Debates of April 5th, 1995

Firearms Act

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.

My colleagues, your Speaker finds himself in somewhat of a quandary. I have been approached by hon. members of Parliament who wish to be recorded as abstaining from the votes.

I have two choices. I can have them stand, put it on the record and declare them out of order or I can simply ask those who want to abstain from the vote to rise and I can declare them all out of order at the same time.

I surely do not want to make light of this. Because we do not have a mechanism for abstention I would ask the committee on voting procedures to take this into account at some future time in its deliberations.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I stood in my seat and that I would support neither the motion to kill the bill nor the bill in its present form. I would like a clarification of that from the Chair.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it recorded that I was present during the vote but abstained.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this House, traditions have a significance that cannot be overlooked. I think we have an obligation to conform to what is customary in this respect.

It is assumed that if a member is present, he will make his opinion known as his constituents have asked him to do, whether he is for or against a bill. To abstain is not an option, as we see it, and we therefore object.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I want to thank the hon. member for Roberval for his opinion. He is right. The reason I rose was to explain my dilemma. It was simply for your information. I thank all members for their attention.

It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Multiculturalism

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should transfer the responsibility for cultural preservation to individuals by discontinuing federal multiculturalism programs, relinquishing control of multiculturalism thereby allowing multiculturalism to flourish by giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own cultural ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move this motion this today. Canadians from all across this country have become involved in a debate that explores the merits of the federal government's policy on multiculturalism. The issue has its defenders and its detractors. But most significantly, people no longer are blindly accepting the status quo that multiculturalism funding should be beyond reproach or even be beyond questioning.

The position of the Reform Party is given expression in my motion as just read. By relinquishing control at the federal level for funding multicultural projects, we will also be giving to individuals the chance to choose for themselves what cultural endeavours they wish to support.

As a government we have diminishing resources and as individual taxpayers we too have less and less disposable income. It is in light of this that we as legislators should be making efforts to maximize the freedom of individuals to distribute their disposable income where they choose.

In contemporary Canada does it not seem a little arrogant when the government decides which programs, which groups and which individuals should be funded? Are these decisions not better left in the hands of Canadians and not government? Why is it that this Liberal government avoids all the difficult decisions that concern Canadians the most?

I have sponsored two motions, both of which have been deemed to be non-votable. Last June I sponsored a motion for debate that related to the CBC. I recommended that the CBC be partially privatized. In that debate I suggested that we make some substantial changes to the CBC and that would include funding reductions.

I received a very poor reception from the other side of the House. In fact there was laughter and derision as I recall. However, here we are in budget 1995 and surprise, surprise, some of my recommendations have been acknowledged, particularly the recommendations for reduced funding and potential restructuring.

Another Reform proposition which the Liberals have recently borrowed was the recommendation to amalgamate all of the women's organizations into Status of Women Canada. I have suggested that further to that we dismantle the organization altogether.

Further to the debate on this motion, let me share with the House some sentiments from an average Canadian. I recently spoke to a group in Kingston, Ontario about my vision for Canada. A woman who heard me that day sent me some of her thoughts which echo mine. I would like to share them with the House today. She wrote on something she called "Acceptable Behaviour in a Global Village". She wrote:

The world of human beings has grown smaller and populations all over the world have become so mixed that we have to learn to get along peacefully with each other. The global village is no longer somewhere else. It is here and all of us are mixed in with it. It does not matter whether someone of a different race or nation lives next door or down the street or in a different part of town or halfway around the world, we have to learn to live peacefully with all of those peoples whose racial or national origins are different from our own. To do otherwise is to bring about an end to our world. The intolerance, conflicts, fighting and wars between peoples will bring an end to our civilization and the earth as a planet much quicker than any pollution or natural disaster.

All peoples have some members who are great people, who have accomplished things which are beneficial for all humankind. All peoples have some members who are difficult people who make life miserable for those around them. No one is perfect. Most people of all races are a mixture of good and bad. It is necessary to recognize the best and the positive in others regardless of what they look like, what language they speak or where they come from. The positive values of honesty, integrity, the ability to do the job required of them, the ability to care for family and other people and the ability to live peacefully together with others; all provide the basis for a good and worthwhile society.

Every race and nation of people has those individuals whose performance is excellent in all of those values. Every race and nation has many who fail to uphold those positive values. We need to change our attitudes to become more objective and non-judgmental. We need to become more accepting of all people.

The woman concludes her letter with the thought that:

This is not an easy thing to do but if enough of us who feel this necessity start to put these attitudes into our own lives and encourage others to also do so, we will have a better world.

These are the sentiments of an ordinary Canadian. The writer has no Ph.D. in peace issues. She has no certificates proclaiming her to be an expert on eliminating racial discrimination. But she clearly is an expert on old-fashioned Canadian common sense. If we could only bottle these common sense attitudes and ship them throughout Canada and around the world what a better place this would be.

I was mentioning earlier that the issue of multiculturalism is of high profile in the media of late. I was reading a recent edition of India Abroad in which Professor Milton Israel wrote about the issue of identity as it pertains to multiculturalism. He wrote:

For some the emphasis on ethnicity facilitates division; for others, it provides a means to cope and a possibility of unity on better terms. Still others insist that national boundaries and the limited and distinctive identities they produce are eroding and the future lies with the "transnationals", people who are at home in more than one society. The loss of old home through migration or the substantial immigration of others is not to be lamented but a new kind of cosmopolitan nationalism is to be embraced.

I share this view. We do not need a special dispensation from the government to foster this belief. Members of ethnic communities also espouse these views. I experienced this when I spoke to the Human Rights and Race Relations Centre in Toronto, a privately funded organization that works to end discrimination in Canada. I went there on March 21 which was a day that acknowledged a race-free society. In fact it was called "the day to eliminate racism in the world".

I was so impressed that day with the individuals I met. They were all volunteers, leaders from the ethnic communities in Toronto. They had strived free of federal government funding to bring together other community leaders to discuss the issue of racial discrimination in the hope that it could be eliminated in this century.

There was a wonderful letter in the conference package that had been written by the hon. Paul Martin. He said he wished to acknowledge the work and contribution of the Human Rights and Race Relations Centre toward ending racial discrimination in this country. He acknowledged the dedication and commitment demonstrated by the staff and the volunteers-indeed all of them in this centre are volunteers-and that their efforts had been exemplary. He said that they all deserved to be commended for their efforts.

This is an excellent example of a group of Canadians who are working together without government funding to support and to further the process to eliminate discrimination.

[The Speaker]

I wonder, only because I take a special interest in what the hon. member is saying, would she clarify if that was the hon. Paul Martin Sr. or Jr.?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this was from the hon. Paul Martin, Jr. It was a letter he had written dated March 13, 1995. It was to help give support to this group in Toronto. I wanted to share that with the House because he had written such a wonderful letter to them.

The Reform Party opposes the current concept of multiculturalism and hyphenated Canadianism pursued by the Government of Canada. We would end funding of the multiculturalism program and support the abolition of the department and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.

If the Minister of Finance sincerely wants ideas on how to cut the deficit he will get rid of this aspect of special interest funding. He would immediately save the taxpayers of Canada some $38.8 million a year. This also sends a powerful message to all concerned that beliefs in self-reliance, the indomitable spirit of the self in search of autonomy and independence is encouraged and championed in Canada.

Multiculturalism was introduced in the House of Commons on October 8, 1971. In the 23 years that have followed, it has been politically incorrect for anyone to criticize it. I will repeat that. It has been politically incorrect for anyone to criticize it, especially in the House of Commons. I do not know the number of times I have had to bear the label of being bigoted because I speak from a different point of view. I have no patience for that any longer when all I want to do is bring reasoned and rational debate to this issue.

In fact, members of Parliament from the Tories, the Grits and the NDP have all used the multiculturalism policy in a way that I believe is insincere, superficial and shallow in order to garner political support from ethnic communities.

We all want the right to retain our roots, but what we have is Trudeau's enforced multicultural scam and the costs have been excessive. Ethnic group is pitted against ethnic group and the country is fragmented into a thousand consciousnesses. Trudeau's ideas about multiculturalism continue to contribute as a primary factor in the erosion of federalism and Canada's unity. Catering to special interest groups a la Trudeau and company smashes the spine of federalism. This destructive outcome is almost inevitable so long as we officially encourage large groups to remain apart from the mainstream.

The multiculturalism policy of Canada was designed to "recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage". It is intended to "promote full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins" in all aspects of Canadian life, including "equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity". The language of the policy is fairly innocuous and well meaning, but in practice it endorses special interest groups' agendas at the expense of the taxpayer.

Canadians remain unsure of what multiculturalism is, what it is trying to do and why and what it can accomplish in a free and democratic society such as ours. Multiculturalism can encompass folk songs, dance, food, festivals, arts and crafts, museums, heritage languages, ethnic studies, ethnic presses, race relations, culture sharing and human rights. Much of the opposition

to multiculturalism results from the indiscriminate application of the term to a wide range of situations, practices, expectations and goals as well as its institutionalization as state policy, an expensive one at that.

Public support for multiculturalism has been difficult to ascertain. In the early 1970s when the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended the government introduce some ethnocultural policy, public support for multiculturalism was at around 76 per cent.

An Angus Reid poll in 1991 showed that figure has not changed much. It remains at 78 per cent. But what can we make of this level of support? Little to nothing, I suggest. At the same time that poll was being done, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future reported some uneasiness about the Canadian public's attitude toward multiculturalism policies. It stated:

Overwhelmingly, participants told us that reminding us of our different origins is less useful in binding a unified country than emphasizing the things we have in common. While Canadians accept and value Canada's cultural diversity, they do not value many of the activities of the multicultural program of the federal government. These are seen as expensive and divisive in that they remind Canadians of their different origins rather than their shared symbols, society and future.

Further to this, a Decima survey was commissioned by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews and was carried out in October 1993. The survey found that three out of four Canadians expressed a preference for an American style melting pot approach to immigration over the multicultural mosaic that has been officially promoted in Canada since the 1970s.

The survey also disclosed that Canadians generally are increasingly intolerant of interest group demands and that there is a relatively strong view that particularly ethnic, racial or religious minorities must make more efforts to adapt to Canada rather than insisting upon a maintenance of difference, especially at federal expense. Roughly similar proportions of visible minorities expressed the same sentiments.

This poll would suggest that it is the prevalent opinion amongst the groups targeted to receive multiculturalism grants that such grants are divisive. These are not my words; they come from others.

As I mentioned, criticism of the status quo has been increasing from the policy's supposed beneficiaries. For example, a fellow by the name of Jimmy who emigrated from Vietnam in 1980 and is now a technician at a photo processing lab commented: "The government spends too much money on something that's not necessary. Canada has freedom and work for anyone who wants it, and that is all newcomers need". In Richmond, a magazine editor by the name of Anthony agreed that government-sanctioned segregation is no good for Canada.

What seems to be clear is that there is an erosion of support for multiculturalism by the citizens of Canada. This erosion of support for the multicultural approach, particularly given that minorities themselves concur, does nothing to promote harmony and unity in Canada because it does not recognize that all Canadians are equal.

Our vision of Canada should be committed to the goal of social and personal well-being that values individuality while emphasizing themes like family and community assumption of responsibility, problem-solving and communicating these value-sets as a means to better group life. However, at no time should the rights of a group supersede the rights of individuals, unless the group happens to consist of a majority within Canada.

I have tried to show why the federal government's interpretations of multicultural support must come to an end. We can no longer spend money we do not have on financing such a notion. The Angus Reid study from 1991 clearly shows that not only has the multicultural program failed, but Canadians oppose it. One of the main reasons that Canadians oppose this policy is that it is divisive.

I would like to refer to Arthur Slessinger, Jr. Mr. Slessinger is not a conservative thinker whom I trot out to support my position. He is a well-known liberal, an American Democrat. He is the quintessential Liberal's liberal. Slessinger believes that by its very nature multiculturalism is dangerously divisive. It encourages government to segregate citizens along racial, ethnic and linguistic fault-lines. Then it compels them to dole out rights and money according to the labels people wear. Far better to focus on unifying forces, he advises, emphasising the characteristics, desires and beliefs that citizens hold in common. Otherwise, tribal hostilities will drive them apart.

Preservation of diverse cultural heritages can be left to individuals, families and private self-financing organizations.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge that my own personal circumstances are those that encompass a multicultural family. I have a daughter who has dual citizenship with Australia and Canada. I have another daughter who is married to a young man from Mexico; his name is Fernando Rodríguez. I have European roots myself, Croatian and Norwegian. My husband also has a European background. Our family is multicultural. It reflects very much the diversity and richness of those various cultures.

I speak as a Reformer in this House. I believe there is no place in our society for the federal government to continue to fund multiculturalism. However, I do believe that there is a price to be paid for forging a new nationality out of diverse elements. Simply put, there is a fair degree of tolerance and goodwill all around. I have learned that through my personal experience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this debate and to set the record straight and tell things the way they are. In Canada, multiculturalism is not an ideal; it is a reality.

[English]

Some people prefer to call this reality diversity or pluralism, or refer to the programs, policies and issues as intercultural, cross-cultural or ethnocultural. They can play the semantic game if they wish, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

The hon. member who proposed this debate just said that we should never support group rights unless they are a majority. From my perspective and where I grew up, democracies are judged by how they treat their minorities.

Multiculturalism is not just a matter of the right of choice, which we all enjoy in our democracy in the maintaining of one's cultural roots. It is about respecting the right and ensuring it for all Canadians, whatever their race, religion, language or country of origin. It is about fostering a climate of mutual respect in a country where everyone is equal, where everyone has rights and, yes, responsibilities too. It is about equality. As our Prime Minister has said: "Equality is not about special interests or special rights. It is about social and economic justice."

Canada has a rich democratic tradition. The principles of justice, personal freedom, mutual respect, open mindedness, freedom, integration and the shared notions of justice have guided and shaped our social structures, our laws, our institutions and our way of life.

These are basic community and fundamental Canadian values. I would remind my hon. colleague-

-that the Prime Minister of Canada has often said our country's unity depends on its diversity, which is also our strength. It is in fact the essence of Canada.

I would say that we know that peace, prosperity and social harmony do not come from wishful thinking or letting the marketplace dictate or letting personal feelings prevail. They are partners in that undertaking, perhaps. They can only come about, in my perspective and in the perspective of this party, from good public policy, collaboration with the private sector, commitment and determination, and community goodwill.

The aim of the federal multicultural programs is to promote understanding among the various cultural communities. Who would quarrel with this objective? These programs are intended to help newcomers integrate into the country, to eliminate the obstacles to participation by all Canadians and to break down borders and put a stop to racial discrimination.

From a business and trade perspective, we find these policies have great economic benefits. The more we know about global markets, the more we can use the cultural and linguistic knowledge of Canadians in competing in those very markets where we now do global business and the more we will all benefit.

These are some of the things that multiculturalism is all about. It is far more than a case of enhancing and preserving culture. The hon. member surely realizes that we do not live in a perfect society.

There is discrimination, and although we may be number one on the UN list, we have not reached nirvana or utopia, to my knowledge, as yet. There are still talented people out there, citizens denied full access to the economic mainstream. There are still people out there sitting on the margins who have a vital contribution to make but are not able to make it because of discrimination, because of lack of understanding.

Linguistic, racial and religious tensions lead to misunderstanding. We sometimes take advantage of the public good. We often want to do things our way and we find it hard to put ourselves in others' shoes.

Good public policy and programs help all of us to stand tall and walk in confidence and pride as if we were in the other person's shoes.

I believe that Canada's multicultural policies and programs have helped ensure peace and stability over our great land. Certainly the rest of the world seems to think so.

By weaving together all the diverse cultures that people our land, we have created a magnificent Canadian tapestry, reflecting our Canadian culture, which is more than the sum of all its dynamic parts. At a cost that is not extraordinary, less than $1 per Canadian per year, this policy works at breaking down barriers and promoting institutional advances, thus providing individuals, as the member puts it, the freedom to pursue their

own cultural ideals in a society that can accommodate differences, build bridges, and profit from its pluralism.

Multiculturalism is not about living separately side by side; it is about living together. It is not about building walls; it is about tearing them down. It is about inclusion, not exclusion. It is about the fact that we are all Canadians. It is about respecting each other.

This government demonstrates leadership by tapping into the current and potential benefits of diversity. The multicultural program and policy, as I have said before, are good government policies. Its practices have evolved and are complemented by partnerships with individuals, corporations, organizations and other levels of government, whom I thank, as well as those individuals who serve them in a voluntary capacity.

Just for the member's information, we do not do song and dance or festivals, as she points out.

I am happy to share with the hon. member the initiatives we have taken with the Canadian Advertising Council and its study called "Colour Your Money", which shows that with sensitivity, good hiring practices and with the kind of publicity one would like to put out in our advertising milieu, diversity can be a very profitable business because one feels at home and welcome in the environment. I would be more than happy to share the successful partnerships we have had with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Conference Board of Canada, the Asia-Pacific Foundation, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Cineplex-Odeon, and many others too numerous to name.

We look to the future by working together with Canada's youth, with teachers, school boards and school trustees, by assisting in the development of films and books and then making them available to the children in our schools and in our public libraries. We build an environment that helps shape their lives. By encouraging understanding and co-operation among our youth, we help shape the future of Canada, a future of mutual respect, understanding and co-operation.

I would advise the hon. member-she spoke on the day to eliminate racism-to look at that group. It is a fine group that we help fund. We are very pleased with the work that many of these groups do, both in their voluntary and professional roles.

We must affirm and reaffirm the Canadian values expressed in our constitution and in the charter of rights and freedoms-the freedoms we take for granted-the right and the duty of each Canadian to protect and promote this exceptional democracy and to participate in it fully and equally.

Recently the Governor General said during his moving swearing-in speech: "I believe we still learn as much from our differences as from our similarities. When we only talk among ourselves, all we get back are echoes. We only grow if we take the time to quietly and carefully listen to each other."

He added that, in Canada, we recognize one fact in life. People here are true to their origins, and they bring their origins here with them. An infinite variety of traditions and cultures make up Canada's unique mosaic, providing a fine example for the world.

I would say to my hon. colleague, who has put what I consider to be an unenlightened approach before this House, that there are no hyphenated Canadians and there is no segregation in our policy. If someone chooses to segregate or hyphenate themselves, they have the freedom and the right to do so. It is too bad they feel they must separate themselves from the glorious undertakings that we have as a country and a nation that is the envy of the world in this regard.

I would say to her in my closing remarks that the bottom line to my hon. colleague is that national values can cut across racial, religious and cultural lines in Canada, allowing multiculturalism to flourish in the best interests of all of us. It would ensure "old-fashioned Canadian common sense" to be the inheritance of all of our children's tomorrows.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak as the official opposition critic for multiculturalism, and I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for giving me this opportunity to repeat the position of the Bloc quebecois on the federal government's multiculturalism policy. We believe there are several reasons why this policy should be abolished.

To put this debate into perspective, it would be useful to consider the official definition of this multiculturalism policy as read in a news bulletin from the Library of Parliament. We read that the term multiculturalism in Canada evokes the presence and survival of various racial and ethnic minorities that identify themselves as being different and wish to stay that way.

We should now look at the sequence of events that led up to the adoption of the policy on multiculturalism. It is 1971, under the Trudeau government, and the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has just been published. Always according to the library's news bulletin, the fourth volume of the report dealt with the contribution of ethnic groups

to the enrichment of Canadian culture and recommended the integration (and not assimilation) into Canadian society of non-founding ethnic groups, recognizing their rights and privileges as citizens and making them equal participants in Canada's institutions.

We should also remember that a new political party was founded in Quebec with the sovereignty of Quebec as its stated objective, and that in the election held the previous year, it obtained 22 per cent of the popular vote.

How ironic. Feeling the pressure from this new expression of Quebec's desire for independence, coming as it did shortly after the October crisis, the Trudeau team, including the present Prime Minister, decided to make some adjustments to the report's recommendation. As a result, the concept of integration that would recognize the rights of members of ethnic groups and their equal participation in society was abandoned in favour of the concept of promoting cultural differences. In so doing, the whole dialectic of two founding peoples with their own language and culture was submerged and diluted in this ocean of other languages and cultures.

It was a fine sleight of hand, and most Canadians did not notice, except, of course, Quebecers. Through then Premier Robert Bourassa, Quebecers resolutely dissociated themselves from this concept.

In an open letter to Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Bourassa first reminded his federal counterpart that his proposal was a betrayal of the work done by the commission, whose focus had been bilingualism and biculturalism, and thus the equal status of the two peoples. He regretted Mr. Trudeau's decision to dissociate culture and language. He went on to reject out of hand a policy whose objective would be to promote languages other than French in Quebec. Finally, he reminded the federal leader that in this case, the jurisdictions were purely provincial.

Quebec never changed its position, although leaders and political options changed regularly over the years. In fact, Quebec developed its own policy for integrating cultural communities, a policy similar to the one proposed by the Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission.

In Quebec, the emphasis is on integration. Not assimilation but integration. The official definition of integration is as follows: integration is long term multi-dimensional process of adaptation, distinct from assimilation. In this process, the knowledge and use of the common language of Quebec society is a fundamental driving force. The process is consolidated in a society, where participation by all Quebecers is guaranteed and where immigrants and members of cultural communities find their place and are recognized as full members of the communal, social and political life of a pluralistic francophone society.

This policy has received unanimous approval in Quebec; it is never an issue, unlike the Canadian policy.

We cannot help but notice that multiculturalism enjoys anything but unanimous approval. The Decima and Gallup polls published in 1993 showed that 75 per cent of Canadians rejected the policy of multiculturalism and favoured a style of integration similar to Quebec's.

Given the government's investment in multiculturalism, it is a sad thing to see it fail. For the year 1993-94 alone, the government invested $38,846 million. The program has existed for 20 years. How many billions of dollars have been invested to date in a flawed policy which the country does not want?

The policy is not working and even its target public, members of ethnic communities, are criticizing it. I cite as an example the overwhelming support for Neil Bissoondath's first book. His supporters were unanimous in saying that the government should only concern itself with helping immigrants to integrate into our society and fighting racism-end of story. He noted that the federal government's policy tended to create ethnic ghettos, which in no way foster integration and full participation in political, economic and social life.

We also cannot leave unmentioned the absurdities made possible by the multiculturalism policy. Barely six months ago, a consultation paper from the Minister of Justice proposed that culture or religion be permitted as a defence against criminal charges. Because of the ensueing uproar, the minister had to recant and withdraw the proposal. That is one example of how far some people will go to promote different cultures.

In closing, I would like to stress that a sovereign Quebec would continue to favour integration and respect. The current Minister of International Affairs, Cultural Communities and Immigration, Bernard Landry, confirmed that position just a month ago.

Please allow me to quote him: "Quebec will not use the public purse to subsidize cultural differences. Our government is against multiculturalism. Although the Quebec government acknowledges the fact that Quebec is multi-ethnic, it favours a policy of cultural convergence in one common culture, fortified by foreign sources". That sums up well Quebec's position on multiculturalisml and deals with the issue effectively.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Bill M-364, a motion advocating the transfer of responsibility for cultural preservation to individuals by discontinuing federal multicultural programs, proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. Today I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the arguments utilized by opponents of Canada's multicultural program.

Unfortunately, over the past few years the spread of misinformation regarding our federal multicultural policy has been prevalent. The popular misconception of multiculturalism is of

a government-funded program that pays people to, first, keep their native cultures and languages, and, second, that serves to divide the country. These myths have, to an extent, been further propagated following the release of Mr. Neil Bissoondath's recent book, entitled "Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism". Although I certainly welcome this interesting publication as a means of stimulating debate in this area, I must also state my reservation about the unsubstantiated assertions made therein.

Mr. Bissoondath has misread the effects of multiculturalism by insinuating that money spent on multicultural events will reinforce stereotypes and lead to a break-up of the country socially.

I find perplexing the assumption that, for example, the display of a community's traditional dance could lead to divisiveness and negative stereotyping. This conclusion clearly is not credible. We know that multiculturalism does not promote or reinforce negative stereotypes.

In reference to the dance, I and my family, as individuals and collectively, felt that we must preserve certain customs, traditions and beliefs. Based on those needs, because of our ethnic background, we preserved what we wanted, what we felt was honourable and desirable to preserve and pass on from generation to generation. One of those activities was Ukrainian dance. Everyone in my family learned how to do the Kolemyka, the Hopokola, and other dances, which we all immensely enjoyed, not only with our members of the family but with other people in the community.

In these dances, there were not only those who were of Ukrainian ethnic background but of a multitude of ethnic backgrounds. That was the composition of the community in which I was raised. We all lived in perfect harmony with each other. No one decided that there should be a barrier between the Italians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Ukrainians or the Slovaks. We all had basically the same needs.

Moreover, Mr. Bissoondath draws a link between multiculturalism and the marginalization of immigrants. He relates the story of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson, who, in a 24-hour period, was transformed in media sports from "the Canadian who had won Olympic gold through effort to the Jamaican immigrant who had lost it through use of drugs". It was from the positive to the negative, from the Canadian to the Jamaican immigrant. In my mind it is very clear that this type of media report is a result of ignorance and unconscious prejudice. It is certainly not a result of multiculturalism's assumed marginalizing effects.

The reality is that multiculturalism brings strength to this country. It is, however, a human characteristic to react in a reflex-like and emotional manner when confronted with unsubstantiated stories about certain communities. We should not allow rumours and hearsay to determine our policies. Unfounded stories are not based upon educated opinion and most certainly are not based upon facts.

I expect that the Reform Party's position is the result of sloppy and inaccurate research because I certainly do not want to believe that they are intentionally misguiding the Canadian public. Not for one moment do I believe that they would do such a thing.

However, Mr. Neil Bissoondath in his book, when referring to the Reform Party's opposition to multiculturalism, indicates:

my attitude is at best suspicious. Reform strikes me as a party that suffers from an astounding lack of social generosity and counts among its membership too many who are either racially minded or, to coin a phrase, knowledge-challenged.

Multiculturalism was officially introduced into Parliament on October 8, 1971. It was expected to be a vehicle through which we would achieve a cultural mosaic, as opposed to the U.S. melting pot. Today, 42 per cent of Canadians have origins that are other than British or French. While people with European origins still make up the largest number of Canadians, more and more immigrants are coming to Canada from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

This is changing the face of the Canadian population. In the 1986 census, visible minorities accounted for 6.3 per cent of the Canadian population. By 1991 this figure was almost 10 per cent. The visible minority population of major cities is greater. For instance, in Toronto it is 26 per cent; Vancouver, 24 per cent; and in Montreal, 11 per cent.

Canada's multiculturalism policy is one expression of leadership. The multiculturalism policy is rooted in Canadian values. It is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which establishes the fundamental freedoms and democratic rights of all individual Canadians, irrespective of national or ethnic origin. It is also consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act and the Citizenship Act.

Multiculturalism, as described under federal policy, is concerned with helping people become full participants in the life of Canada. It is certainly not concerned with the mandatory retention of culture and does not encourage cultural isolation, as some critics erroneously charge. There are the so-called ghettos of our communities where we my find, as we find in Thunder Bay, a large gathering of a certain group of people with a specific ethnic background. We find this happening because they choose to be neighbours. They choose based on their every day needs to be in constant contact with each other, to help each other, until they reach the point where they can communicate with anyone in their neighbourhood in the common language of

the area. In our case it could be English or, as in Quebec, it could be French.

In 1993-94, $25.5 million was spent on the federal multicultural program, which is less than Brian Mulroney spent on his prime ministerial aircraft. The notion that $25.5 million per year, which is less than a dollar per citizen, could ensure the isolation of Canadians into cultural-ethnic cliques is hardly believable. Moreover, one must keep in mind that an important component of the original policy was founded on the assumption that encouraging people to be confident in their own cultures would allow them to be accepting of the cultures of other groups. The official policy encourages Canadians of all ethnic origins to participate fully in the economic and social life of Canada, sharing their cultures and histories with each other.

It is unfortunate that members in the opposition benches are insinuating that multiculturalism and cultural diversity somehow preclude national unity and inhibit our ability to be part of the whole. This could not be further from the truth. Canadians of all origins do maintain a sense of their own cultural identity and at the same time adhere to the Canadian values of democracy and tolerance. There is no reason to believe that the two are mutually exclusive. That is a notion that has somehow been propagated by opponents of multiculturalism and it is extremely misleading and irresponsible. The proof for this is in the Canada of today. We are culturally diverse, and yet if we ask the majority of immigrants they will tell you that they are first and foremost Canadians.

I would like to conclude with a quote from a Toronto Star article dated June 21, 1991. It refers to the experience of an author. Her name is Myrna Kostash, grand-daughter of Ukrainian immigrants that settled in Alberta. She stated:

Multiculturalism policy and its institutions allowed me to take part in Canadian life. It allowed me to get out of the ghetto. During my own childhood, ethnic cultures were private, taking place in Ukrainian churches and in youth groups. I was aware that I was dropping out of my peer group in order to be Ukrainian. But with the advent of multiculturalism, I felt that when I spoke as a Canadian-Ukrainian writer, I was doing it within the mainstream institutions of Canadian literary life. I became a Canadian through this sense of entitlement. I didn't have to choose between public and private cells. Both came together through multiculturalism.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak in favour of my colleague's motion, private member's motion No. 364. The motion provides for the transfer of the control of multiculturalism away from the federal government to individuals. Essentially, the motion put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast calls for the withdrawal of federal funding to multicultural groups.

I concur with that objective. However, just because I think the state should not be funding various cultural groups does not mean that I dislike these groups. Just because I disagree with government imposed multicultural policies it should not be construed to suggest that I dislike other linguistic or ethnic groups. I am arguing against government policy, not against cultural groups.

After all my roots are different from the roots of many other people. Together those generations of various ancestral heritage came to this country to settle and build what became by far the best country in the world. This country was opened up, settled and built without a multicultural policy. In fact I doubt if the term multiculturalism was even coined when my parents came to this country back in the twenties.

My roots are a mixture, a real hodge-podge so to speak. My linguistic heritage is Prussian German but my ancestral affiliation and connection include not only central European heritage but east European heritage, Slavic heritage, including Ukrainian, Polish and Russian. My parents understood and spoke these languages, plus what they called Yiddish. I am led to believe that Yiddish is a kind of Germanic way of speaking Hebrew. If that makes any linguistic sense I really do not know. In a land, in a country, that encompasses much of the earth's land mass with over 150 cultural groups, who am I to question what makes sense in that part of the world. Come to think of it, perhaps there are lessons to be learned given the turmoil that existed for centuries in tsarist imperial Russia, then in the former Soviet Union and presently in the newly created state of Russia.

My parents left their homelands, along with hundreds of thousands of other people from that area, having lived in those lands for almost 200 years. They left to escape the tyranny that was to enslave the people for over 70 years. They came to Canada, where everything was new and very unfamiliar. They had nothing when they came halfway around the world.

However they had freedom. They had liberty. They had liberty and freedom that the people back in the land from whence my parents came could not even imagine or dream about. My parents embraced their newly adopted country with energy and a zeal that was typical of newcomers during that time. Like those who came from places other than Britain, they soon learned English like everyone else. Some youngsters did not learn English until they started school.

For years, for generations, like thousands of families not only from eastern Europe but from all over the world they held on to some aspects of the culture that they had lived with before they came to this country.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to know something? These people all came usually with little or no money and they received not one thin dime from government. Not only did they not ask for money, they did not expect any government money. They came to this country for freedom and for the tremendous opportunities

that this great and beautiful land afforded them. They settled and built communities that helped to build this country.

I suggest to the multicultural minister that what transpired during those pioneering decades was real, genuine, unvarnished multiculturalism. All these people, these families from varied backgrounds, from different parts of the world worked together and co-operated to build churches, schools and communities. Together they worked to build the country.

That was multiculturalism at its finest with no government dollars. They were all proud of the fact that they had become and were Canadian.

Since government funding for all types of programs began, many communities have divided. Friction and animosity has developed. Dependency on the state, on government handouts has been created. Apparently the multicultural minister thinks so too because she has recently mused that Canada has no culture.

I would suggest the minister leave the confines of Montreal and Ottawa and visit rural Canada, the west and Atlantic Canada. She might be pleasantly surprised, if she stays for awhile, of the flourishing culture that she might not only see but also feel. I suspect culture in this country would flourish even more and probably bring Canadians closer together from all parts of the country if the state would only get its nasty little nose out of culture, along with its close sister multiculturalism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know I have a very short time so I will try to be brief. It is very difficult to be brief.

Multiculturalism is about a participatory democracy. The members opposite have consistently used the myths out there in society to defend a position instead of using that which they know to be the truth and the facts from the department itself.

My colleague and I were talking about experiences when we were growing up, experiences that are still happening today, where the teachers would stream whole classrooms of kids into vocational schools because they were Italian, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Polish or what have you. That happened then and it is happening now in Toronto with the Portuguese kids. It is happening with the black children. It is happening everywhere.

Multiculturalism tries to break down those kinds of barriers so that those children have equal access by providing race relations programs and holding discussions in schools to understand the differences, that these children are not inferior in any way. We were not. My whole generation was streamed into vocational schools when we came to this country. Multiculturalism empowered my whole generation and a lot of other Canadians who were of different backgrounds and did not have the ability.

I will tell another story. Earlier today we were talking about Harbourfront. Not long ago, in the late 1980s, a group was putting on a poetry reading. They were choosing the names of poets who were published but not yet well known across Canada. One of the staffers who happened to be of Ukrainian background said: "Oh, there is a really good poet I know in Toronto who is published in his community but not across the country. His name is Pier Giorgio DeCicco". They said: "This is for Canadians, not for foreigners".

The multiculturalism policy is intended to create participatory democracy, to give access, to give equality, to allow Canada to evolve into a strong nation.

We talk about the fact that we are Canadians and we have all these common symbols but it is a bunch of garbage and words because it means bloody nothing when it comes down to the facts and the lives of every Canadian, when it comes to the systemic discrimination that exists in all institutions.

I spent 20 years of my life working in Toronto with multicultural and immigrant groups. Most of that time I spent fighting the invisible discrimination and systemic barriers in the school systems and in social services that people could not access because they were not of Anglo background. To this day in metropolitan Toronto, one still cannot access the majority of the dollars for social programs unless one is from the Anglo community.

This is about participatory democracy, rights, equality and being a Canadian. The members opposite should inform themselves before they speak about myths.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things I would like to say. First, I have very much appreciated having the opportunity to debate this matter today with other members of the House. I note their passion and their sense of wanting to debate this further. To that end I would seek unanimous consent of the House that this become a votable item and move it to committee as quickly as possible for further discussion.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent. 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.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Justice on February 15. It regards the disturbing trend whereby defence lawyers subpoena private and confidential files and records from counsellors at sexual assault centres, from psychiatrists, doctors and other personal counsellors for use in the defence of their clients.

I thank the minister for his attention to this issue and for his informed response. However, I would like to share with the House the angst and concern that exists among constituents in my riding when they think of these personal documents being brought into the courtroom.

I like to share with the House some words from a constituent who wrote to me: "For many of us, the only safe place to talk about our injuries is in therapy. Therapy is a place where victims can learn to re-establish their own self-worth without being abused again. The counsellor offers the support that is desperately needed in order to learn how to set safe boundaries, learn about self-worth, the right to privacy, that it is okay to say no, it is okay to validate our own needs, it is okay to be angry and how to express that anger in a safe and constructive manner.

"In therapy, we learn that we are not powerless to our perpetrators and that it was not okay to be violated in the manner in which we were. We are given a place to safely express our emotions and validate our own feelings, even if we are the only ones that do. For many of us this is the only safe support that we have.

"This is a very sad day because now the defence lawyers want to take away what little privacy we as victims have and violate us all over again. My therapy is very personal to me. I can talk about my pain and my goals, my hopes and my fears. I pay good money for the right for that support to allow me to create my own boundaries. I urge you as a representative of my government to stop this injustice".

Those words are poignant and they are instructive. They tell us that victims of violence do not want these very private and therapeutic conversations to be part of the courtroom proceedings.

In 1992 the House passed very good legislation with the rape shield law. We know recently that in Nova Scotia the law was challenged and fortunately, the Minister of Justice intervened and the integrity of that law was maintained. With this right to subpoena we see a back door approach to get confidential information into the courtrooms where it should not be and where it creates difficulties for people like my constituent.

I know the minister is working very hard on this. I know he has intervened in the Supreme Court case that is reviewing the result of a B.C. appeal that would require strict controls over the use of this information in court. I thank the minister for that intervention. I hope the Supreme Court will judge in favour and allow the result of the appeal in the B.C. judgment to be available to all of us in Canada.

I ask the minister to continue his diligent review in this regard. I realize the issues are complex, but I ask him to find a balance between providing a fair trial for the accused and for the victim a right to privacy.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Brant has said, this is a troubling and complex issue which places in conflict two compelling sets of interests.

On the one hand, victims need to be able to seek counselling and medical assistance in confidence and with full respect for their privacy and personal integrity, both at the time of their counselling and later on in any court proceedings. On the other hand, people accused of serious offences need to be able to bring forth relevant evidence that may establish their innocence. Courts across the country are grappling in individual cases with the very difficult balance of victims' and accused persons' interests.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard argument on this issue in the case of O'Connor v. the Queen on February 1. The federal government intervened in that case to urge the court to endorse a strengthened version of the guidelines developed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has reserved its decision.

The O'Connor guidelines developed by the B.C. Court of Appeal are designed to prevent fishing expeditions into the complainant's past. They place the onus on the person seeking access to the records to establish that they are relevant. This is done through a two part procedure which may be done in camera with a ban on publication and at which the complainant and the holder of the records are not compellable witnesses.

At present and subject to the decision of the Supreme Court, the O'Connor procedure is binding only in British Columbia. At a January federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for justice, it was agreed to review the B.C. Court of Appeal guidelines with a view to having them adopted in each jurisdiction. This would govern the situation pending the decision of the Supreme Court in O'Connor and pending any new legislation in that area.

It was further agreed that the issue requires urgent attention. Consequently, officials were directed to work on it and report to the deputy ministers at their next meeting in the spring.

The Department of Justice is consulting with interested groups and individuals to determine how personal records are in fact used, to fully explore all perspectives and concerns, and to develop ways of balancing the complainant's interests with those of the accused.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 29 I rose in the Chamber to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. At that time world leaders were just beginning talks in Berlin aimed at stabilizing levels of greenhouse gases now threatening earth's climate.

The talks are the result of the June 1992 meetings of 106 of the world's nations. Those talks were held in Rio de Janeiro with the purpose to sign the framework convention on climate change.

Since that meeting in Rio, more than 100 nations have ratified the Rio treaty. Now in Berlin the world's leaders are meeting to assess our progress since 1992 and consider proposals to strengthen the agreement.

Sadly, as important and indeed as critical as this is, there is not much to assess. Canada, like so many other countries that made commitments to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, has failed miserably to live up to those commitments. As we speak tonight, the Minister of the Environment is likely in Berlin. Just as likely, she is embarrassed by the position Canada is in with regard to the commitments we made in Rio.

When we look at what has happened since Rio, we do not have to look far to see that nearly nine billion more tonnes of carbon have accumulated in the atmosphere and the evidence of climate change is mounting. In fact, in response to the crisis the Minister of the Environment acknowledged the crisis and even went so far as to say that if Canada and the other nations which are emitting greenhouse gases do not do something about this, climate change and global warming will create a situation where floods will occur off the east coast of Canada and tiny but beautiful Prince Edward Island will be all but submerged.

It is hard for me to imagine that the Minister of the Environment knows about the possibility of this catastrophic event and she is not prepared to take immediate and dramatic steps to combat it. I hope we do not have to wait for the day when my good friends in Prince Edward Island are looking for new homes in Ontario or Saskatchewan before we begin to take this issue seriously.

Carbon emissions are increasing. This represents a trend that is moving dangerously in the wrong direction.

According to the latest Worldwatch magazine, in order to stop the accumulation of greenhouse gases and allow the earth to return to equilibrium over a period of centuries-yes, you heard me correctly, Mr. Speaker, I said centuries-scientists say that carbon emissions will have to be reduced to the rate at which the oceans can absorb them, or 60 to 80 per cent below today's rate.

Yet on the current path, emissions are projected to increase by 60 per cent within the next two decades. Obviously the earth's atmosphere will require sharp cuts in industrial country emissions and a rapid slowdown in emissions growth in developing countries. This means that all the nations of the world need to have action plans in place to guide the progress of this critical issue. No nation can afford to sit on the sidelines.

It is clear the world is facing an issue with uniquely large and irreversible consequences. The delegates in Berlin cannot afford to waste the opportunity to begin turning the ship around. Given that, I ask the minister why Canada's wimpy actions on climate change are not as forceful as our resolve to preserve the fish stocks off the Atlantic coast.

I hope the government today is prepared to say we have to do better.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government in partnership with the provinces and territories has reached a national consensus on the directions Canada will take to address the challenge of climate change.

In a meeting in Toronto on February 20, energy and environment ministers from the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to Canada's national action program on climate change. The Deputy Prime Minister tabled the action plan today at the first conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change in Berlin.

The action program sets out the strategic directions Canada will follow to meet its commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The action program is based on the principle of sustainable development as advocated by the Brundtland commission, an approach in which environmental, social and economic policies are fully integrated.

Consequently, the action program provides the opportunity for each jurisdiction in Canada to undertake actions appropriate to their circumstances. The program is a living document. The federal, provincial and territorial governments are committed to reviewing the program regularly to ensure that Canada's stabilization commitment is met.

Toward that end all ministers committed to review progress by late 1990 and agreed to continue developing options to close the 13 per cent stabilization gap that currently exists. The release today of Quebec's action plan on climate change is a noteworthy example of the action being taken by other jurisdictions in Canada.

The aim of this government as stated in the red book is to co-operatively work with provincial and urban governments to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energies.

Responding to the challenge of climate change represents a tremendous opportunity for Canadians to use their entrepreneurial spirit to forge ahead with creative and credible solutions, solutions that work for the environment and for our economy.