Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1994

The House resumed from November 1, 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 now read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these past few weeks, the government has been repeating that it is acting in good faith, claiming it wants to negotiate with the provinces and maintain a partnership relationship with them instead of a paternalistic and dominating one. It never fails however to attack insidiously the government of Quebec for its alleged bad faith.

Today, the Liberals give yet more proof of the fact that bad faith does not lie where they would have us believe it does and that this government, like the ones before it, never had any real intention of considering Quebec as a full-fledged partner.

In introducing Bill C-53 to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Liberal government has reached new heights in denying the existence of provincial jurisdictions and, what is worse, in denying the very existence of the Quebec people. Not content with infringing repeatedly upon provincial jurisdictions-culture, education and language in particular-the federal government has managed to violate the most fundamental element of Quebec's specificity as a society, namely its culture.

As described in 1993 in an administrative document, the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage is quite explicit: to create a deep sense of identity and feeling of belonging based on bilingualism and multiculturalism.

In order to achieve this, the department will rely only on programs that, according to the aforementioned document, contribute to a very strong sense of identity among Canadians. By emphasizing the Canadian identity and disregarding Quebec's identity and its distinct character, the Department of Canadian Heritage becomes, as far as Quebecers are concerned, a vehicle for promoting Canadian unity.

In this connection, furthermore, we know that the minister will not hesitate to use all the tools at his disposal, at the risk of shamelessly using the public press.

As proof, we have the words of his leader, spoken last June 16, and I quote: "-there is a law governing the operation of the CBC, and I will ask that the CBC respect that law. The law says,

in defining the mandate of the CBC, that it must inform people on the advantages Canada presents".

I would like to take this opportunity to look at just how little regard the government has for Quebec's special character and its historic claims.

The economic, cultural and social contribution made by immigrants to the development of society in Quebec and in Canada is undeniable. But an indiscriminate policy on the part of the Canadian government could do serious harm to Quebec society. It is essential that a policy of integration does not end up diluting Quebec's identity beyond recognition. In Quebec, any diversification of the social fabric must take into account the French character of our community.

For these reasons, Quebec and interested provinces must be allowed to participate in the development of a multiculturalism policy.

Besides, the Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage makes the minister responsible for "the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada". Since the bilingualism policy is seen as a failure by the majority of Canadians, and a simple review of press reports across Canada is enough to convince us that the situation of francophones outside Quebec is far from getting better-which is not saying much when we know that the future of some French-speaking communities is actually threatened-, we can once again question the Canadian government's good will and ability to act.

The unfortunate matter of the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean and the procrastination surrounding the French school in Kingston, combined with the fact that the influence of the minister now in charge of bilingualism with his Cabinet colleagues is very questionable, do nothing to reassure minority rights organizations and those who have been waiting so many years for the Canadian government to honour the commitment to a just society made during the Trudeau era.

From another perspective, we would have thought that, by giving the Minister of Canadian Heritage various responsibilities formerly within the purview of several departments, the government tried to save money. But it is clearly not the case.

The federal government's tactic is well known. First, it consolidates its presence by using its spending power in an area of jurisdiction of special importance to Quebec; then it denies the distinctiveness of Quebec culture; finally, it promotes a hypothetical cultural identity across Canada.

Furthermore, like every time the federal government gets involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, duplication increases and becomes institutionalized. The Conseil des arts et des lettres and the Canada Council, the Grand Théâtre, the Place des Arts and the National Arts Centre, the national libraries of Quebec and Canada are cases in point. Yet, even under the Liberals, Quebec has always demanded full control of its cultural resources and an end to the federal government's repeated interference.

In that regard, former Quebec Minister of Culture Liza Frulla, who can certainly not be accused of having sovereignist motives, said: "Real dialogue is almost non-existent and when it does occur, it is more often than not at Quebec's request. Since Quebec is often presented with a fait accompli, it has to react after the fact to make its real needs known".

Culture comes from people, artists and creators. It does not come from the government. The role of a government is to accept culture for what it is and to help promote and develop that culture. The government which should play a role to that end must necessarily be the one closest to the realities of people, the one which best understand their needs, priorities and values.

The federal government, which is bent on creating and promoting a Canadian culture, is certainly the one in the best position to fulfill that role. Sure, it does have important, albeit artificial, financial means, but more often than not its priorities conflict with those of the artists and the Quebec government, which is in the best position to understand the needs of these artists.

Quebec's Union des artistes could not have been clearer on that issue: "-when Ottawa comes to Quebec with its own priorities, its objectives do not always agree with those of the Quebec government. That situation not only creates overlapping: It also creates a shock. This is what paralyses everything".

We must also look at the issue of copyright and the unacceptable sharing of responsibilities between the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In recent months, I have received dozens of letters from various organizations representing producers and creators and denouncing the uncertainty with which these people have to put up daily. They are not only concerned by the government's slowness regarding the copyright issue, but also by the rightist approach being perpetuated by the current Liberal government, at the structural level, in giving the Department of Industry, through Bill C-46, judicial and administrative responsibility over the Copyright Act.

Composers, authors, artists, performers and producers worked hard to obtain a right allowing them to get something out of their work. The copyright system advocated by major industries, and also by the Minister of Industry, would jeopardize the chances of creative artists to see their economic conditions improve for good. Moreover, Quebec authors, who deal first

with Europe and not the United States, would certainly not find satisfaction in a system patterned on the American model.

The basic issue remains the fact that we are faced with an informally shared responsibility between two departments, which unduly delays the tabling of the act on the second phase of the copyright reform.

We are witnessing a sterile confrontation, opposing the view of the Minister of Industry, who would rather conform to the line of American trade policies, and that of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who favours the copyright and neighbouring rights system. Meanwhile, our creative artists and performers are stuck between a Department of Canadian Heritage with no real authority, but is theoretically supposed to be looking out for them, and a Department of Industry with little concern for their problems.

The situation has been particularly bad these past few days, since the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been suffering from a chronic lack of credibility with the people as well as his colleagues, after making several unforgivable errors of judgement that were recently brought to the attention of this House.

It is therefore imperative that Bill C-53 be amended so as to make explicit the responsibility of the heritage minister regarding copyright and, in this respect, that the bill be introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself. Not only is Bill C-53 visibly flawed, but it is further evidence of this government's insensitivity to or even contempt for the distinctiveness and specificity of Quebec, which accounts for at least 25 per cent of the total population of Canada.

That is why I support the motion put forth by my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata. I therefore ask that the bill be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to share with you today my views on Bill C-53, the bill to create the Department of Canadian Heritage. The proposed legislation is a technical measure that gives official recognition to the departmental structure and division of responsibilities that was adopted when the government took office.

As most members know the department has been functioning well now for more than a year and a half. The passage of this bill is a necessary legal step and will substantiate the areas of jurisdiction within which the Minister of Canadian Heritage will exercise his powers and carry out his duties and functions.

The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together components from five former or existing federal departments, namely environment, communications, secretary of state, national health and welfare, and multiculturalism and citizenship. This fact alone allows you to imagine the abundant variety of programs that can be found within this department.

The legislation reflects the breadth of the department's mandate which includes responsibilities in areas such as cultural development, multiculturalism, official languages, heritage conservation, national parks, national historic sites, and amateur sports.

Moreover, the policies and programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage are designated to promote increased understanding of our diversity, the involvement of all citizens in Canadian society and awareness of our cultural and natural wealth. In other words, the department is active in those areas that are linked to our identity as Canadians.

One of the most visible programs administered by Canadian heritage is Parks Canada which is also one of the department's three principal sectors. Many Canadians and for that matter many tourists who visit Canada have taken advantage of the opportunity to experience the magnificence and unique natural beauty of the country's system of natural parks, natural historic sites and historic canals. As steward of these unrivalled examples of our natural and cultural heritage it is Parks Canada's duty to ensure their protection and interpretation on behalf of all Canadians.

Parks Canada has a strong and respected presence in every region of the country. It contributes in a significant way both directly and indirectly to the local economies of communities all across Canada through expenditures on its own operations and through the tourism and economic benefits generated as a result of those activities.

The second major sector of the department that I would like to mention encompasses those programs 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 variety of program areas.

Some of the government's most important initiatives are being implemented in this sector. These include the promotion of official languages, the pursuit of excellence in amateur sports, the promotion of our cultural diversity and encouragement of the full and open participation of every Canadian in society, the promotion of greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values, as well as multiculturalism.

All Canadians must feel a sense of belonging to this country. Multiculturalism seeks to bridge the gap between cultural communities with diverse interests and backgrounds. Within this sector 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.

Last but not least, the other key sector that will occupy the time of the minister is concerned with the growth and development of Canada's cultural sector. This area has never been more important than it is now, given the significance of its contribution to the Canadian economy.

Some maintain that culture is first and foremost a way of looking at the world and a symbol of our civilization. It is through this unique perspective of the world that we are able to distinguish ourselves from others. Culture therefore with the traditions and values it encompasses is what gives us our identity.

Most members will agree that the federal government responsibility in cultural matters extends to those areas that are pan-Canadian, interprovincial and international in scope. Federal activities in this area remain complementary to those of the other levels of government. It is vital that there be many agents of cultural development and for governments to play an active role.

The federal government's key objective in this area is to ensure that Canada's artists, creators and cultural industries are provided with the support they need to create and distribute cultural products and that Canadians have access to these important examples of cultural expression.

Culture is the very essence of the national identity, the foundation of national sovereignty and national pride. In a world where globalization and the information and communications revolution are bypassing national borders, Canada needs to commit itself more than ever to cultural development.

To summarize it is clear that the programs and policies of the Department of Canadian Heritage span Canada's past, present and future. The department can be regarded as the flagship of Canadian identity, bringing together a mosaic of federal programs that will help to confront and surmount the challenges that lie ahead.

I fully support the passage of this legislation and look forward to the official recognition of the Department of Canadian Heritage, so help us God.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate to address the amendment by my colleagues from the Bloc. Of course this debate deals with the department of culture, the Department of Canadian Heritage. Certainly some questions have been asked of the accountability and responsibility of that whole department very recently.

Those are the types of things we need to discuss because if the credibility is not there, if there is no sense of total ministerial accountability and responsibility, then what does the legislation really matter? What does the name of the department really matter? As you well know, Mr. Speaker, probably very little. If someone stands as the Prime Minister has for days and days and says: "I am totally responsible", then we want to see that responsibility. We do not want them just to say it, we want to see it.

As I address this amendment and the whole issue of this entire department I would like to call into question, sad to say but necessary to do, the need to look at some of the things that have happened in this department. Then we must ask: Can it even go on as such?

Should there be a department of multiculturalism in this country? When people come to Canada do they feel they should really be part of Canada, or should they be hunkered off in their own areas, getting government money to continue the way of life they so freely left to come to Canada? One certainly wonders about that. When there is a minister who we certainly need to ask questions about, it is important that we look at the whole scope of the entire matter.

Let us look at the chronology of incidents that have happened over the last several months. On March 15, 1994 this whole department was called into question when the minister wrote to Keith Spicer, the chairman of the CRTC, asking that it give "due consideration" to the application submitted by Konstantinos Daniilidis for a Greek language radio program licence. CRTC itself stamped the letter "intervention". The CRTC knows what an intervention is; perhaps this government does not but the CRTC does. Keith Spicer knows very clearly what an intervention is, or an interference if you will, by a minister.

Two weeks later on March 29, 1994, the secretary general of the CRTC, Allan Darling, responded to the minister by thanking him "for his letter of support". He knows what a letter of support is. That confirmed the CRTC considered it an intervention. The minister did not respond to this letter.

On September 20, months and months down the road, Mr. Mike Pattichis writes to the minister expressing concern about support for the Daniilidis application. He knew about it. The letter was never made public.

Ten days later on September 30 the Canadian heritage minister writes to Mr. Pattichis to clarify that his March 15 letter was not in fact intended to convey support, certainly not. It was just carbon copied to the CRTC. It was a six month delay in responding to clarify the issue. The letter arrived too late to be considered by the CRTC. The file regarding Daniilidis had already been closed. In other words: "Thank you. Appreciate that but you are out of time, you are out of luck". Therefore, the CRTC was clearly under the impression that there was ministerial support for this the entire way through.

On October 1, one month ago, the Prime Minister is made aware of the letter of support and exonerates the minister. How can anyone be exonerated for breaking guidelines so clearly, where this whole ministerial department is called into question?

The Prime Minister takes no action. Funny. This was confirmed on October 28 by the Prime Minister when he stated in the House in reference to his exchange with the "ethics counsellor": "The answer that came from him did not lead me to change my mind about the decision that I had made earlier in the month". I think it was October 1. We were still in the month of October. As if this was perfectly excusable.

On October 26 ethics counsellor Howard Wilson is contacted not by the Prime Minister nor his officials, but by a Southam News reporter. He is made aware of the March 15 letter. The ethics counsellor does not launch an investigation into that. CBC breaks the story on Prime Time News later that evening.

Sometime on the morning of October 27 the ethics counsellor Mr. Wilson is contacted by PMO staff regarding the minister. Does this smell like damage control, Mr. Speaker? You have seen damage control in your many, many years here. You saw it from within in fact and now you are seeing it perhaps from within again. The contents of that conversation remain confidential, but Mr. Wilson said that he was not asked to start an investigation. The details continue. Later on the morning of October 27 the minister stood up in this House claiming to have never seen the March 30 letter.

All of us get a lot of correspondence in our offices, but if we do not see it and if we do not have competent staff to bring very important letters like that to our attention, then as the minister and the Prime Minister have said so clearly, we bear the responsibility for that.

This minister should bear the responsibility for it. He has not. The Prime Minister has not and this is not the end of the story. He says of course that he "took immediate corrective action". From what we have heard in this House it would seem he was just acting as an MP, not as a minister, so he did not really need to take corrective action. However he took corrective action anyway because of what the Prime Minister said was a mistake. It was an error, so hey, go figure, as the high school students would say.

In question period on October 27 at 2.24 p.m., the leader of my party said: "There is a simple guideline that applies in these cases and it is a most elementary one". Surely we could all understand elementary guidelines in this House. It is understood in most jurisdictions. That is that ministers do not communicate with quasi-judicial, regulatory bodies except in three ways: through statute; through orders in council; or through public formal submissions to that body. They do not communicate through telephone calls or casual conversations or casual letters.

This is not proper. Mr. Speaker, you know it and I know it. I suspect all of us in this House know it. Perhaps it is time we admitted it.

At 2.29 p.m. that day the Prime Minister stated in question period: "I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one I appointed for myself, and both confirmed that I had made the right decision in this matter". At 2.49 p.m. the Prime Minister said: "Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has informed me that he is satisfied with the conclusion I have come to at this time". The ethics counsellor knew nothing about this. I have spoken often about the phantom of the Ottawa. It seems to me he has been speaking to the Prime Minister during overtime.

In question period on October 28, at 11.15 a.m. the Prime Minister said: "I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself, but I asked that he be consulted yesterday". This contradicts the statement the Prime Minister said the day before. At 11.52 a.m. on October 28 the Prime Minister said: "In the case of quasi-judicial bodies that relate to the affairs of the government, the affairs of the members of Parliament and so on, the guidelines were not clear to my satisfaction. I have asked the Privy Council Office to prepare new guidelines in consultation with Mr. Wilson".

Sometime later on October 28 Mr. Wilson was approached by the PMO to look at existing guidelines for ministers. This was the first time Mr. Wilson received the confidential guidelines for ministers. Prior to this he had no knowledge of them whatsoever. It was October 28, getting very close to Halloween, the time of spooks and hobgoblins and all kinds of stories.

On October 31, the very day of Halloween, in his statement to the House the Prime Minister stood up and attempted to clarify the role of ministers in regard to quasi-judicial bodies. Interestingly, while he revealed other ministers' letters to the CRTC, he did not account for his own action nor the minister's actions over the last seven months.

During question period on Halloween, in full mask in response to the contradictory statements by the Prime Minister about the ethics counsellor, the member for Medicine Hat asked that the Prime Minister make the current ethics counsellor office independent and accountable to Parliament and not just the Prime Minister. Still during question period on Halloween at 2.45 p.m. in response to the contradictory statements by the Prime Minister, he asked again that this be accountable to Parliament.

Yesterday, November 2, in an interview with CBC Newsworld, Mr. Wilson admitted that he never undertook an investigation of the heritage minister affair. Can we look at a department that acts responsibly, that acts with integrity? Absolutely not.

Let me close my remarks by saying this entire ministry, this entire department, this cabinet minister and all his officials, the Prime Minister and this entire government has been tainted by more than tuna fish. This department has been called into disrepute and we are disgusted by it.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member for Saint-Denis.

Greece

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

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, Canadians of Greek origin commemorated a very important national holiday of their country of origin.

On October 28, 1940 the Greeks said no, oxi, to the forces that sought to divide and conquer Europe. They chose to fight the forces of the axis and remained united with the allies.

Canadians of Greek origin in Quebec are now ready to say no to the separatist forces, no to the Bloc Quebecois, no to the Parti Quebecois, and yes to a united Canada.

Literacy

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell this House about the national family literacy conference now being held in Ottawa, which is organized by the Movement for Canadian Literacy.

Family literacy is a new approach which seeks to provide basic training and development services for adults who have to stay home with pre-school children. Besides meeting the specific literacy needs of adults, this new form of learning creates an environment that encourages children in the family to read and write.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois are happy to support such initiatives and hope to see other projects to improve the basic training of a growing number of Canadians and Quebecers.

Rose Charlie

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce to the House that a woman from my constituency has been accorded a signal honour as one of only five distinguished Canadian women to receive the Governor General's Award in commemoration of the Persons Case.

Ms. Rose Charlie is a member of the Sto:lo and Chehalis bands. She has a record of 25 years of unstinting community service and advocacy.

As a founding member of Indian Rights for Indian Women and the Indian Homemakers Association, Ms. Charlie was at the forefront in challenging the Indian Act that deprived First Nations women of their status when they married non-Indians.

As a result, a federal legislative change was enacted in 1985 that has enabled thousands of women and their children to regain their status as First Nations people.

Rose Charlie never wavered in the pursuit of her cause. Not only is she an example of service and dedication to her people; she is testimony to the success that follows perseverance.

Along with the Government of Canada and on behalf of all my constituents, it is my pleasure to salute her today.

Royal Canadian Legions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Legion was founded in 1925 to look after the veterans of World War I. The first ladies auxiliary was formed a year later. The first Remembrance Day was in 1931 when 50,000 attended in Ottawa. This resulted in parliamentary recognition of Armistice Day. Today the legion has 600,000 members in 1,800 communities.

In Peterborough riding, legions in Havelock, Keene, Lakefield, Norwood, Peterborough and Warsaw, in addition to taking care of veterans affairs, donated tens of thousands of dollars to local charities this year alone. They supported disadvantaged children, minor hockey, Meals on Wheels, Civic and St. Joseph's hospitals, Easter Seals, the United Way, local churches, animals in distress, Terry Fox, homes for the aged, high school students, the lung association, Telecare and many other fine causes.

Canadian veterans who are no longer with us would be proud of their legion today.

Bloc Quebecois

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, 800 committed separatists spent $125 each to have a drink with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and celebrate their first anniversary in opposition in the House of Commons.

On Monday morning, Le Devoir reported that very few PQ members of the National Assembly and cabinet ministers answered the invitation to raise a glass with the Bloc leader.

Clearly, the falling popularity of separatism bothers him a lot. That is why he said it was time for separatists to wake up.

Are we to conclude, then, that despite what the leader of the Bloc said in front of Mr. Parizeau and the other guests, they preferred to continue dozing off for the rest of the celebrations?

Career Week

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, the Secretary of State for Training and Youth and the Minister of Human Resources Development, I am pleased to inform the House that this week more than 1,500 junior and high schools, colleges and Canada Employment Centres will participate in the 1994 edition of Canada Career Week.

Canada Career Week is designed to focus the attention of students and all Canadians on what prospects the job market is likely to hold for them and which skills they will need to succeed in an ever evolving economy.

Education is the key to sound career planning because knowledge opens doors. Young people have to start planning their future very early. Canada Career Week activities like job sharing and career and job fairs will have them face the challenge of making the right career choice.

I convey my best wishes for success to all Canada Career Week organizers and participants.

Remembrance Day

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, filled with pride but also with sorrow, we wish to draw the attention of the House today to the tremendous contribution made by women to the war effort during World War I and, more significantly, between 1939 and 1945.

We take pride in the fact that women participated on all fronts and that their contribution was useful, effective and necessary. We feel sorrow for all the suffering, for the loved ones they and their children mourned, for lives that were disrupted and cut short. We also want to voice our hopes.

Like the World Health Organization that supports the elimination of nuclear arms, Canadian and Quebec women want a world free of all wars and hostility and hope other ways will be found to resolve conflicts. They want peace.

Young Offenders Act

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak once again, along with the large crowd in front of the Parliament Buildings today, to demand real change in the Young Offenders Act legislation.

This past Monday in my riding of Port Coquitlam, Derek Rosenberg was attacked by a group of young people upon leaving a 7-Eleven Store and pushed through a glass door face first. Mr. Rosenberg, age 26, has a heart condition and requires medication as well as continued good operation of the pacemaker which was installed this past January and on which his health depends. This was of no concern to those who left him lying in the broken glass with serious injuries.

How many more victims must fall before the government enacts real change to make the streets safe for those who live on them and judgment certain for those who threaten that safety?

Frobisher Bay

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our two members of Parliament from the Northwest Territories, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the eight hunters who drowned in Frobisher Bay earlier this week.

Our thoughts are with the two survivors and the whole community of Iqaluit whose lives have all been drastically affected by this tragedy. Although no thoughts or words can ease the pain being shared, some comfort can be taken in the contribution that these two men have given to the continuation of traditional life in the eastern Arctic.

Death is a part of life in the Inuit culture and because of individuals like these hunters the Inuit way of life lives on.

Along with these members from the Arctic I would like to encourage the people of Iqaluit to continue the struggle which these men worked so hard for in sustaining the Inuit culture.

Literacy

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my support the MCL's National Family Literacy Conference and welcome participants to Ottawa.

Given my own work promoting literacy in my riding through the community academic services program, I recognize the importance of reaching out to those who are unable to enjoy the printed media.

Children in non-reading families are more likely than other children to be non-readers as adults. Unless this cycle is broken it can continue for generations.

Schools alone cannot be responsible for establishing citizens as full and comprehensive language users. Literacy development demands participation from the family and the community if citizens are to be strong, effective communicators.

In family literacy programs like those championed by the National Family Literacy Conference, parents and other adult family members learn the importance of reading and writing.

I applaud efforts to meet the literacy needs of parents and their children and I pledge my continued support in eradicating illiteracy in our communities.

China

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the largest foreign delegation ever assembled will be leaving Canada for China tonight, led by the Prime Minister; most premiers, with the exception of one; and businessmen and women from throughout the country, some of our most talented people. They will be going to sell our services and our products in that large country.

As part of this Team Canada they are going to show the Chinese people that we are willing to sit down and do business with them.

We promised that in our red book. It is a part of our program. It is important to develop foreign trade and trade relations. We promised we would, and we are delivering the goods.

I know everyone will want to join me in congratulating the Prime Minister of Canada and wishing him and his team good luck.

Remembrance Day

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, next week, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we will commemorate a major event of this century.

In 1918, the Great War officially ended with the signing of an armistice. Since 1921, Canada has commemorated this fact, in tribute to all those who made the supreme sacrifice of their lives to bring peace to the free world. Every day, the international news reminds us of the price of peace and the cost of war.

We must remember, for the benefit of our collective memory. It is not just for our veterans, for whom this day symbolizes the entire meaning of their lives. It is not just for all those who died. It is just as important for future generations.

We must remember the lessons of history. Our tribute to the past is as important as our responsibility for the future.

Literacy

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House in my capacity as literacy critic for the Reform Party. This is a position which I do not like to have because as long as it exists it signifies there is a literacy problem in Canada.

What is being done about this problem and what should be done about it? For those youngsters in the school system today, which is within provincial jurisdiction, let us hope all education reviews stress the necessity to teach the basics.

For those who have slipped through the cracks in the education system, it is important that they have access to literacy programs which will help them to learn to read and write. I believe it is my job to ensure that whatever literacy programs be established they be effective in this attempt to address literacy.

This is where the national ad hoc literacy group comes in. It stresses helping the whole family to ensure there is an appreciation of books and reading in the home.

In this international year of the family groups such as this which stress the strengthening of the family unit through an appreciation of education deserve our praise.

I wish all participants in the National Family Literacy Conference well in their deliberations and I look forward to joining them for some of their sessions.

Railways

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals made many promises in Manitoba during the last federal election. A lot of them had to do with railways.

They promised they would stop the flow of jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton through the CNR. They have not done that. Instead the crew calling office and rail traffic control are being transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton just the way they were under the Tories.

They promised that Churchill would be revived. What do we have instead? We have the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon saying that Churchill should not be part of the Canadian port system, and the Minister of Transport and the member for Winnipeg South Centre refuse to repudiate him.

All these promises have been broken. The one thing they did not promise was setting up a Liberal only committee to examine ways to commercialize, which is another word for privatize, the CNR.

They broke all their promises with respect to rail in Manitoba.

Leader Of The Reform Party

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the leader of the Reform Party is planning to reconsider the advisability of his taking a 10 per cent pay cut. The rationale for his change of heart is that because he is not getting enough credit for the great sacrifice he may start taking his full pay.

It has always been my view that you took an action because you believed it was the right thing to do and not simply to get credit.

The leader of the Reform Party said he decided on a month by month basis whether to take his pay cut. The hon. member made such a big deal over his frugality I would urge him to stick to his guns, take the cut and not decide his pay on the basis of how many fancy suits he wants to buy or get dry cleaned in a given month.

Many hon. members from each and every party in the House make sacrifices for what we do but do not get credit for. We do it because we believe in it. We do it because we want to do our part. We do it because it is the right thing to do. I urge the hon. leader of the Reform Party to do the same.

Bloc Quebecois Leader

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition has completely reversed his position this week by voting against Bill C-56 on Environmental Assessment.

He was the one who said in October that this was his baby, that he had fought very hard for it in Cabinet. According to him, he never spoke against the bill.

The Leader of the Opposition has a very short memory. On October 21, 1993, when Mr. Lépine asked him during a broadcast of Le Point whether he would not find himself opposing Jacques Parizeau if the latter won the upcoming election, the hon. member replied that Mr. Parizeau would also respect the legislation, that the Parti Quebecois had agreed to that position.

By voting against Bill C-56, the Leader of the Opposition shows clearly that he no longer has any credibility when he purports to speak for Quebecers.

Literacy

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the first national family literacy conference which is being held here in Ottawa this week, sponsored by the Movement for Canadian Literacy which brings together groups and individuals from across the country working in family literacy.

The family is the single most important social unit and that is where the serious problem of illiteracy can best be tackled.

I wish to commend the conference organizers, especially Marion Zaichkowski, the co-chair of the New Brunswick Committee on Literacy, who is participating in the work of this conference.

Today I met with the government's literacy minister, the hon. Joyce Fairburn, to discuss literacy initiatives. Senator Fairburn has been an outstanding advocate for Canadian literacy and a strong supporter of the conference and will be addressing the delegates today at the National Press Club reception at three o'clock.

I urge all members of Parliament to attend and renew their support for the government's-

[The Speaker]

Oral questions.

Government Spending

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance sounded the alarm. "We are in hock up to our eyeballs. This cannot go on. The situation is not sustainable", he said, and he promised once more that he would cut spending.

Yesterday, his colleague at Treasury Board announced $2 billion in additional spending, including $26 million for Hibernia, $4 million for the Privy Council, $3 million for Canadian unity and $2 million more for the other place.

How can the government expect taxpayers to take its promises to cut government spending seriously, when today, it announces an additional $2 billion in spending?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this is a normal process that is carried out a couple of times a year whereby in the reserves money is allocated for certain projects that have not yet been finalized and details have not yet been provided in the main estimates. They are then put into the estimates through a supplementary procedure which we went through yesterday and tabled in the House.

There is absolutely nothing in terms of removing one iota our commitment to getting our spending down, to getting the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in three years. We are on target and we intend to meet that goal.