Mr. Speaker, may I say from the outset that although I consider this motion misguided, I am absolutely sure that its impetus was my colleague's sincere love for Canada and his desire to ensure that Canada remains whole and united.
Having said that I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that my basic objection to this motion, since there is no official policy about calling oneself a hyphenated Canadian, is there is no law that designates that one must do that. The wording of this motion seeks to prevent freedom of speech. It seeks to prevent the freedom of a person to define themselves in any way that they choose.
I share my colleague's opinion regarding respect, but I urge him to take a closer look at Canada. Our country is not one-dimensional. Our collective identity is complex, as are the individuals that make it up.
Our geography is one of the most diverse there is, our history is a mosaic of events that shaped our country, and our population is made up of representatives of every culture in the world. These factors enrich our identity.
Do we deny the diversity of our landscape? Do we deny the many events that mark our progress in national maturity? Should we deny the reality of our geography, of our regions? Should we deny the reality of cultural diversity? Of course not. Even my colleague agrees with me on this. He freely admits that he is not opposed to multiculturalism. This certainly indicates good sense because we are a multicultural country whether we like it or not.
It makes it all the more difficult to understand the motion we are debating today. I can only believe that my colleague does not fully understand Canada's multicultural policy or what changes it has wrought in Canadian society.
For example, had it not been for Canada's multicultural policy and its supporting program, federal government initiatives, it is questionable whether my colleague would be sitting in the House today as a member of Parliament exercising his right to debate the issue of multiculturalism. This House reflects to an unprecedented degree the cultural diversity that is and has been for a long, long time a primary characteristic of our society.
Here is the figure. Forty-one MPs in this House are first generation Canadians. This is what the multiculturalism policy is about, about equality, about justice, about representation and about the right to define ourselves in any way we choose. It is not about hyphenation.
Earlier I referred to this motion as misguided. That is at its best. At its worst it is an affront to everything Canada stands for in the area of human rights. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, next year Canada will be commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights which was drafted by a Canadian.
My colleague wanted to speak on behalf of all Canadians, as though we all shared his opinion about our individual identity.
With all due respect, I do not think this is the case. Canadians in all communities are proud of their heritage and take advantage of the freedom available to them to express this pride. In my opinion, this is proof that Canada is a country that respects individual rights and freedom of expression. One does not have to deny one's background to be welcome in Canada.
I consider myself completely Canadian, but I do not hesitate to admit that my origins are in Trinidad. As a Canadian, I can take advantage of the freedoms that are allowed me to express my opinions and to present myself as the person that I am. It is my right to say who I am. I can say I am a woman, a doctor, a Catholic or a member of Parliament.
I also have the right, if I wish, to say that I was born in Trinidad because I am a complex being. I am made up of many different things that make me who I am. At any time in my own life and in my life cycle I may need to refer to the different aspects of my person, my character and the things that have made me to this day who I am.
Canada's multiculturalism policy, born out of our sense of justice and fair play, encourages Canadians to acknowledge, understand, accept and respect the reality of our cultural diversity knowing that it will not be a means of discrimination. It will not prevent them from participating fully in every single aspect of Canadian economic, social, political and cultural life.
It is in fact the ability of Canadians to refer to themselves according to the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation and their gender in whatever way they choose to feel secure that who they are in fact is respected or are respected by the people of this country. We do not have to become one mass of people, one amorphous mass, one cloned group where we all have to be exactly like everyone else to be accepted.
It does just the opposite. This policy is there to assist all Canadians to become full participants in Canadian society with the dignity and self-confidence that comes from personal pride. I say that an element of personal pride for many people is their family heritage.
Ask any Canadian of Scottish background how he or she feels on hearing a pipe band strike up—or should I have said Scottish Canadian before it is too late if my hon. colleague has his way.
The multiculturalism policy is about identity, self-knowledge, personal pride and self-respect. These are qualities that are important not only to every Canadian but to every individual human being. Canadians who are confident about themselves and what they can do and offer to Canada are infinitely more valuable to our society than Canadians who must wipe the slate of their personal history completely clean in order to appeal to some artificial ideal of what it is to be a Canadian.
The perfect Canadian is one who I can say, I or my father or my grandmother chose to come to this country and make it my home. I am proud of that. I know who I am, I know what I can do and I am willing to contribute my share to keeping Canada the great country that it is without giving myself away and without having to give up who I am.
This is what multiculturalism policy is all about. It ensures that Canadians can live their lives in respect without fear that anything that they are, their colour, their gender, their sexual orientation or their religion, will remove them from participating.
My colleague's motion is obviously misguided. However, it is also the thin end of the wedge. I have to ask myself, once I and every other Canadian are forbidden to refer to ourselves according to our roots or our origins, what is the next step? Do I tear up my birth certificate which shows that I was born in Trinidad? Will I have to find some way to change the colour of my skin because it is certainly going to define me regardless of what I call myself?
A long time ago, Sir John A. Macdonald tried to form a country that was distinct from our people to the south, the United States. We have striven to have a country that is a melting pot and not an assimilated mass of people who are all seeking to be cloned and to be alike.
Should neither of these views carry any weight, the House might want to consider a third view: that this motion is a bad joke and in bad taste. On those grounds alone it should be dismissed forthwith.