Pat O'Brien

[Canadian Executive Service Overseas, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, CESO is a non-profit volunteer organization that shares Canadian knowledge with business communities and organizations in developing nations and emerging market economies in central and eastern Europe.

Volunteers, experienced in their profession or industry, serve as trainers and advisers to help developing communities achieve economic self-sufficiency.

I take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of Mr. John Fingland, a constituent from my riding of London-Middlesex. Mr. Fingland has provided his knowledge and expertise in the area of forest management to the people of Thailand.

I commend the time and energy he and other CESO volunteers give. These efforts will go a long way toward promoting human and global development.

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Motion No. 257 under Private Members' Business. The motion seeks to recognize the efforts of certain important Canadians both in Lower Canada and in Upper Canada. I applaud the initiative because it is important for us to recognize the efforts of those important figures in our history.

It is important to recall the efforts of such people as William Lyon Mackenzie, the great Liberal leader who was the grandfather of a great Liberal Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. It is very important to recognize the leadership efforts of Louis-Joseph Papineau, an important reform leader in Lower Canada. I applaud that initiative.

Unfortunately where I take some exception to the motion is that it is somewhat incomplete. It ignores the efforts of some important Canadians from the maritime region or Atlantic Canada, most notably the great leader from Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe, who was very instrumental in helping to achieve responsible government in the country. It is absolutely silent on the leadership efforts of Canadians such as Mr. Howe.

One would have to question somewhat the historical accuracy of the motion as I see it before me. It speaks of the Patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada. Then it equates those to geographic regions as being Quebec and Canada. For those of us who have had an opportunity to study Canadian history that is historically inaccurate. The then Lower Canada is roughly equivalent to the province of Quebec, which has geographically grown many times since becoming part of Canada or since 1867.

To equate the then Upper Canada with Canada is somewhat misleading. One would conclude that it is the Canada of today. Indeed that is very inaccurate. It ignores the Atlantic provinces, the two founding members of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As we know, under Confederation we had four founding provinces. This particular historical equation ignores Atlantic Canada and all provinces that subsequently became members of Confederation. It is somewhat historically inaccurate.

Its intention is probably good, but it is important that we recognize in as total way as possible the efforts of all Canadians such as Mr. Howe and others.

I have some difficulty supporting the motion. I can support its main thrust but having noted its inaccuracies I just spoke to and the incompleteness of the motion I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the words "democratic government".

It then becomes more accurate historically. It then addresses the concerns I raised about ignoring the efforts of certain very important Canadians in the fight for responsible government, particularly those from Atlantic Canada and most notably Mr. Howe. I submit that my amendment is an improvement upon the member's motion.

[Education, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as Canada moves into the 21st century no field of endeavour is more vital to our continued success as a nation than education.

I would like to recognize the efforts of Canada's teachers throughout our nation at all levels of education. Their vital role in preparing young Canadians to become full active citizens should never be underestimated.

There is an appreciation from most Canadian students and their families of this reality. Today I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa from my riding of London-Middlesex staff and students of Regina Mundi College where I taught at one time. They are a good example of the very important interest that our educators and our youth have in the future of this our great Canada.

[Bankruptcy Act, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to elaborate on a question I put to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on November 24, 1994. I asked what action the Canadian government is taking to ensure the human rights of Vietnamese refugees in southeast Asia.

On December 12, 1948, the year in which I was born so it is close to my heart, the United Nations Assembly passed the universal declaration of human rights. On Friday of this week the world celebrates International Human Rights Day.

I have a number of constituents from the wider area of southeast Asia and the concern has been raised with me and other members in southwestern Ontario that constituents of ours are very concerned about the safety of some of their family members in their original homelands.

Since 1988 Hong Kong has granted refugee status to Vietnamese who proved justified fear of persecution at home and I understand that since 1991 refugees have voluntarily been returning to Vietnam. The Hong Kong government is now operating a program of forcible repatriation to encourage the 24,000 refugees remaining in camps there to leave by 1996. That is the cause of the very real concern a number of Vietnamese Canadians share about the safety of their loved ones back home.

There is no question there have been incidents of violence and assault against these refugees. In September of this year the Government of Hong Kong admitted quite candidly that 142 Vietnamese refugees were injured in a forced repatriation operation. There have been serious allegations and questions about police brutality since the repatriation program began earlier this year.

This deplorable situation has been brought to my attention by leaders of the Vietnamese community both in my own city and in southwestern Ontario, and indeed by certain segments of the media in southwestern Ontario. I share their concern. Quite frankly Canadians generally would share this concern. We do not want to see human rights violations such as these going unanswered.

I certainly applaud the actions of our own new government and of previous governments of various political stripes in being a leader in the world in accepting refugees from virtually every part of the world. We know that is true and we are all as Canadians rightly proud of that record. However there is a situation here which needs to be addressed.

I am pleased to follow up my question to the minister this evening with this statement and to explore a little further the answer the minister gave to me in the House.

I would like to put a question to the parliamentary secretary. What other initiatives can Canada take besides accepting refugees? What other initiatives, either publicly or through appropriate diplomatic channels, does the government foresee might be taken to stop violence against Vietnamese citizens forcibly repatriated against their will?

[Human Rights, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 1948 the United Nations Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the world

has witnessed great changes in the global order and an abundance of human suffering still exists.

Canada, a country composed of many cultures, has long been respected for its commitment to human rights. We must continue to use our influence to encourage other governments around the world to heighten their human rights' standards.

I am pleased that this government is addressing the issue of human rights at home by introducing programs to improve the treatment of people who suffer discrimination because of their race, sexual orientation or because of a physical or mental disability. Indeed, the increase in both hate crimes and hate propaganda is a disturbing trend.

As we recognize this week Human Rights Day we must continue to meet the many human rights challenges that we face in both the domestic and international community.

[National Services Month, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the service sector is an integral part of the Canadian economy and for this reason November has been declared National Services Month. In 1993 service industries represented three-quarters of Canada's gross domestic product, amounting to $387 billion.

In my riding of London-Middlesex economic activity is generated by services such as banking, insurance, construction, transportation, utilities, communications, professional, consumer and services business. As a matter of fact service industries account for more than 78 per cent of total employment in Canada and account for seven out of ten jobs in each province.

I praise the efforts of the people who have contributed to the success of the service industry. I commend our government for its continued support of this important sector of our economy.

[Refugees, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The Hong Kong government has admitted that 142 Vietnamese refugees were injured in a forced repatriation operation at the end of September. There is also a proven risk to the safety of these refugees returning to Vietnam.

Could the minister inform us of what actions the Canadian government is taking to ensure the fair treatment and safety of Vietnamese refugees in southeast Asia?

[Citizenship Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I regard this private members' bill as a very serious bill and one on which I am very pleased to speak.

Yet I cannot help feel that I have heard from Cassandra's prophets of doom and gloom who see conspiracies under every bush. One would swear that our shores are about to be invaded by pregnant women, plotting to have their babies on Canadian soil so that these cunning infants can somehow steal their Canadian citizenship and thereby threaten our national security.

It is really surprising to hear what I regarded as a very serious private members' bill treated so flippantly and lightly. I am surprised at that and I am really disappointed. I just hope that this invasion is not imminent of these pregnant women.

During the election campaign our government called on Canadians to examine our policies in the red book, to look at what we consider to be our priorities and commitments as a party. They responded rather clearly coast to coast to coast in the endorsement that they gave to this party.

The Reform Party members opposite who are interrupting and do not want to hear this, that is fine but Canadians are looking for that new decorum they speak of and it is interesting that it does not apply when they are hearing ideas with which they disagree.

Be that as it may, we acknowledge the importance of building a nation in which citizens view themselves not as isolated individuals or rival interest groups but rather as a mutually supporting community. Fundamental to such a vision is the need to build a Canada based on mutually held privileges and obligations.

It is difficult to promote the acquisition of Canadian citizenship without conveying a sense of the fundamental values that are inherent in that commitment.

At the present time our security is undergoing fundamental changes, serious changes. Canada is confronted with a variety of economic, cultural and social challenges and one of them is not this perceived invasion by pregnant women to have their babies on our shores.

We are faced with a serious need to integrate a population that is more culturally diverse than ever before into a society that is more complex than ever before.

As I said earlier today in this House, Canada is more than ever a polyglot nation. We draw from virtually every single culture in the world. The members on this side and the majority of Canadians regard that as one of our fundamental strengths, regard that as what it means to be Canadians, the essence of the Canadian identity.

It is not something to be feared, not something to be cut down and sliced down into a much more limited vision of what it means to be Canadian.

We need to develop a clearer sense about what we can expect from our new citizens and what this nation has to offer. To achieve this we need new citizenship legislation. We agree with that. We need a new Citizenship Act that will reflect the times.

Within the year this government will introduce new comprehensive citizenship legislation. It will provide a blueprint for Canadian society as we enter the 21st century.

I agree with the hon. member that Canadian citizenship is precious but it is not something to be hoarded and hidden away in some sort of xenophobic fear of those people who want to come here from these other countries.

It is something that should never be taken for granted. Citizenship encompasses civic rights, duties and responsibilities. It means defining the principles underlying our citizenship and democracy, including equality of opportunity, informed participation, respect for the Canadian rule of law, non-violence and mutual respect.

Such a vital issue is not something to be tinkered with lightly. Frankly I fear that the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is doing that. The hon. member spoke about not trivializing Canadian citizenship. Then I heard and could not believe the latitude that was taken in the remarks she made and the litany about the perceived refugee problems. I think we ought to be very careful not to lump in problems real or perceived around the issue of refugees with citizenship and granting citizenship to new-born babies. I was frankly surprised to hear those remarks.

One cannot and should not make changes to citizenship lightly in a bit by bit, chip away at it fashion. It is much too important to be done in that manner.

It would be premature in my view if not irresponsible for this House to pursue in isolation just one small aspect of the citizenship question at this time. It would seem that there are members in this House, thankfully not on this side, who are obsessed with these perceived problems, almost seeming to me at times to border on xenophobic fear of people coming here from other nations. I am surprised to hear that.

Despite the protests from the members opposite at this time I am very surprised to hear this initiative repeated time and again. Our government has undertaken a review process which will help us to create stronger, better and more efficient citizenship legislation. A new bill will soon be tabled.

I accept the fact that the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam probably means well in her initiative but it is at the wrong time, it is far too small in its scope and it is simply something that needs to be done in a more comprehensive way.

When this occurs the appropriate time will come to address this issue more fully in what I say must be a comprehensive, responsible manner.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 16th, 1994]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canadian Culture, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our culture is our identity. It instils in us a pride and enables us as Canadians to define ourselves and our place in the international community. Our arts, sports, languages, natural parks, heritage sites and multicultural heritage all contribute to the diversity of Canadian culture.

With the globalization of trade and the rapid expansion of information technology Canadian culture will play an integral part in driving our economy. Agencies such as the CBC, the Canada Council, the National Library, our museums and archives support the culture of a smaller population living in a vast area of land.

With growing competition from our American neighbours it is now more important than ever for our government to ensure adequate Canadian content in television programming, radio and books. We must continue to develop policies that make our unique culture accessible to Canadians.