Debates of Feb. 15th, 1995

Supply

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his remarks about this motion presented for the official opposition by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. This opposition day motion clearly demonstrates how appropriate it is to warn the government of the consequences it will face if it continues to overburden low income taxpayers, the have-nots, the needy, and the unemployed, if it keeps doing what previous governments have been doing for years, and if it does not get its money where it should get it by following our ten point plan. Could the hon. member for Joliette who just spoke further explain the solutions advocated by our party, the Bloc Quebecois, in order to help the government better understand public finances?

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this opportunity he is giving me to add a few comments. Since the tabling of the last government budget, the Bloc Quebecois has gone out of its way to propose numerous solutions to help reduce the deficit. One of the first measures we recommended

was the creation of a joint committee on the financial situation. The Bloc Quebecois would have participated and we could have studied possible solutions together, out in the open. The government refused.

Given that situation, we took a different approach. We proposed solutions to the Standing Committee on Finance. We asked that government pass legislation to prohibit family trusts as we know them today, because they are tax havens for a privileged few in our society. These are real solutions. There are billions of dollars in those trusts.

Here in this House, and also in committee, we suggested that the government should focus more on finance and tax control. I have just spent the last ten minutes talking about taxes. Just think that there are now $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes which delinquent taxpayers will not pay; $6 billion is a lot of money and the interest on such an amount adds up to more millions. We asked the government to provide for stricter controls on those overdue accounts.

We asked the government to look into the issue of businesses, tens of thousands of businesses, which have not paid taxes over the last ten years, in spite of profits earned in Canada. Why do we allow those companies to profit from such a tax exemption system, albeit a legal one? That is not normal; all taxpayers, corporations as well as individuals, should pay their fair share of taxes in Canada. That is another solution that we proposed to the government.

We also proposed to slim down the government machinery. We talked about that many times. We also asked the government to avoid duplication in the various administration sectors, duplication of provincial and federal spending in the same areas.

These are suggestions that we made to the federal government and, each time, we were met with an outright refusal. Why? Because in each of these solutions, the government saw an opportunity to decentralize its powers to the provinces, which it does not want to do, because its leitmotiv is to further centralize powers and to leave the provinces with their problems.

It is clear today that this government does not intend to make concessions to the provinces. On the contrary, it intends to give them more responsibilities, without the tax points which would go with those responsibilities.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the opposition's motion, which reads as follows:

That this House call upon the government in its next budget to avoid any tax increases targeting low and middle-income taxpayers and to consider instead trimming the fat from the government, eliminating tax expenditures which primarily benefit large corporations and wealthy Canadians and collecting on unpaid tax debts owed to the federal government.

It seems a bit strange that the opposition should feel the need, on the eve of the government's second budget, to ask it to think about getting off the backs of the disadvantaged and the unemployed and start spreading the wealth more equitably.

However, the government has never stopped talking, in its electoral promises and in the red book it waved about throughout the entire electoral campaign, about equity and tax reform. It always defined itself as the protector of the ordinary citizen. It spoke of balance. It spoke of redistributing the country's wealth. Yet, since it has been in office, it has done just the opposite.

Is this surprising behaviour from a Liberal government? Is it surprising that a government led by old crocks like the Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs, old political hacks, who have always backed down on their electoral commitments, who have always reneged on their promises?

Let us go back a bit in the history of this moribund party. A party without a soul, that fails to keep its promises, interested only in staying in power to fatten up the friends of the regime, and let them take a turn at the trough. This has always been the Liberal party style.

Do you remember, in the 1970s, when Robert Standfield promised in an election campaign, as the head of the Conservative party, that he would freeze wages and prices, and Pierre Trudeau, the head of the Liberal Party, said wages and prices should never be frozen? He was elected on this promise. What did he do six months after? Just the opposite of what he said he was going to do: he froze wages and prices. That is the Liberal party, for you: two different messages, one for the elections, another for once they are elected.

Once they are elected, the promises are forgotten. Everything is forgotten. The red book becomes a red, blue or green paper depending on the occasion, and electoral commitments become simply good intentions that, unfortunately, the current economic situation obliges them to put off-like the postponement of the Axworthy reform or the promises to help the disadvantaged.

Do you also remember, in the 1980s, when the Conservatives brought down a budget providing for an 18 cent increase in the price of gasoline, what the Liberals did?

There was an historic vote, which in fact defeated that government on the pretext that an 18 cent increase in the price of gasoline was unacceptable. The Liberals said: "If we are voted back into office, there will be no increase in gas prices. We will exert better control over government spending. We will decrease the number of unemployed. All in all, we will reduce the deficit which has reached $13 billion". Once again, we believed them. Very naive, in the opinion of many Quebecers and Canadians,

we believed them. And what did they do once they got back into office? In less than a year, the price of gasoline increased by 65 cents, not 18, contrary to what they had promised.

During their term in office, from 1980 to 1985, the deficit rose from $13 billion to $38 billion. Sixteen months went by and no budget. In spite of this, Mr. Trudeau was travelling around the world. They were spending money left and right. Apparently they felt the need to interfere in all provincial jurisdictions to counter the rise of the sovereignist movement. Public expenditures were about $76 billion, but gradually rose to just over $100 billion.

So much for the Liberal government. Is it surprising that we feel compelled, as the official opposition, to enjoin the government to remember the less fortunate, to think of its election promises and the promises made in the red book? We have to make the government realize and state publicly that we remember.

I see members of the governing party lower their heads, and well they might. They are embarrassed in their ridings. They go to their ridings every weekend and are ashamed of all of these cuts.

Take the first budget, for example. They had so much hope after being elected. But no, the first budget made an incredible, unacceptable attack on the unemployed. And yet these same Liberals while in opposition had cried murder over the Valcourt reform. And the cuts made by the Minister of Finance in the last budget are 5, 10, 15 times worse than those made by Minister Valcourt in the former government. Such criticisms have been completely forgotten.

The Hon. Minister of Human Resources Development cried murder when there was talk of touching social programs. Now, he will deal the fatal blow to these programs. He proudly defends this, completely forgetting the commitments he made while in opposition and during the election campaign.

We could also talk about the Liberal Party of the 1980s, which has not changed, is still run by the same people, who broke all their commitments, even betrayed their people, for example the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in order to rise to the leadership of, or to an important position in, the party. So in 1980 they said: "Do not back sovereignty. This could jeopardize our seats. The dollar will fall to 80 cents if you do". At the time, the dollar was worth $1.03. Suddenly after the Liberals came to power, the dollar sank to 69 cents.

That is the Liberal Party, and the same people are still running it. Can we believe them when they say they will table a fair budget? Never. So, we openly say to them: "The eyes of the public in Canada and Quebec are on you. They are watching you. Your commitments are still printed in the red book and you will have to fulfil them. We beseech you to find concrete solutions". As the hon. member for Joliette said earlier, we recommended 10 ways to clean up the government's finances, to trim the fat, to make people who have the means pay and to unearth those who bury their money in tax havens. We have repeated this many times. We will see whether you will take into consideration our suggestions or if you will continue to break your promises.

Now, let us recall the last speech on free trade that the Prime Minister made in Montreal. He warned Quebecers that they will be shut out of free trade. However, when the vote on free trade was on, the Prime Minister travelled Canada-wide to preach against it, to spew out lies about it. Now, he warns Quebecers that if they declare sovereignty they may not be covered under the free trade agreement, which he now considers as an element that is essential to Canada's survival, even though he denied this throughout the 1988 campaign which was based on free trade. Two different messages, one for the election campaign, one for when he came to power. The Liberals as they have always been.

I will end on the following note: As a Bloc Quebecois member and as a representative of Quebec, I remind my fellow citizens, Quebecers, that trusting this government, trusting these politicians, has always led to disappointment. The time is long overdue for us to take over full power to tax and to pick and choose the services we want to share with this federal state.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Richelieu on his heartfelt speech in which he shared his past experience with the House. Of course, he raised points denouncing the behaviour of our Liberal friends opposite who, when they were in opposition, criticized the Tories on the issue of cuts to social programs and often on the tax system. He told us clearly that the Liberal Party was not the same after the election.

I wish to ask my colleague from Richelieu if, on the basis of his experience in federal politics, he could explain to us how a party like the federal Liberal Party, which initiated major social programs, which used to pay lip service to the need to defend the most disadvantaged in society, is now cutting UI benefits and transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance and education, while at the same time closing its eyes to the fact that some members of society do not pay the taxes they owe the government. The question I want to ask my colleague is this: Based on his experience, how did the federal Liberal Party reach this point?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this question. Nothing the Liberals do should ever come as a surprise. They will stop at nothing. But when you say that certain social programs were instigated by the Liberal Party, make no mistake about this party. It happens that it often formed the minority back in those days. There was a left-center trend in Canada, Quebec, America and even Europe then, and this leftist sentiment often found a voice in the third party, that is to say the New Democratic Party, who traded its support to the government for rather important social measures. Therefore, the credit does not go the Liberal Party for instigating the measures, because it simply acted to ensure its survival and remain in power.

Now, there is a shift toward the right, as can be seen with the emergence of the Reform Party. So, what do the Liberals do? They go with the flow, shifting toward the right, casually casting aside any commitment or promise made and anything it has been forced to do by the NDP in the 1970s. They are now forced by the Reform Party to renege on all that. They are making this shift to the right for the sake of staying in power.

The Liberal Party can also be expected to go to any length to succeed. It has never had an ounce of social conscience. Not only does it renege on its commitments, but this is the kind of party that will happily squander public funds and do whatever it takes to stay in power. You do not have to go far to find evidence of this. Take today for example, with these Canadian flag celebrations. This is hilarious. Have you ever heard of an organization celebrating its 30th anniversary? Of course not. You celebrate a 25th or 50th anniversary. And not a penny had been spent on the 25th anniversary of the flag.

It has now been decided to spend $1 million on propaganda against Quebec sovereignty. They will do anything, have 800,000 posters printed, 400,000 in Quebec alone. The propaganda effort is under way, taking up million upon million of dollars, but that is no problem. That is the Liberal way. You set up three floors of office space in an office building in Ottawa, pay salaries of $90,000 to $100,000 to everyone if necessary, and you have the money to set the propaganda machine in motion. The Liberals will do anything, anything short of having open and honest discussions, honouring their commitments and going back to their red book to check what promises were made and concentrate on fulfilling them. And these are basically the things the Bloc Quebecois is asking for in its motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time is up.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I listened with intent to members of the Bloc and members of the Reform Party. I must say I heard a lot of rhetoric from the member for Richelieu but not many solutions to the problem he has put forward.

I am wondering where members of the Bloc have been. A lot of the points they have brought forward have been discussed. In the motion they have put forward today they refer to no taxes on lower and middle income taxpayers. As a Liberal member the last thing I want is taxes. I think Canadians are overtaxed. As a government and as a member of Parliament we are working toward reducing taxes if anything. That is what the Canadian public wants.

The member for Richelieu spoke extensively about commitments. The recent byelections show where the Canadian public stands and that the government has fulfilled its commitment. That is why we won three out of three seats in the byelections. It is a pretty good signal for the government. We are following the agenda we put forward in the red book. We are fulfilling those promises and we will continue to do so.

I heard both Bloc and Reform members talk about tax increases. I have never heard the minister say that there would be tax increases in the budget. He has said that we will have a fair taxation system. No taxes does not mean that we do not want fairness and equity. We want fairness in the tax system and we want equity in the tax system. That is what the minister did in the last budget and that is what I am confident he will do in this budget as well.

Bloc members have talked about the other part of the motion which deals with trimming the fat from government. This is why I say I do not know where they have been. That is what we talked about; we talked about getting rid of duplication in government.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Talk, talk, talk. No action.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

We took action. I do not know where the Reform members were; maybe they were sleeping. Look at the boards we got rid of. That bill was recently discussed. Look at the number of patronage appointments we have dropped: one-third. I have to hand it to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who has reduced the number of political appointments from 3,000 to 2,000.

We are not a party that wants to add. We want to reduce. We want to look at what federal agencies make sense and what ones do not, what are duplications and where changes need to be made. Those members should wake up. They should learn to understand and hear, not just listen.

The bill that was before the House recently talked about a comprehensive program review on which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has done an excellent job. It will look from the bottom up in a comprehensive review.

Too often government keeps adding programs. We have learned that now is the time to do a very comprehensive review and ask: "Do we need this program? Does it make sense? Is it relevant today? Is the structure correct?" We have taken action and we will continue to take action on those programs.

If we look at the reductions of numbers on boards, some boards have been totally eliminated and other boards have had their numbers reduced. We can cut but there is a limit. We can only cut so much. I know Reform members want to slash and burn everything totally but that is not the solution. Those members do not understand we have to build the infrastructure, whether it is the cultural infrastructure or the scientific infrastructure.

If Reform members would listen they would learn something but too often they are not listening.

People always want to build silicone valleys and tremendous infrastructures. Those cannot be done overnight. But it can be destroyed overnight by slashing the budgets. Members of the Reform Party were the people who were against the infrastructure program. They do not have a very good understanding of how important infrastructure is, whether it is the road system or the communication system. All those systems are very important.

As a business person I know how important that is. If a business person wants to transport goods some 100 miles away, without a good road system it could take four hours instead of two hours, which would be more expensive. Therefore, good infrastructure is very important.

The members of the Reform Party keep talking about this huge tax increase coming up. They know it is not true. Why are they doing it? It is because their membership is dropping and they want to increase their membership. They have sent out a brochure with all sorts of figures. In the middle of that brochure, lo and behold, is a membership form. What does it say? It says: "Join the Reform Party". It is political opportunism. Shame on you. Let us give the reality to the Canadian public. Let us give the truth.

We have to deal with the deficit and we have a clear program. As I said earlier, if the Reform members would listen they would learn but too often they have this one narrow view. Any other view to them is totally out.

We have to deal with the deficit. We have to do it with a rational, realistic and reasonable approach. We have set ourselves very clear targets. We set them during the election and we are going to follow through. We said we were going to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in the first three years.

The members of the Reform Party had this crazy plan zero in three. They have abandoned that and are now calling it zero in five. They want to do it over five years now. They have realized that it cannot be done in three years.

Part of dealing with a deficit is not only dealing with the expenditure side but dealing with the revenue side as well. We have to make sure there is economic growth and confidence in the economy. Under the Reform program you would take $40 billion out of the economy over three years. Is that going to build confidence in the economy? Is that going to create economic growth? Absolutely not. That is why a rational and reasonable approach is very important.

Reform members always talk about the pension-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

May I ask hon. members to address their comments through the Chair.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, to deal with the deficit we have to have a rational and reasonable approach both on the expenditure side and the revenue side. We have set a clear agenda and clear goals. We are going to fulfil the goal that we set during the election. We continue to say that we will bring it down to 3 per cent of GDP.

On the other side is the revenue part of it. We want to make sure there is confidence in the economy. If you look at what has happened, we have done that. We have had 4.7 per cent growth in the economy. We have created 400,000 jobs. That creates confidence in the economy where people want to invest and make sure that we are able to create growth.

Another thing we have done is assist small businesses because we know they create employment and jobs. We want to make sure we reduce the paper burden on small business. We have taken steps to do that.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

The member is applauding because we know we have taken concrete steps to reduce the paper burden on small business.

Also, in the creating of wealth, we have set a very good agenda on the trade side. Members have seen what a successful program the Prime Minister has put forward to ensure that in this global economy we will be able to compete, that Canadian business will be able to go all over the world to promote their products, ensuring we are not left out of the global economy.

Not only do we have an expenditure program, we also have a revenue program to make sure we deal with the current economy.

We are going to deal with the deficit. Canadians want us to deal with it and I am sure members from both sides will support

the budget, which will deal with our difficult situation in a rational, reasonable and comprehensive way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.36 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(19), proceedings on the motion have expired.

It being 5.36 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Religious Freedom

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

moved:

That this House, recognizing the fundamental Canadian right of religious freedom and the courageous contributions of our veterans of all faiths, urge the Royal Canadian Legion and its constituent branches to reconsider their recent decision so that all of their members will have access to their facilities without having to remove religious head coverings, including the Sikh turban and the Jewish kipa.

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

Although I proudly represent the riding of Windsor-St. Clair, I was not raised there. I grew up in a small town, a village actually, Thamesville, Ontario, in the riding of Chatham-Kent. I grew up in a warm, wonderful home with caring parents, four caring sisters, in a caring village of only 1,000 people. I grew up thinking that our way of life, my family's way of life, the way we related to one another, the expressions we used, our relationships to our extended family, the food we ate and all the things we did were just plain Canadian.

However, as I grew older and my personal world expanded, my perception of what was Canadian changed radically. My parents adopted three sons, my brothers, who are proud to be aboriginal Canadians. I went to a university. I made friends with men and women of colour, of varying religions and heritages. I married a Jew and I raised with him our daughter in a new multicultural world.

Eventually it came full circle as I came to know friends who were recent immigrants to Canada from Ireland. I visited their home. I watched their way of life, the way they related to one another, the expressions they used, their relationships to their extended family, the food they ate. I realized with something of a jolt that I was seeing my own roots. There remained things in my life that still hearken back to the Shaughnessys and the Brennans who came to Canada in the 1840s and to the Murrays and Bradys who came here at the beginning of this century.

I realized then that I, a fifth generation Canadian on my mother's side, am different. I realized that I am a product of my heritage, and I am entitled to be proud of that heritage. Pride in my heritage is pride in my present. My heritage is very much a part of the Canadian fabric.

Over the centuries there have been vast waves of immigration to Canada. Aboriginal people migrated here; Europeans came. People came from the Middle East, Africa, India, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, China and points east. With them came their heritage, their culture and their religious beliefs. My maternal ancestors, like many of them, came here not voluntarily but because of persecution in Ireland.

They were fleeing an artificial famine. They lost their property and were hoping to find a place where they could live in economic freedom and could practice their religion.

That is one very good reason why new Canadians come here today. I say that it is the duty of all Canadians to welcome them, their heritage, their religions and to honour their traditions and let them practice them, just as my great-great-grandparents were allowed to go to mass, to dance their jigs, to drink their beer and to live in peace.

This motion is not just about the Canadian Legion. This motion is about Canada, our multiculturalism and our tolerance of our fellow citizens. On Remembrance Day 1993, the Newton Royal Canadian Legion hall in Surrey, B.C. refused to permit four Sikh veterans into the hall because of their religious headgear.

The four individuals were a retired Indian air force technician and three Sikh World War II veterans. Thirteen other veterans trooped from the hall to show their support for the Sikh members.

On entering the Legion hall, removing hats out of respect for fallen comrades is a dearly and deeply held tradition. On May 31, 1994 delegates to the Royal Canadian Legion's national convention voted against a bylaw that was revised by the dominion executive council that would have required all of its 1,700 branches to admit those wearing religious headgear into public areas of Legion halls.

Today only about 5 to 10 per cent of the Legion's constituent branches are opposed to the wearing of religious head-dress as they feel it displays disrespect to Canada's war dead. They claim that it is their right to make this decision because they have a private club. They say that because they took a democratic vote, the majority must rule.

Both the Canadian Jewish Congress and the World Sikh Organization realize that this decision does not represent all veterans and is not binding on all Legion branches. I would like

to point out that in zone 10 of the Royal Canadian Legion, which is the town of Tecumseh that I represent, the city of Windsor part that I represent and the town of LaSalle, the newest town of Ontario which is part of the riding of Essex-Windsor, no Legion discriminates against people based on their headgear.

I call on the Legions and I call on other organizations to recognize that headgear and other religious symbols are simply that. They are the symbol to that person of a deeply held belief.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission yesterday ruled that the wearing of a veil by Muslim women is not something that can be interfered with by the state, nor is it something that should be forbidden in schools or in public places. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have accepted religious headgear as part of their uniforms.

My father, who is a veteran and my constituents who are veterans, are proud to march next to the many great Sikh veterans, the many great Jewish veterans who wear kipas or yarmulkas. They are proud to march with them and we all should be. Instead of forbidding them from entering our institutions, instead of giving them a hard time, we should be thanking them for the freedoms they have preserved, so that Shaughnessy Cohen can go to mass, so that she can serve in the House of Commons, the freedom that others have in this society that we would not have if it were not for them.

I call on this House to support this motion. I call on all members to urge the Royal Canadian Legion and it constituent branches to reconsider their recent decision.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion brought before us and I thank the member for Windsor-St. Clair for raising this issue today, particularly as it comes so close to the beginning of a new year, one in which veterans will be much in our thoughts.

This year we observe the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war. We recall the Canadians who fought in that conflict, above all those who lost their lives on the field of battle and also those who returned after the war to continue working peacefully for the same principles for which they had once fought. Those principles were democracy, human rights, freedom of the individual, and respect for people of different appearances, cultures and religions. These principles have become woven into the very fabric of Canadian society.

I am sure all hon. members of the House honour Canada's veterans as well as the organization that has represented them with such dignity for nearly 70 years. I am referring of course to the Royal Canadian Legion. We admire its members for upholding Canada's traditions. The most important of those traditions are the principles for which legion members fought and bled on our behalf half a century ago.

Back in 1986 a commemorative volume was published to mark the legion's 60th anniversary. It is a handsome book, full of warm anecdotes and evocative images. At one point it notes how the legion has evolved along with the country. It states:

The people of today's Legion reflect the complex cultural mosaic of Canada. Though they hail from diverse ethnic backgrounds from Inuit and Indian to Greek, Jewish, Ukrainian, Polish and French Canadian, all Legion members are united by common ideals. They are joined by a spirit of volunteerism and a dedication to peace and democracy, patriotism and commemoration, mutual help and wide community service.

That spirit of service has made the Royal Canadian Legion a highly valued national institution. Through it our veterans have gone on contributing to our country in years of peace as they once did in wartime. It is a matter of deep regret now to find this organization embroiled in a controversy that threatens to lower the esteem of Canadians for this grand institution, the legion.

It is certainly not up to this House today to define the rules on how members of the Royal Canadian Legion should pay tribute to our country's victims of war. Nor should we decide how Sikhs and Jews should practice their religion in Canada. Rather, we must ensure that all Canadians are treated in compliance with the law and the fundamental principles which govern our society.

While very unfortunate, that incident forced us to reconsider these principles and ask ourselves if we comply with them. Indeed, this review could help us define the kind of country we want and how we can build it. And that should be the most significant aspect of what happened on November 11, 1993.

Imagine, Madam Speaker, that you should meet a gentleman of the old school whose distinguished bearing is a sure sign of his military background. He tells you that, following in his father's footsteps, he enlisted at the age of 18 and served for nearly 40 years in the armed forces. During the second world war he fought in North Africa at El Alamein, Tobruk and many other famous battles.

Since Remembrance Day is approaching, you invite this gentleman and some of his colleagues to join with you and your fellow veterans to mark the occasion. But when they turn up wearing their well-earned medals, you subject them to a public humiliation that shocks them and many of the participants in the observant ceremonies.

It is hard to believe that such an incident could happen here in Canada. But it did happen in 1993 when Lieutenant-Colonel Pritam Singh Jauhal and four other Sikh veterans from Surrey,

British Columbia were refused admittance to the nearby Newton legion branch even though they were invited guests. The door was barred to them unless they agreed to remove their turbans, something observant Sikhs could never do.

One would have expected them to have been made welcome in every way out of feelings of gratitude, respect for their years, or simple hospitality. Instead, less rational feelings held sway that day.

Though within weeks the president of the branch offered an unconditional apology, last May the legion's dominion convention revived the controversy by voting down a proposal to allow religious head-dress in legion halls. The convention thereby barred from legion premises orthodox Sikhs who wear the turban, as well as orthodox Jews who wear a skullcap or kipa.

Legion members argued that their tradition requires all who enter legion halls to remove their head-dress as a mark of respect to those who fell in battle as well as to the sovereign. No one can question the desirability of showing respect, but surely there are different ways of doing this.

What are these issues, and why do they generate such concern? One of them may have to do with freedom of religion, while another is undoubtedly related to the right of all Canadians to equal treatment, without discrimination based on race or on national or ethnic origin. However, these rights are part of Canada's global social and political structure. What is at stake here is the very nature of that structure, the type of society in which we live, as well as the kind of country which we want for ourselves and for future generations of Canadians.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Lieutenant-Colonel Jauhal and his colleagues recently wrote about their wartime service:

During the second world war alongside the Commonwealth armed forces, we too put our lives on the line to protect the Commonwealth and preserve the democracy in which different people could live together and enjoy freedom in peace. Irrespective of different nationalities, faiths and cultures, we all in the Commonwealth armed forces developed comradeship, esprit de corps and tenacity and formed ourselves into a well-knit united family. Not only did we respect each other, we would have died for each other.

During the second world war-no Canadian comrade asked us to remove our turban at that time. At Buckingham Palace Sikhs were allowed to appear in turbans before the King and Queen to receive awards. In Victoria last August the Queen met and chatted with each one of us. She did not ask us to remove our turbans.

If there is a note of bewilderment here, I think it is understandable. The Queen is a living symbol of Canada's traditions as well as those of the legion. If she is able to countenance the turban, to look beyond the headgear to the man, cannot the Royal Canadian Legion do likewise?

The Sikh veterans who were refused admittance have filed a formal complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. I have little doubt that through such formal channels they can gain a ruling in their favour. But would it not be preferable to do the right thing willingly rather than under court order?

There is more at stake here than simply showing civility. The five who were turned away are Canadians as much as I am and everyone else is in this Chamber. Whatever their appearance or religion, they have the right to participate fully in our national life.

Still more, all of us are impoverished if any group is marginalized and denied full participation. Even in the case of those who refuse to accept religious head-dress, we gain nothing by putting the worst interpretation on their actions. In fact, I think we misrepresent them by doing that.

The comments of legion members who voted against allowing headgear suggest that they were acting to uphold traditions. In the decades since they fought for our country they have seen Canada change at a dizzying pace. Successive waves of immigrants have transformed the face of Canadian society. This change is thought by some to be jeopardizing our fundamental values and traditions.

Let us recall what our traditions truly are, what being a Canadian and possessing a generosity of spirit is all about. Ultimately, I think we can all agree it is not a matter of appearance. This country derives its identity and its greatness from the principles for which our veterans fought: democracy; basic human freedom; fairness; justice; and equality of rights for all. Just plain decency.

By acting on these principles we uphold Canada's traditions. By working to realize these ideals in our ever evolving multicultural society, we show that we have not forgotten the sacrifices of our veterans. We will always remember them.

I am confident that the members of the Royal Canadian Legion will demonstrate in peacetime the same courage they showed in battle. For all of us, they can continue to set an example of generosity, of inclusion, and fairness.

I thank the member for allowing us to have this discussion today.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the veterans affairs critic for the official opposition, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. However, we cannot expect the debate on the motion moved by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair to provide us with the answer to a

problem involving the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. We can explain our respective positions and comment on them, but it would be hazardous for anyone to claim that he or she has the answer.

After establishing the principle of human rights a number of years ago, we started to establish the boundary between individual rights and the rights of agencies, corporations or companies. We know that these two kinds of rights-individual and collective rights-may or may not clash, depending on how tolerant or intolerant people are.

Individual rights have been recognized for many years by various charters of rights and freedoms. One that stands out is the charter adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly in 1975. These charters recognize the right to fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Some of these individual or collective rights may impinge on one another. We all know this fundamental principle: one person's freedom extends to where the other person's freedom starts. However, although Parliament can indicate how we should see the nature of this boundary between my rights and the rights of my neighbour, it is up to the courts to make a decision in disputes that may arise between conflicting rights. We can suggest where the boundary should lie, without actually changing anything. In this case, we think that, in time, a consensus will develop in favour of greater tolerance.

Tolerance, and by that I mean accepting the differences of the other person, is not always easy to accept when we are directly involved. Tolerance can quickly turn into resistance when we are directly confronted with a total departure from what we see as normal.

In this particular case, the Legion tells us that the wearing of the Sikh turban and the Jewish kipa is not allowed in the facilities of the legion, any more than any other head coverings. To the legion, the religious aspect of certain head covering is irrelevant. The Royal Canadian Legion argues that an organization has the right to impose certain rules and practices within the framework of its activities.

This position is not consistent, however. A spokesperson for the Canadian Jewish Congress pointed out last June that the Legion had no trouble with cowboy hats or baseball caps. Why the inconsistency?

At a Christmas party in 1987, a branch of the legion in Alberta barred a Sikh wearing a turban from entering its premises, although the hall had been rented for the occasion and the Sikh was not a member of the legion. He then filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. A tribunal finally asked the branch to apologize and amend its discriminatory regulations since the legion does not have the right to deny access to public activities. The branch made minor changes without allowing full access.

The 1990 turban scandal provoked strong negative reactions in many branches of the Royal Canadian Legion against legitimate differences that are not prejudicial to legion members in any way. On November 30, 1993, Sikh veterans participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies in Surrey, British Columbia, were denied access to royal legion facilities because they refused to remove their turbans.

In February 1994, the president of a local branch in Cornwall, Ontario was reinstated after being suspended by the provincial branch after he spoke against the wearing of turbans. Either to clarify the situation or to try to hold back the movement against the religious practices of fellow soldiers, the Royal Canadian Legion took the opportunity, at its annual convention in late May 1994, to urge participants to pass a resolution allowing Sikh members to wear religious head-dress on branch premises.

Those present rejected this proposal, forcing their national president to resign on the spot. Without a national policy, individual branches are still free to regulate access to their facilities as they see fit. This event has stirred up many reactions, here in the House of Commons as well as in the media. Local chapters of the legion that have formulated or maintained the restrictions concerning the wearing of head-dress have pointed out that they are exercising a right accorded to private organizations such as theirs.

In fact, the Royal Canadian Legion has its roots in a private organization formed on July 10, 1926, which through federal statute assented to on June 30, 1948 was incorporated as the Royal Canadian Legion. The best conclusion that I can offer this Chamber is undoubtedly the one that preceded us by 24 hours, in Montreal. Yesterday, the Quebec human rights commission published a legal opinion concerning the banning of the Islamic head scarf. It ruled clearly that such bans were a violation of freedom of religion.

In the same breath, however, it recalled that section 20 of the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms allows non-profit organizations to impose rules consistent with their objectives of a charitable, philanthropic, religious, political or educational nature. For the commission, this provision would not, however, allow interference with the freedom of conscience or religion of an individual.

The Quebec human rights commission is in a way proposing a set of rules under which the current debate on religious pluralism could take place. They set out clearly the legal principles that the courts should rely on in dealing with these issues. Although it emphasizes that the Quebec charter would prohibit any discrimination on the basis of religion, the commission does not recommend that the courts be asked to settle disputes.

Instead, it invites the opposing parties and the general public to arrive at a consensus on the broader issue of conflicting rights.

This is our choice. We hope that attitudes will evolve and that each of us will become aware of the worth of others, with respect for the self. We invite the Royal Canadian Legion to examine the opinions just published by the Quebec human rights commission.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion No. 310.

My fellow colleague's attack against the Royal Canadian Legion, an independent association of veterans who risked their lives to fight racism and oppression, is in my opinion unfounded.

The Royal Canadian Legion is not an organization permeated with bigots and racists-far from it. The legion is an organization of war veterans with their own valued customs and traditions to show respect for their fallen comrades.

Their methods of showing respect are their own and should not be subject to parliamentary inquiry. I feel strongly that my colleague has misinterpreted the whole issue.

During the 35th dominion convention of the Royal Canadian Legion which was held in Calgary from May 29 to June 2, 1994 the legion passed a resolution:

Branch bylaws or house rules shall include a provision for the wearing of head-dress in the premises and when doing so must provide that religious head-dress is not considered to constitute head-dress in the traditional sense.

Therefore, once a person who is required to wear head-dress by his faith has been accepted as a Legion member, or invited as a guest to a Legion branch, he is authorized admission to all areas of that branch that are normally open to the general membership or invited guests.

This bylaw clearly states that once a branch allows an individual in as a member or as a guest that individual will have access to all areas of the branch regardless of religious head-dress. This is a sensible policy.

However, individual branches can comply with this bylaw as they see fit due to their grassroots independence from the dominion command. Individual legion branches have the right to accept or refuse all new members, period, regardless of head-dress. Therefore, the legion has taken effective action to ensure that all Canadians have access to their facilities.

President of the Royal Canadian Legion, Mr. Hugh Greene, stated after the convention: "It is wrong to say that the convention banned turbans. The delegates did not vote to ban religious head-dress from branches. The vote was to rescind a national general bylaw that imposed a dress regulation on branches. This decision took the responsibility for branch head-dress rules back into the hands of the branches".

I find it hard to comprehend why my colleague wants this decision reversed. As she states in her motion:

-urge the Royal Canadian Legion and its constituent branches to reconsider their recent decision.

Is the return to a national general bylaw imposing a dress regulation in the best interest of all Canadians? I do not think so. I think it is important for Parliament to respect the right of organizations such as the legion to make and maintain their own bylaws. Nobody in Parliament would question the bylaws of the Kiwanis Club or the Optimist Club. Besides, the Royal Canadian Legion has been very generous in its interpretation of its customs. The vast majority of legion branches are following the resolutions passed by the conventions.

If the members across the way would listen for a minute, the statement made was that the vast majority of legion branches are following the resolution passed by the convention.

John Spellman, professor of Asian studies at the University of Windsor, documented that in the past 67 years and out of a membership of nearly 700,000 there have been fewer than six cases in all in Canada involving turbaned Sikhs not being admitted to Legion halls. No person of Jewish descent has ever been turned away. The Human Rights Commission has only ever decided against a legion branch once. Many veterans who require head-dress for religious reasons have been legion members for years.

My colleague's motion has called into question the integrity of the Royal Canadian Legion and I feel strongly that I must set the record straight. I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House what kind of organization the Royal Canadian Legion is.

We all know the legion was formed after the great war to help veterans secure adequate pensions and other well earned benefits for them and their families. Today's Royal Canadian Legion has many other stated purposes and objectives which include bringing about the unity of all who have served their country, furthering the spirit of camaraderie, striving for peace, goodwill and friendship among all nations, co-operating with the commonwealth and allied associations with similar aims and encouraging, promoting and engaging in or supporting all forms of national, provincial, municipal and community service or any other charitable purpose.

Today's Royal Canadian Legion benefits everyone in this room and all Canadians.

Its programs have had a very positive impact throughout the communities that are blessed with a legion branch. In 1993 the Royal Canadian Legion's 1,720 branches contributed $63 million and over 2 million volunteer person hours to their communities.

The Royal Canadian Legion, through its service bureau which acts as an advocate for thousands of veterans and their families, provided assistance to those veterans.

In 1993 the Royal Canadian Legion provided $6.8 million in direct support and over half a million hours of volunteer time assisting 67,000 veterans.

The legion is also active in supporting commonwealth veterans internationally. As a member of the British Commonwealth ex-service league, the Royal Canadian Legion has welcomed the responsibility for assisting Caribbean veterans through 15 Caribbean ex-service organizations in countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana.

The legion has also assisted peacekeepers who have been injured during peacekeeping activities. We are all familiar with the Royal Canadian Legion's remembrance and poppy campaign. It raised nearly $5.2 million in 1993 which is used to assist needy veterans and their families. It was also used to purchase medical supplies and funds, medical research and training.

In 1992 the legion's senior program provided seniors with $3.9 million in direct support and contributed 400,000 hours of volunteer time assisting 57,000 seniors. It also provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to help train practitioners in gerontology and geriatric medicine.

In addition, the legion sponsors Meals on Wheels and provides transportation for seniors and disabled Canadians. It helps them reach day hospitals, recreational activities and medical appointments.

The Royal Canadian Legion is one of the country's leading community organizations. It contributes tens of millions of dollars to private charities annually.

In 1992, $10 million was earmarked for direct support of youth activities such as the finest youth organization in the world, the Royal Canadian Air, Sea and Army Cadets across the country. Also, much needed money went to Scouts Canada. It provides the children and grandchildren of veterans with educational bursaries and scholarships.

I would like to take a moment to offer all my colleagues in the House an opportunity to pay tribute to the good deeds of the Royal Canadian Legion. I can only pray that the Royal Canadian Legion remains an independent, grassroots, democratic organization, for without the input of the grassroots, the legion would not be the progressive community organization it is today.

It has assisted more Canadians than any other non-government organization I know of.

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Motion No. 310 which urges branches of the Royal Canadian Legion which do not permit Jews and Sikhs to wear religious head dress in their branches to reconsider this discriminatory practice.

As my hon. colleague for Windsor-St. Clair suggests in her motion, all members of the legion must have access to legion facilities without having to choose between their legion affiliation and their religious belief.

As most of us know, the Royal Canadian Legion does excellent work among other worthy things in perpetuating the memory and deeds of the fallen. Founded in 1925 by Field Marshall Haig, the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League was organized to bring veterans' concerns to the attention of government.

In 1960 the organization was renamed the Royal Canadian Legion and continues to this day to act as an intermediary between veterans and government.

Today, the Royal Canadian Legion is made up of 1,720 branches and has over 570,000 members. The mere mention of the Legion conjures up the poppy campaign, the November 11 parades as well as the design and literary contest for high school students. Indeed, the Legion has taken on the task of bringing together, within a democratic and non partisan association, the men and women who fought in the various branches of the Armed Forces.

However, the non partisan nature of the Legion has been put in question by the unfortunate incident where Sikh veterans were denied access to Legion facilities for refusing to take off their turbans. In trying to deal with subsequent allegations of racism, the Dominion Command of the Canadian Legion put forth a resolution to amend the rule concerning the wearing of the Jewish kipa and the Sikh turban inside Legion facilities. It read in part as follows:

Once a person who is required to wear a head-dress for (the Jewish and Sikh) faiths has been accepted as a Legion member, they are to be authorized admission to all areas of that branch that are opened to the general membership or invited guests.

Unfortunately at the general assembly in May last year more than 75 per cent of the legion's delegates voted down this resolution. In so doing they placed in jeopardy the non-sectarian nature of the legion. Those who voted to maintain a ban on head-dress within legion premises refused to depart from a principle to the effect that wearing a hat shows disrespect to the fallen. The national president was so outraged he immediately resigned.

Fortunately not all members of the legion have similar narrow views. A letter published in the February 1994 issue of The Legion reminds legion members of the spirit of friendship and camaraderie that is supposed to be found in legion halls. It states:

It seems to me some of my comrades have forgotten that one of the things they fought for was democracy and within that democracy is the right to practise religion. If, in so doing, it means that uncovering one's head would be an offence to one's god, then why should we be affronted? These people are not slighting the memory of those who paid the greatest sacrifice for freedom. Instead, we should be open minded enough to remember that some Sikh veterans fought in the same campaigns with great distinction, and wish the fellowship of their comrades in a Legion branch without being harassed by close minded discrimination.

[Translation]

In an effort to appease the strong public outcry against the proposed motion being rejected, the Dominion Command urged Legion branches to reconsider their decision. I am pleased to report to this House that almost 90 per cent of the branches have now passed motions recognizing the important contribution of Jewish and Sikh servicemen in the world wars and, consequently, repealed their discriminatory policy on religious head-dress. Unfortunately, another 10 per cent did not.

It is important to state once again that Canadians of various religious backgrounds, including Jews and Sikhs, have in the past served and continue to serve with great distinction in Canadian and other Commonwealth forces. Their faith did not prevent them from serving and dying for their country.

In the second world war alone, 10,235 Canadian Jews served in the army, another 5,889 in the Royal Canadian Air Force and yet another 596 in the navy. I am sad to remind the House that 429 Canadian Jews were killed in action from 1939 to 1945, over 200 were wounded and 84 were made prisoners of war. In recognition of their valuable contribution to the war effort almost 200 Jewish soldiers were decorated.

Should not all veterans regardless of their gender, ethnic origins and religious affiliation receive fair and equal treatment by the Royal Canadian Legion?

By refusing to adopt a resolution permitting Jews and Sikhs to wear their religious head-dress on legion premises, some members of the legion have shown themselves to be insensitive to the Canadian reality and to the members they are supposed to represent.

Canada is not a monolithic society. Unfortunately some are still unwilling to acknowledge our cultural and religious reality. Some branches of the legion have adopted regulations that may contravene Canadian and provincial human rights legislation. These branches need to be reminded that Canada has a long and well respected tradition of tolerance. The legion should reflect upon its decision and its actions in this light.

It is sad that in 1995 some still do not accept and respect our rich and diverse cultural and religious traditions. We must continue to work toward better understanding among all Canadians, not the opposite. This debate is extremely important for it causes us to reflect on the work that remains to be done; too much work unfortunately.

Members of the branches that have banned religious head-dress must be made aware that the kipa is not a hat to a conservative Jew. He does not wear it for vanity but in order to observe a religious injunction to cover one's head before God. With respect to the turban it is more than a simple regalia to an orthodox Sikh. It is a powerful symbol of the mystery which binds the man to his faith.

Incredibly during the Calgary Stampede some branches allow their members to drink beer and socialize with their 10-gallon cowboy hats fitted nicely on their heads. The rationale behind this exemption is: What would the stampede be without our cowboy hats? Why do some legion branches believe that a legion member who wears a 10-gallon hat in the legion hall during stampede is only following tradition, while a Jew who wears a kipa or a Sikh who wears a turban is showing disrespect for the fallen.

I am concerned that Jews and Sikhs are being denied entry by some branches because some legion members are uncomfortable with fellow members who look a little different or whose headgear may demonstrate that they are a little different. These members think that maybe they do not belong. They belong as much as any other Canadian. Our differences do not divide us; they enrich us.

We each have a duty to denounce all forms of discrimination. Ironically it is in our own self-interest to do so. The Protestant theologian Neimoller said after World War II:

When the Nazis came to get the gypsies I did not say anything because I was not a gypsy. When they came to get the communists I did not say anything because I was not a communist. When they came to get the Jews I did not say anything because I was not a Jew. When they came to get me there was no one left to stand up for me.

We have a moral obligation to strive to understand one another as a people. Whether a Jew wears a kipa, a Sikh a turban, a Calgarian a cowboy hat or a Torontonian a Blue Jays cap, we are all Canadian citizens and have a right to express our beliefs without fear of discrimination.

I urge branches of the Royal Canadian Legion which prevent members from wearing a religious head-dress to reconsider

their position so that they foster a climate of tolerance and understanding. I believe the legion should be an agent for tolerance and understanding within Canadian society. I am only surprised that this is not universally the case.

The legion should never forget the principles its members fought and died for. The legion, as should all Canadians, should remember the eloquent words spoken by our Prime Minister on the beaches of Normandy for the 50th anniversary of D-Day:

In death they are not anglophones or francophones, not from the west or from the east, not Christians or Jews, nor aboriginal people or immigrants. They were Canadians.

They died as Canadians and I think some branches of the legion insult the memory of these Canadians by excluding other veterans from legion posts.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Private Members' Motion No. 310.

I would like to start by reminiscing a bit back to the sixties when I first immigrated to Canada. I remember a couple of incidents that happened during my early arrival to Canada that I will never forget. One was a fairly simple matter.

When we were first invited into the homes of some of our neighbours, my wife and I went tramping in like one always does in Colorado where we came from. When other guests arrived and I noticed no one had any shoes on their feet it kind of surprised me. I asked: "What is this? Don't you guys believe in wearing shoes any more?" They informed: "That is what is done in Canada. When we visit we take our shoes off". I said: "I can buy that. I will be prepared for it, though, in case I ever have to take my shoes off".

The next time we went out to visit somebody we removed our shoes because that was the way it was done. Of course when I went back to Colorado after getting accustomed to it, I took my shoes off when I went to visit and they laughed at me because that did not happen there. That is fairly minor.

I remember another time my wife and I attended a community dance. When they announced it was the last dance I grabbed my best friend, my wife, and I said: "Come on, let's have this last dance together". They finished and then they played another song. I thought we were going to have one more. It took about three twirls before it dawned on me that everybody else was standing still because they were playing: "God save the Queen". That was a little embarrassing. I twirled around the floor just about three steps too many not to be embarrassed. I felt a little strange. I can say the next time there was a community dance I not only stood with the rest of them but I sang the words; I learned them.

I tell those stories because there were a number of things we had to get used to when we moved to Canada. Although we were not that far apart, a number of things were different.

Another thing I remember that caught me off guard was going into a club. It was not the legion; it was an Elks club, I believe. I did not realize the difference in Canada. In my state they had an Elks club. I was not a member but I always went there. In this club in Canada I did not have a membership so I was not allowed in. I accepted that as being the way it was. It took me and my family a number of months to get accustomed to different things that were happening.

What worries me about a bill of this nature is that it is a bill that says to a certain segment of society that it does not do things right, that we are going to legislate and do it the way it should be done. I realize it is just a motion to encourage the legions to reconsider. However my biggest fear is that if that is not the case and these wishes are not followed, would it some day become the wish of the House to legislate a rule that would affect an organization of this type?

When we start making legislation that controls the rights of individuals or controls the collective rights of organizations, we are stepping out of our bounds as legislators. I do not think we are here to start controlling things. I hope we do not get to that point in our lives.

I hope everybody here who has feelings today will express those feelings to the legions in the manner they should. I would not want it to be a collective thing coming down in any way, shape or form from the House saying: "We know what is best for you people out in Canada. Let's get away from that idea. We are going to do it for you. If not then we are going to have to do some other things".

I recall attending a golf tournament one time. A fellow drove about 300 miles to join us in that tournament. He came from Peace River and the golf tournament was in Red Deer. He walked in with his 12-year old son. Immediately the golf managers told him that the son had to leave because he had Levis on. Levis were not allowed. He said: "We came a long way. He is just going to caddy". It did not matter. Levis were not allowed on the course.

Are we to start going to golf courses and saying: "You have to change your dress code because you are offending some people?" Do we have to go to restaurants that say we have to wear a coat and tie to come in? They set the rules so we do not go in.

We should get away from the idea that we have to be involved in controlling the situation and not leave it in the hands of good common sense thinking Canadians. If we give them time to

organize their thoughts, rules and regulations, it will come into play where we can all be happy with it.

However when we start acting as government officials who know best and suggesting as legislators the way it has to be, it is wrong. It worries me that we would even consider to move in that direction. I encourage us not to do so by means of legislation, a member's motion of this nature or anything else.

If members wish to express their desires as they have done so well today, they should do so to the legion clubs in their ridings as individuals and not as a collective unit of government saying: "It is our way".

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate the member for Windsor-St. Clair for giving the House the opportunity to debate the issue. Also let me congratulate my colleagues who were so articulate in this situation.

I would like to inform the Reform member that we do have a law. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it says that we do not discriminate. There is a item called freedom of religion. I encourage him to take some time to look at that.

I do not think I can articulate better than members have already the concern in terms of the legion and how in certain branches-there are a few, not many-there is discrimination against Sikhs who wear headgear.

My grandfather came here in 1906 and was one of those who wore a turban. He would not be allowed in certain legions right now because of his turban. That is terrible. A member of this House of Commons would also not be allowed into certain legions and I find that unacceptable.

I would like to leave my colleagues with an example that happened in my riding. I think it articulates best what our young people are thinking. I believe we have to learn from our youth.

In a Churchill high school, which I attended as a student, the members voted to not participate in the Canadian legion poppy fund. They gave very good reasons when they said: "We want to support the veterans of this country, but we cannot do it through the Canadian legion". The students voted in a democratic election. The overwhelming majority refused to get involved in the poppy fund. It was not because they did not believe in the veterans but because of what the legion did, the discrimination of some legion branches. That is why they refused to participate.

That is leadership. That is looking ahead. But the students also said: "We are going to have our own poppy fund. We are not going to let those veterans down. We want to support those veterans so we are going to make our own poppies". I applaud those students for showing leadership and for showing us which way to go.

I am a Sikh, as many of my colleagues know. I am not a turban Sikh because I am not an orthodox Sikh, but I can tell you that this is very important to me. Frankly, I was disappointed in some of the comments made by members of the Reform Party. I know that many members from the Okanagan would also be disappointed.

That example shows that our young people are taking leadership. They are saying: "We do not accept discrimination. We do not accept bigotry. We want to tolerate people. We want to include people. We do not want to marginalize anybody. We do not want to exclude people. We want to bring Canadians together". That is what this is all about. We want to bring Canadians together. We want to understand each other.

My own children who are seven, twelve and thirteen share Indian food with other children. My daughter came home singing a Hebrew song. That is what sharing is all about, what understanding is all about, what tolerance is all about. That is what all of this is about. Racial harmony is linked to economic prosperity. It is also linked to a better understanding. As Canadians we have to move forward.

There have been times in Canadian history when there has been discrimination. We look back on it and ask: Did this really happen? In 20 years from now we will look back and ask: Did this really happen in Canadian history? And we will not believe that it did.

I want to thank all the members who have articulated this issue so well. I am sorry I do not have more time to speak. I am sharing it with another member.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 310 presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.

As the House is aware, I am the first turbaned Sikh to sit in the House of Commons. The turban is recognized by this House as religious headgear and no restrictions whatsoever are placed upon me. Likewise, Her Majesty the Queen has clearly indicated that the wearing of the turban in her presence is totally acceptable. The Queen's aide, Robin Janvrin, in a letter dated September 13, 1991 wrote: "I confirm that many Sikhs have been invited to Buckingham Palace over the years. They were not asked to remove their turbans".

Today's motion urges the Canadian legion to recognize that the turban is not simply a hat, but rather it is an integral part of the Sikh faith.

The Sikhs have proudly served during the time of war all the while wearing their turbans. The fact that the turban has been recognized by the RCMP and the Canadian military as suitable

dress for parade or duty should be extended to the wearing of religious headgear in the legions.

What was World War II all about anyway? Was it just fearless exploits and dramatic battles? Or was it about fighting for freedom, including religious freedom at a time of virulent anti-Semitism?

The brave soldiers of all faiths fought and died so that the living would be respected. They died so that a religious Jew would never be forced to remove his yarmulke and a devout Sikh would not be humiliated by being asked to remove his turban.

On the battlefield, no one asked Jewish and Sikh soldiers to fight and die without their religious headgear. Yet now, the yarmulke and turban are deemed disrespectful, on par with a cowboy hat, baseball cap or fedora.

In voting down the pleas of their own leadership to allow religious headgear into legion halls, the convention delegates violated the spirit of Canada's human rights laws and trampled on traditional Canadian values.

Today's motion would ensure that this situation would not be allowed to continue. I urge all of my fellow members in the House to support this motion and once and for all put this humiliating situation to rest.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to pursue a question that I asked the Minister of Transport last week in the House about a proposed route for the Trans-Canada Highway through New Brunswick.

In answering my question the Minister of Transport said that he could not address the matter because it was a provincial jurisdiction. What the minister failed to note was that the federal government cost shares on all trans-Canada projects. That makes it a federal concern.

Although the ultimate route has not yet been determined, the New Brunswick government is leaning toward the idea of an expanded Trans-Canada Highway from Fredericton to Moncton, New Brunswick through Jemseg Marsh and CFB Camp Gagetown. This plan will cost an estimated $1 billion and will cause environmental problems.

Under this plan, Saint John would not be on the Trans-Canada Highway route. As the province's largest city, its industrial centre and the city closest to the U.S. border, Saint John should be directly on the TCH. In fact, this new route would also cut off Sussex, New Brunswick and many other towns and villages along the way.

There is an environmental assessment being done of Premier McKenna's choice of the route. The possibility of the route going through a designated flood plain and going through Camp Gagetown, including one of the province's largest inland marshes is worrisome.

Citizens groups from my province say Premier McKenna's preference seems to fly in the face of a federal government policy calling for no net loss of water habitat for wildlife. Even if this is not of concern to the transport minister, it should of interest to federal ministers of the environment and defence.

The preferable route would twin Saint John, Fredericton, Moncton and St. Stephen and can be built for $220 million. It could be done by upgrading the existing highways linking these four centres. This option will make the three largest cities in the province of New Brunswick equal and will pose no threat to the environment whatsoever.

I ask the minister once again to reassure the House that the government will not contribute one federal dollar to a trans-Canada highway project that is not only exorbitant in cost but may also be harmful to the environment. How could any member of this government agree to spend $1 billion when in fact it can achieve its objective by spending $220 million?

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question this evening.

Highways in Canada, except for those on federal property, are the responsibility of the provincial government. The member knows that. It is a simple fact but true.

I do not think there is anyone in Canada who is more knowledgeable or concerned about highways than Premier McKenna of New Brunswick and his transportation minister, the Hon. Seldon Lee. Therefore, quite simply, the appropriate place to raise questions about the routing of a highway within the province of New Brunswick is in the New Brunswick legislature, not the federal House of Commons.

Premier McKenna is doing the best job he can and we of course will do everything we can within our jurisdiction to assist him in his most laudable goals.

As for the choosing of the route, as I understand it, the province hired a consultant to review the options to improve the trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick. I should point out the study did not involve the federal government whatsoever. The province is working toward a four lane highway from the New Brunswick-U.S.A. border at St. Stephen through Saint John to the Nova Scotia border. That is its right, its duty and its jurisdiction.