well.

Although we are not the government, we can still be extremely effective and proud to know that our policy directives are beginning to be implemented by this government. I must congratulate government members on their insight.

I mention these few examples of where the government has been listening to us on the Reform side of the House. I hope this trend will continue in the future. I hope this will continue regarding Bill C-53.

As I alluded to earlier, Bill C-53 should be defeated in this House and sent back to cabinet for a complete overhaul. This overhaul should deal specifically with the notion of overlap and duplication such as: overlap between the Department of Industry and heritage; overlap between the Department of the Environment and heritage; and we are now seeing the possibility of overlap between the Department of Justice and heritage. The list goes on.

We as a government are spending over $40 billion annually or approximately $110 million every day. We do not have a revenue problem in Canada but rather we have a spending problem. Last week when I was back in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona holding town hall meetings on social reform, many people commented on how much money this government continues to waste on needless or extremely low priority programs. The main programs that were mentioned time after time were official languages and multiculturalism.

First I want to say unequivocally that we are not anti-French nor anti-Quebec in the Reform Party. However, we do feel that a tremendous amount of resources is being wasted in areas in which the numbers do not warrant service in both languages. We do believe in implementing the policy of territorial bilingualism which would see maintaining official languages in key federal institutions such as Parliament, the Supreme Court and other federal services where the demand is sufficient to warrant cost effective minority language services.

Second, we have multiculturalism. It is here that I will focus my attention today. It seems clear to me that anyone who is critical of Canada's multicultural program is immediately labelled a racist. That is far too easy a way to avoid an issue. How can anyone debate an issue that from the onset has been reduced from an intellectual discussion to name calling? It is for this reason that I stand before my colleagues and challenge them to discuss the issue not on an emotional but rather on a rational intellectual level.

Proponents of the multicultural program have also begun to view honest criticism as attacks, and critics as enemies. Multiculturalism is a vision that proceeds from differences, from that which separates, and disregards that which unites.

Furthermore, in a survey conducted in 1991 Canadians were asked whether they approved or disapproved of government cancellation of multiculturalism funding which would force projects to be self-financed by the multicultural organizations themselves. Over two-thirds of all respondents approved and 45 per cent of them strongly agreed that multiculturalism should be funded by the multicultural organizations themselves rather than the federal government.

Because of time constraints I will only point out one of the measures in this act which is to provide support to individuals, groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving, enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada. It is important to read a passage from a recent book written by Neil Bissoondath, an individual who immigrated to Canada from Trinidad. This book is called Selling Illusions . As Mr. Bissoondath illustrates quite clearly, one of the problems with the objectives of the multiculturalism act is:

-so it is with the ethnic cultures offered at the pavilions of Caravan and other such festivals; all the colourful ethnics bowing and smiling in a mechanical greeting gesture to all the tourists. They look like the real thing, but their smell is synthetic. They have no bite. They are safe. Culture Disneyfied.

This is perhaps even more of a concern than the wastefulness of the $30 million we are presently spending on multiculturalism. In the divisive nature of this policy there is a notion or idea that we are discussing the creation of different laws for Canadians based only on ethnicity or culture. It is for this reason that the concept of multiculturalism through political cowardice and bureaucratic ineptitude and ethnic pressure has distorted federal policy beyond recognition.

For example the Liberals are presently reviewing a cultural defence which would allow someone whose culture or religion provides an escape from prosecution for something someone else of another culture would be prosecuted for. The cultural proposal leaves open the question of whether wife beating, violent discipline of children and polygamy are to be condoned according to culture. This issue raises questions once again: How do you define cultural background? Do you have to be from this culture? Do both your parents have to be from this culture?

Another example would be the Ontario plan which would divert black youths from courts to community service work. Essentially this program would treat black youths differently from everyone else, even though there is no statistical evidence that black youths commit more crimes. The reason that data of crime by blacks in Canada is scant is that police departments do not generally keep race based figures. Why is that? Perhaps it is because our justice system in Canada is blind and should be blind to factors such as race or ethnicity.

What happened to equality before the law? What happened to treating all Canadians the same regardless of race or ethnicity? Both of these examples are classic illustrations of multiculturalism run amok.

What Canada needs is a government to lead by example. So give the people what they want. Scrap among other things the funding for multiculturalism. Send Bill C-53 back and replace it with a bill which has eliminated overlap and duplication as well as government waste.

Multiculturalism works counter to unification. It pulls at the very fabric of this great nation. What we need is equality, not special treatment for different groups and individuals. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with multiculturalism, provided it is funded by the multicultural organizations themselves. However, this is not the case in Canada and the reality is that multiculturalism is nothing more than an abuse of our generosity.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona. I suppose I should assure him right off the top that neither I nor my colleagues on this side have any intention of adopting Reform policies nor their manners I do not think.

It is interesting that the member speaks about this policy and how it has been adopted from Reform and the next words out of his mouth are why it should be defeated. I am here to tell my colleagues and everyone else who are prepared to give me a fair hearing on both sides of the House why the bill should be supported.

Let me assure the member there is precious little in the way of the philosophy of his party that we are interested in adopting. Indeed that is why we ran candidates in every part of this country, in every single province. We ignored no provinces to field candidates. I think my colleagues opposite have realized their error there and are about to attempt to rectify that. Canadians know and realize what is their one truly national party in the House. That was seen in the fact that there was only one party which elected members in every province coast to coast to coast.

I am interested in explaining why I feel this is a very important bill that is worthy of support from those with open minds in all parts of the House.

There are several purposes for Bill C-53. It seeks to establish by law the Department of Canadian Heritage. It sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It would settle various technical matters relating to the establishment of the department and it would put in place the public service organizational structure formalizing the transition of employees. It would bring under one roof communications, cultural industries, official and heritage languages, national parks and historic sites, voluntary action, multiculturalism, state, ceremonial and amateur sport.

In other words, the bill would provide a much better co-ordination and integration of several important functions. It would seek to streamline those functions and to carry them out more effectively and more efficiently. I think that is a goal that ought to be supported by members on all sides of the House, that we provide the services of government more effectively and more efficiently.

I would hope that we would share that philosophy in all parts of the House. No, there are comments from members opposite in which we can see that because multiculturalism is part of this bill somehow it is not worthy of support. That is regrettable and it is simply un-Canadian.

What does it mean to be a Canadian. I would encourage some of the members from the Reform Party, who are hollering out comments now during my speech, to take a look at the Canadian Coat of Arms. The concept that somehow this nation has ever been one sort of pure culture or one blended culture is absolutely and patented nonsense. The very Canadian Coat of Arms has emblazoned on it the symbols of four cultures. This nation has four founding races.

I quite frankly think that many Canadians do not know that. I regret to say I suspect that some of my colleagues opposite are ignorant of the fact that there are four cultures that founded this country and they are very well depicted on the Canadian Coat of Arms.

From 1867 by definition this nation has always been multicultural. By definition we have always had more than one culture. This bill seeks to recognize and to continue a very important fact about this nation which is obviously not appreciated by some of my colleagues opposite.

In a word, this country represented a new nationalism, a blending of several cultures right from day one, with four founding cultures, with two dominant languages, and since 1867 we have become even more multicultural. This is not something that started recently. Those who think that ought to read some Canadian history.

Multiculturalism is not something new. It has existed right from the start of this country and it was enshrined in 1867 in the Constitution. As I have said several times, for those who care to look it is well depicted on our coat of arms. We are a polyglot nation. We are nation which draws from the strengths of people from around the world.

I hear members on all sides of the House speaking with accents from various parts of the world. Although I may disagree with their philosophy on certain things, I am proud to hear their accents. Nothing shows more graphically that we are a nation which draws from the peoples of the globe. There is no country made up of as many cultures of this world as Canada. That is something of which we ought to be proud. It is something which makes us uniquely Canadian.

Frankly that is the Canadian identity, that we are a nation which was founded with four cultures, two official languages, but has been generous enough since 1867 to open its doors to the peoples from around the world. They are literally flocking to Canada and that is the strength of this country.

That is why my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona has no fear that we are stealing the Reform policy. Unfortunately my understanding of those members' policies is that they do not recognize that as a strength. That is a very basic strength of this country. Perhaps it is our greatest strength as a nation.

The fact that Canadian culture will continue to drive our economy even more in the future as we enter an era of globalization of trade ought to be something which is seen by anyone who cares to take a look at the facts of the case.

A very dominant economic activity all over the world as we enter the 21st century is tourism. I do not think as Canadians we recognize that fact enough or that we do enough to capitalize on it. We are starting to address that and this government hopes to make it a key priority.

The fact that we can draw from people around the world to come and visit their friends and family who are living in Canada ought to make us a leader in world tourism if we are prepared to see our multicultural character as a strength and not somehow as a liability, which I hear far too often in this House. It disappoints me to hear it no matter where it comes from.

Of course all of these changes are to be pursued within the ambit of fiscal responsibility. Canadians know that this government is committed to fiscal responsibility in all areas of federal endeavour. They can be assured that Bill C-53 is consistent with that objective and therefore with the comprehensive review of the federal government programs now underway.

Our government appreciates that there are some concerns about the decision to divide responsibility between broadcasting and telecommunications, between Canadian heritage and Industry Canada. There are valid reasons for that. The inclusion of telecommunications in the Department of Industry's portfolio recognizes the increasing role of the economy.

On the other hand, broadcasting has a tremendous impact on a country like Canada with the enormous geography we are blessed with and yet with a population only 10 per cent the size of that of our American neighbour. Broadcasting is vital in this country. We have to be very vigilant to make sure that it promotes Canadian culture at all times and that we not allow it to be dominated by the American broadcasting networks. Therefore it rightly belongs in the Canadian Heritage Department where this bill will have it housed.

The department is active in promoting Canadian identity in several major areas: natural and physical heritage, official languages, amateur sport, community support and participation and also the management of cultural development and means of communication.

We have 36 national parks in this country, many of them beautiful parks in our western provinces, but also in every province one would care to name. Surely we want to promote that. We have nine historic canals and four marine areas located throughout Canada. We are a nation with three oceans.

We will soon be celebrating the 75th anniversary of Parks Canada. Canada's parks generate an annual revenue of over $1 billion, providing jobs for roughly 30,000 Canadians.

In the area of official languages, amateur sport, community support and participation, that in itself is a mouthful to say. Obviously one can see what tremendously important areas that encompasses. We are a nation of tremendous cultural diversity, of multiculturalism. It is a strength and it ought to be built on.

I will refer to the area of sport with which I am most familiar. When we send Olympic athletes to represent this country, they represent this country. They are not hung up on whether they are French Canadian, English Canadian, whether they are from Alberta or Ontario. They represent Canada and they win medals as Canadians. That is seen very clearly in the sport of ice hockey where we have tremendous excellence and really lead the world in that.

I recall the very famous goal, probably the most famous goal scored in hockey, the Paul Henderson goal; Henderson scoring from a French Canadian named Cournoyer and from an Italian Canadian named Esposito.

They are three Canadians who very proudly helped to defeat the Russians and to show Canadian excellence in hockey. That is the kind of teamwork we need in this country, all cultures working together, our multiculturalism seen as an asset, not as some kind of liability. Some groups get very hung up on the fact that we may be encouraging these cultures to hang on to what is important to them.

I am a father of three children and many of my colleagues here are parents. It is possible for me to be what I am, a Canadian of Irish extraction. I am very proud of it. I was raised to celebrate that fact. Also I am very proud of the fact that I am a Canadian.

It is equally possible to be proud of two things at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive and I do not understand the very narrow minded approach that I hear from members opposite that somehow one cannot be proud of those two facts at the same time. It is to be pitied.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53, whose purpose is to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the mandate of the future Department of Canadian Heritage, especially its wording reveals something very disturbing about the future of Canada. It says: the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and I will read the entire text. My source is a document released by the Liberal government, which means that we can hardly question its authority. It says: the mandate of the future department is to create and promote among Canadians a profound sense of identity and belonging, based on bilingualism and biculturalism. It also says a little further on that the department's objective is to develop and implement programs that support a very clear sense of identity among Canadians.

The first two words of this mandate raise some questions about the purpose of, or even the need for this department, since "susciter" implies there is no sense of identity or belonging, according to the text.

Before my speech, I checked the Petit Robert , a dictionary whose authority one would also hesitate to question, and its definition of the verb susciter is to give rise to a feeling or idea. This is exactly the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage. To give rise to something implies that it does not exist.

It is rather odd that after 125 years, we have a government that creates a department of Canadian Heritage and admits in the department's mandate that a sense of identity or belonging does not exist. They are right, because what does exist in Canada is two identities. We have the existence of a very special and very obvious identity in Quebec, the francophone identity, which is open to all communities and provides that everyone who so wishes has an opportunity to develop his potential and live in harmony with everyone else.

There is also the anglophone identity, which is found mostly outside Quebec and which also is open to people of all nationalities, respecting their own cultural identity, while giving them an opportunity to grow in this country called Canada.

So it is entirely correct that this mandate should say and admit that a Canadian culture as such, of which all Canadians would be a part, including Quebecers, does not exist.

During this debate, I would like to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us which values are shared throughout Canada, that is in Quebec as in the rest of the country. This is my first comment.

On the face of it, I say that the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage is in fact to promote the values of this government, as opposed to the values of Canadians and Quebecers. In my view, that makes it a department of propaganda. We have known for decades that the federal government views culture in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, only in terms of bilingualism and multiculturalism.

Yet, there are dozens of countries where people are bilingual but still preserve their own identity. If you ask French people who can speak several languages such as English and Spanish what is their primary culture, they will spontaneously say that it is the French one. As well, I have yet to meet an American who would question his identity. It is a clear and simple reality which helps respect those who do not think like us and who do not share the same cultural background.

I also want to say that, traditionally, the federal government and other institutions such as the Supreme Court have always reduced, if not eliminated, Quebec's power over its own culture. Let me just mention communications, which is a vital sector for culture. Over the years, three decisions have been made by the Supreme Court which, as everyone knows and as former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis used to say, "always leans on the same side". The first decision, in the late thirties, confirmed that broadcasting fell under federal jurisdiction. The second one, in 1974, had to do with cable television, while the most recent one, in 1994, concerned telephony. The end result is that Quebec is excluded from the communications sector, which is an essential and strategic tool for Quebecers' future.

I think I have one minute remaining on my speaking time. I would like to conclude by taking a look at the people who head these institutions, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular, the hon. member for Laval West who, I think everyone will agree, is a very nice guy, but does not hesitate to impose his views on organizations under his jurisdiction. Just think back to recent events; these past few weeks, in fact during two weeks, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party have been asking for the resignation of the heritage minister for having interceded with the CRTC on behalf of his constituents.

During two whole weeks, during question period, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party raised repeatedly with the Prime Minister the need for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to resign for having interfered with a quasi-judicial organization which is in fact the equivalent of a tribunal. One can wonder what this minister will be able to do, in Quebec in particular, with his propaganda department come the day when the people of Quebec will decide their future.

One last point. This minister will find strong support within his caucus. Let me name two supporters. First, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is remembered in Quebec in particular for the statement he made in 1977 about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which, to my mind, is certainly one of the most prominent cultural diffusion vehicles in Quebec. With the prospect of the 1980 referendum in mind, he said he did not want to see the French network of the CBC take a neutral stand in presenting both sides of the issue, adding that at the time of the referendum, CBC employees would be expected to be unequivocally on the pro-Canada side.

Recently, the Prime Minister himself said that the operation of the CBC was governed by an act under which it was required to make the benefits of living in Canada known. That is what the CBC was established for, he said.

The message is clear, and we are perfectly justified in being concerned about the establishment of this department.