Sheila Finestone

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the budget debate. During all my years in opposition, I heard many finance ministers deliver their budget speeches. From one year to the next, the same scenario repeated itself. The minister would make great forecasts and great promises only to tell us later that he had been completely mistaken.

Now the approach is different. This is a new era. For the first time Canadians can trust their government's economic assumptions.

The Minister of Finance has restored the confidence of the financial markets. He has also done something else of equal importance. He is restoring the confidence of Canadians and for that I salute him.

Today I want to talk about the implications of the budget for Canadian women. However let us be very clear. I am not only speaking to women; I am also speaking to men. Women's issues are everyone's issues. They are societal issues. They touch every citizen in the country.

Women are our mothers, our spouses and care givers. They are also taxpayers, consumers, workers and entrepreneurs. They balance the family budget. They manage businesses. They take jobs and they create jobs. They educate the next generation.

Women are very realistic. They know that as a nation we cannot spend more money than we make for a very long time. The time to pay back quickly catches up. Women understand that our country cannot continue to accumulate huge deficits year after year after year.

Now the time has come to face reality. The 1995 budget is the first step and only the first step. Our goal is to create good jobs and maintain our social safety net. We refuse to have decisions of prime importance for the nation taken by the bond sellers in New York, Tokyo or for that matter on Bay Street.

What lies ahead of us is a long journey, too long delayed. At the end of the journey we will emerge triumphant with our finances in order, a stronger economy, an ensured social safety net, and with renewed confidence in our abilities.

Before we reach that goal many sacrifices will have to be made by all Canadians. We will all have to tighten our belts. Everyone shall be called on to do his or her fair share to help eliminate the deficit.

Women really understand the need for fiscal restraint. They are ready to do their fair share but only their fair share, for fiscal restraint must never be used as an excuse to roll back the advances women have made in the past 20 years. Nor can it be given as a reason for delaying or postponing the further progress of women's equality.

The first piece of good news for women in this budget is that there is no tax increase.

We sincerely believe that the tax issue is not only a matter of tax rates; it is also a matter of fairness. By eliminating tax loopholes, the budget makes our tax system more equitable.

Second, the Canadian government wants to give the provinces more flexibility in managing programs like health care, post-secondary education and social insurance. We will achieve this goal through the Canada Social Transfer.

The minister stated that flexibility does not mean a free-for-all. There are national goals that still must be applied. We will combine flexibility with continued fidelity to our principles.

The government is absolutely committed to providing a fair and sustainable system of protection for Canadian seniors. This is also very important for women as they live longer and are often among the poorest in society. In order to ensure the sustainability of our pension programs, we will consult with seniors and Canadians in general on the nature of the needed changes later this year. That is part of open government.

Women's groups have a great interest in these consultations and I encourage them to make their views known. I have asked my department to specifically focus on this issue in the coming year because we all have to contribute to the fullest degree possible to the design of the program.

Women have a major stake in the budget measures, seeking to replace dependence with independence. An important element of that effort is the new human resource investment fund. We have to ensure that women's particular employment situations, their training and employment patterns, their incomes, family responsibility and life experiences are fully taken into account, both in the design of the new fund and the planned changes to unemployment insurance.

I am also delighted that the Minister of Finance has announced several measures to encourage small business.

Close to 40 per cent of small businesses in Canada are headed by women and their success rate after five years of operation is double that for men. That is the truth.

We can be proud of this success, which, however, did not come easily and without pitfalls. Businesswomen have to face what we call financial sexism. This does not come from me but from a new study released a few days ago by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

This study shows that women applying for business loans at financial institutions are turned down 20 per cent more often than men. It is a disgrace. And if they are approved, 95 per cent of the time, they have to pay higher interest rates on their loans. Do you find that fair? We certainly do not. All this, I remind you, in spite of the fact that women are very responsible and successful in business.

No wonder that, according to Pierre Cléroux, Vice-President of CFIB, these figures prove beyond any doubt that financial institutions are discriminating against women entrepreneurs.

Hats off to the Minister of Finance for stating in his budget speech, and I quote: "This government is determined that small businesses will have access to the financing they need to continue being our number one creator of jobs".

On behalf of all women entrepreneurs, I might say the sooner the better.

Let me turn to the principle of good government. There is no doubt in my mind that we have to redesign the role of government in the economy to fit the size of our pocketbook and the priorities of our people.

Last year, soon after being elected, our government undertook an extensive review of all programs and agencies it is responsible for. As part of this program review, the role of three organizations dedicated to women's equality, namely Status of Women Canada, HRD's Women's Program and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

The review process found that all three promote women's equality and in various degrees they all conduct research, consultation and undertake communications. All three also work closely with women's organizations.

The government concluded that the best way to increase both effectiveness and efficiency would be to consolidate its actions for women's equality at Status of Women Canada. In this regard effective April 1, 1995 the women's program of human resource development will be transferred to Status of Women Canada. The presence and the role of their local, regional and national staff, those offices and their services, will be maintained.

As well, effective April 1, 1995 the mandate of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women will end. This will result in a streamlining of resources and costs, removing duplication and eliminating all order in council appointments.

The CACSW's research, consultation and public information functions will be consolidated within the overall operations of Status of Women Canada.

The CACSW will be given the time and support it needs to wind up its operations. Once we move the functions to Status of Women Canada we hope we will be able to absorb some of the advisory council's staff to fulfil these functions.

The Canadian government is firmly committed to women's equality. As a matter of fact, this commitment has motivated all our decisions. This consolidation will enable this government to further the cause of women's equality in partnership with women's groups, the provinces and territories, the private sector and volunteer organizations.

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women played a major role in the formative years of Canada's modern women's movement. At its inception in 1973 following the Bird report, the report of the royal commission, it filled an important

void. The modern Canadian women's movement was in its infancy. Women lacked a strong voice in the public arena. They also lacked vehicles through which they could advance equality.

Since then Canadian women have made progress in government, in education, in business and in the academic world. More important, women have formed hundreds of small, medium and large organizations throughout the country to ensure that their needs and concerns are heard and met.

These local, regional and national organizations work in many fields like violence against women, child care, the treatment of women in the health, justice and immigration systems, and the needs of women entrepreneurs among others.

As our society evolved the need for some of the functions of the council changed. Over the years its role as an interpreter of the voices of women has been overtaken by many strong, established national, regional and local women's organization.

We owe a great deal to the pioneers who worked within the advisory council. I salute the years of hard work and dedication of the committed women and men who have served the advancement of women through the advisory council.

I wish good luck to its outgoing president. She has been very helpful in my thinking the whole approach through and looking at new avenues for creativity and new dimensions of the work we are about to undertake.

The vitality and the strength of today's women's organizations and the dedication of their members will ensure that the important work done by the advisory council will continue. Its independent research capacity and its ability to consult and communicate information to women and the general public and its documentation centre as well are important supports to public policy making.

Therefore, these functions and the associated financial resources will be maintained. Its initiatives will enhance our ability to understand and respond to women's equality issues that take shape at the grassroots level and create a new synergy between research, policy development and the government's programs.

The consolidation of these three organizations will, I outline and summarize, create a single window operation; eliminate confusion and improve access to government; provide the government with a critical mass of expertise on women's issues; improve research, communications and public information services; strengthen links with local, regional and national organizations, NGOs and universities; ensure that funding for research that is independent of government continues to be available; and allow the government to focus its efforts toward promoting equality for Canadian women.

Since the day the Prime Minister appointed me as Secretary of State for the Status of Women, I have been meeting with women's organizations across this land. I have been having round table discussions with them and with many of the groups here in Ottawa. I have listened to their concerns with a great deal of interest.

In the new structure we will work to reinforce our collaborative partnerships and our abilities to network on a broad spectrum of issues by ensuring the involvement of these many women's organizations with their differing perspectives and the voluntary sectors and the universities works well.

I also want to explore how we can use the new communications technology in this new era of information. I would like to see us build an ongoing dialogue with our constituency using Internet and E-mail or both, or library net. These are all fabulous ways to keep in touch and keep informed and we want to do just exactly that.

We want to make sure that women become full-fledged partners in our society. As the Prime Minister rightly said recently: "In Canada, women continue to further the cause of economic equality. Relying on their own means and abilities, women help shape the future of this country. As for the Canadian government, it is meeting the challenge. Women's equality is not a matter of special interests or rights, but rather a matter of social and economic justice, a matter of good government".

We will work together and work toward equality in partnership with women, men, and the public and private sectors to overcome the obstacles that are still blocking our way. It is by involving the talents and dedication of every Canadian, all of us, that we continue to enhance our prosperity and make this country still a better place in which to live. When we involve all of its people we are in the best position possible to make things work.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is the sickening truth that firearms are the weapon of choice for men who murder their wives. I was trying to point out that my colleagues across the floor need not laugh at this moment. It is a serious moment in this debate.

In 1987 the English writer Martin Amis wrote: "Bullets cannot be recalled. They cannot be uninvented. But they can be taken out of the gun". I would add that the safest way is to take the guns away.

As a government we must introduce strong legislation to maintain the peaceful nature of our communities. This responsibility begins with the implementation of tighter firearms control laws. I unconditionally support the legislation presented by my colleague the Minister of Justice.

This bill reflects the wishes of the majority of Canadians. According to surveys, up to 70 per cent of all Canadians want stricter gun controls.

Several large national groups, such as the association of chiefs of police, have endorsed this initiative. Teachers' federations have stated that measures, like the Minister of Justice's bill, were needed to counter violence in our schools.

Nationally, women have spoken out on this issue for years. Women's organizations from across the country and from a wide variety of societal and cultural backgrounds have been calling for tougher gun control laws for a long time. They have asked for tighter restrictions and I am proud to say that we are now responding.

Perhaps the most eloquent support for this initiative and for the Minister of Justice came from Suzanne Laplante Edward who said: "I think this guy is going to go down in Canadian history. This man just wants Canada to be safer". Mr. Justice Minister, we all agree with that statement. She knows what she is fighting for. Her daughter was killed at l'École polytechnique five years ago. Since then Mrs. Laplante Edward has worked relentlessly for firearms control.

Indeed this legislation is an achievement. It is the kind of initiative that brings about positive social change and preserves our quality of life.

It takes decisive action against automatic firearms. As of January 1, 1995, 21 types of assault guns will have been prohibited. Handguns with no legitimate purpose will be prohibited.

The firearms control legislation recognizes the need for increased and more effective sanctions for the misuse of firearms.

Contrary to an observation made just a few moments ago, four years is the beginning and not the end of the term. It introduces stiff minimum penalties that will serve as true deterrents. For the first time, mandatory minimum sentences of four years in prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition from possessing a restricted weapon are introduced for a series of violent offences including sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault.

Anybody charged with criminal harassment, better known as stalking can be temporarily prohibited from owning a firearm. That will save women's lives.

Third, the package sets tougher regulations on lawfully acquired firearms. It creates a national registration system for all firearms. Let us not forget that it is often a legally acquired firearm that is used in domestic violence. The shotgun over the mantelpiece is even more threatening to women than the illegal firearms across our border. Keeping track of property for the purpose of information and regulation is commonplace in our society.

I am going to finish with a quotation from an editorial in La Presse :

The editorial asked whether we could imagine a citizen owning a car without being licensed to drive, without a licence plate, without insurance, without driving within the speed limits, parking the car any which way and anywhere and leaving the key in the ignition? Of course not. So, why must we accept that a gun owner be entirely free to purchase, own, hide, store and use the gun of his or her choice.

There are six million-

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

If this sickening truth cannot impact on your attitudes across this floor-

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, our standard of living, our social and economic standing make us the envy of the whole world. The elevated status Canada enjoys is not a coincidence: it is the result of women and men of strong will who imprinted principles and values on our country as it grew.

If one principle has guided this House since the beginning, it is an unwavering commitment to preserve a peaceful nature in our society. At times this commitment has meant taking a stand on some very controversial issues. It has also meant introducing groundbreaking legislation such as this bill on firearms control, Bill C-68.

Controversy has never kept us from protecting the values and the ideals Canadians so rightly deserve and consider their own. These values include the rights to liberty and personal safety which are now enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms.

In this respect, the firearms control legislation introduced by my colleague the Minister of Justice will undoubtedly make history. Every effort has been made to ensure that Canadians who use guns responsibly will be able to continue to do so.

For example, the Minister of Justice has asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to consider whether or not some handguns, for example those used in target shooting competitions, should be exempted from the proposed ban. This kind of careful consideration given by the minister will help ensure that the legitimate use of firearms is permitted.

However, we all know that firearms are often used irresponsibly. This bill addresses the use of weapons and the violence they inflict on our society. It not only deals with firearms but also with the shadow of fear they cast upon all of us. In fear and in violence there are no rights and no freedoms, just victims.

Some disregard violence due to firearms because they claim it does not reflect the Canadian spirit. Indeed, Canada does not have a tradition of individuals carrying firearms for self-protection. Hopefully what one might call the gun culture that prevails in the United States will never cross our borders. Nevertheless, violence is real. Statistics can only begin to describe the pain and suffering firearms inflict on their victims.

Over the last 10 years firearms were responsible for 32 per cent of all homicides committed in Canada. Every year on average, 1,400 Canadians lose their lives to them. Of those deaths, 1,100 are suicides. Many of those lives could have been saved if firearms were not so readily available to individuals in distress.

Since 1970, 470 children have died in Canada as a result of mishandled firearms. Those figures are shocking to most Canadians. Those children deserved a future. Those children deserved the right to dream. Those children should never have been exposed to this kind of danger.

That is why firearms control and registration are so important to Canadians. Denial will shelter no one from a stray bullet. Every Canadian will benefit from this legislation.

Statistics show that Canadian women support this legislation wholeheartedly. From statistics we know that in this country every six days a woman loses her life to a bullet, most often at the hands of someone she knows. Almost always it is in her own home.

In the years between 1974 and 1992, 42 per cent of women murdered in domestic incidents were shot by their husbands. Eighty-five per cent of domestic murders with firearms are committed with either a rifle or a shotgun. Eighty-two per cent

of the guns that are used to kill women are legally owned at the time of the shooting.

[International Women's Day, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, next week, on March 8, women and men around the world will celebrate International Women's Day.

This day was designated in honour of these early campaigns to improve working conditions for women. This day has become a global celebration of women's accomplishments and advancements. But it was born when women were struggling to achieve the very basics of equal rights.

In the ensuing years women have made many important gains, overcoming many obstacles to achieve through merit their rightful place in the workforce. They have overcome professional barriers in virtually every field of human endeavour. They have overcome many stereotypes and have excelled in fields where doors were closed before such as medicine, law, politics, cultural industries, military, business and so on.

Women have demonstrated conclusively that no task is beyond them, given fair and equitable access. Women have also achieved success in the business world. A recent study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that almost 40 per cent of small businesses are operated by women, up from 30 per cent in 1981.

Women have steadily progressed in closing the wage gap. The average Canadian woman now makes 72 cents of what a man earns. More important, for university graduates the gap is gone. Young women and young men starting out in their careers with the same university education earn the same salary.

Although women have made inroads into almost every profession they still face multiple challenges. Sexual harassment in the workplace continues to undermine and marginalize the position of women. Many still face obstacles to advancement: either the famous glass ceiling that stops women's progress at middle management levels or the corporate philosophy that is overly hostile to family considerations.

The recent Statistics Canada study on the wage gap was quite revealing on this point. While young women start off on an equal footing, wage-wise, when they graduate from university, they steadily lose ground as they get married and have children.

Even most of the independent and ambitious women who go boldly into the business world hit the wall of sexual discrimination. And a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business revealed that 42 per cent of women entrepreneurs experience difficulty getting financing. This despite the fact that women entrepreneurs are generally more successful than men.

We must address these issues. After all, women work for the same reasons men do-they want and they have to. Women's contributions to our economy, and to our society, are indisputable and indispensable.

It is estimated that if all employed women were to leave the workforce, the number of low income families in Canada would

more than double. Given their key role, I think it is time society recognized their worth. We must pursue a fair distribution of unpaid work in the home where women still carry a disproportionate burden of work.

We must persuade industries to develop family friendly workplaces to help root out sexual harassment and discriminatory practices. We must urge banks in particular and the financial community in general to recognize the achievements of women entrepreneurs and give them the fair and equitable consideration and support they deserve.

Women do not want a free ride. They want their fair share. I think that has become fairly obvious. Governments must continue to have a role in the drive for women's equality, even in the face of restrictive fiscal constraints.

Violence against women, sexual harassment, inequalities and inequities in employment opportunities, the wage imbalance and gender discrimination must all be addressed. I am pleased the government is continuing to push forward on all these fronts.

I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for such initiatives as the sentencing reform bill, the firearms control legislation and his quick action to address the defence of extreme drunkenness.

I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for his budget commitment to remove barriers to the success of small businesses and to provide practical assistance to them to survive and grow. It is essential that small businesses have access to the financing they need to continue being Canada's number one creator of jobs.

To this end the budget announced that the government would be working with the banks to develop meaningful performance benchmarks for small business financing, benchmarks that will be used to monitor future progress which will include women.

We must also continue to support women in their family responsibilities. The new Canada social transfer announced in the budget offers the potential for a more flexible framework for child care funding. We need improvements in the accessibility of child care and in the quantity and quality of child care, public and private, in all regions of the land and based on choice in those areas.

As my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, begins his work with the provinces to develop shared principles for the transfer, I know he plans to focus on the needs of women and their families in general and on their requirements for child care in particular.

I will also continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that government policies and programs are examined through a gender equality lens, so that their impact on women is considered at every stage of the policy development process.

A particular focus must be on the needs of women from different ethnocultural communities, aboriginal women, women with disabilities, and those living in rural or remote areas. We must continue to help them achieve their independence. These are all challenges that we must confront if we are going to achieve our ultimate goal of fairness and equality. This September fourth's United Nations World Conference on Women will be a unique forum for advancing women's equality. It will produce a global Platform for Action to accelerate progress towards equality.

I look forward to working with the men and women of the world at this conference as we lay the groundwork for eliminating the barriers facing women around the globe. More important, to all my colleagues I say I look forward to coming home from the world conference, getting to work and collaborating with all our stakeholders at the regional, provincial, federal, private and public levels to implement the platform of action for Canada. Our society, and that includes all Canadian men and women, has a responsibility to begin laying the further groundwork for equality right now.

The ongoing push for equality may be entering its most difficult phase. It will require that women stand up for themselves and boldly take the position that is rightfully theirs. It cannot be done by government alone. It cannot be done by one voice, by the voice of opposition on either side of the House.

It will require them to be forceful and advance their views. It will require men to play their role as full partners in this adventure in growth and development. At the very least I would suggest that men acknowledge the current of history. They must recognize that from now on society will be that of equal partners because we have earned that right from the very start.

While some men may still resist this idea, I say to them that equality of the sexes is not only attainable but is desirable from all points of view and for all concerned. Is this not what we all want both for our sons and our daughters?

We need to leave behind the battle of the sexes where women's gains are interpreted as men's losses. We have to accept that when women finally achieve equality everyone will be better off. We will all stand to gain.

I close in reminding everyone that it is purely mathematical because when women who make up 52 per cent of our population are able to make a full contribution to society, 100 per cent of the population will benefit.

On this International Women's Day I want to send a message of hope to all Canadians, women and men. I say to them that by working together we can reach our full potential, every one of us; by working together we can shape our joint future.

[Religious Freedom, February 15th, 1995]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, February 10th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-61, an act to to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

I feel right at home, and I refuse to leave.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hearings on Bill C-53 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during the past weeks have given many Canadians from all sectors of our society the opportunity to present their views on the responsibilities encompassed in the proposed legislation.

Every kind of opinion has been heard about this bill, including the name of the department, the portfolio and its holdings, and suggestions on how to amend various acts under its jurisdiction. This expression of a wide range of views about the Department of Canadian Heritage is consistent with the objective of our parliamentary system of fairness and openness in government. It is consistent with the government's ideal about giving all citizens the right, the access and the opportunity to become involved in all aspects of Canadian life.

The Department of Canadian Heritage would encourage the possibility of greater participation by our fellow citizens in the social, political, cultural and economic life of their country.

In a few moments, my colleague, the member for Mississauga East, will speak about the many advantages of having one integrated department.

Indeed, the department's responsibilities, which range from natural reserves and historic sites and figures to sports and include the arts and cultural industries, really cover all aspects of life in Canada.

My intention therefore is to concentrate on the multicultural aspects of Canadian life and why there is a need for a program that focuses on building understanding and respect and on fighting racism, bigotry and prejudice.

For my government this program is more than building a monument. It is far more lasting in terms of daily living for Canadians, whatever their language, culture, milieu, newly arrived or long time resident. Multiculturalism is about the very fabric of our society.

Canada has been built by wave after wave of immigrants. All Canadians other than the First Nations have their roots reaching to the four corners of the earth. They have kept coming and they have come at different stages.

I was at a very moving and beautiful ceremony yesterday held at Rideau Hall with the Governor General of Canada. At that ceremony Dr. Dmytroa Cipywnyk, a very distinguished Canadian of Ukrainian descent and who is president of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, received in the name of the 37 groups that represent ethnocultural communities across Canada a coat of arms.

It was a very moving day as I saw Ukrainians, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Jewish people, East Indians, people from the Czech Republic, Poland, Argentina, people of Irish descent and people from countries all around the world who all belong to this Canadian Ethnocultural Council. They had decided that they wanted to have a heraldic emblem that would represent who they are and what it means to be part of Canada.

I was very touched and moved by the words of the Governor General. Mr. Hnatyshyn made a comment on the choice of the heraldry, the red and white crest with the winged seeds. He said maple trees are different. Maple seeds have a design that allows them to spiral to the ground far from the trees. They take root in new places, adapt to new conditions and thrive. That is the kind of spirit that has drawn millions of people to this land for hundreds of years. It is that spirit that draws people here today.

I thought that was very demonstrative of the role and the place that Canadians have played from all parts of this world, from the Irish who came here fleeing hunger and famine to the Chinese who came to help build the railways, to the blacks who came through the underground railway. All kinds of people have come to this shore and each wave has brought prosperity, growth and development. Each wave has had to live difficult experiences and each wave has been enabled by the concepts that are founded in our democratic process to grow and to prosper, but not without difficulty.

We have addressed those difficulties at many different times in different ways because we have been a growing and emerging democracy.

In that spirit that moved thousands upon thousands of volunteers to respond, to reach out and to work for social harmony and social peace as their communities arrived here, it was the small groups that lent a hand to the business people, to the families in need, the Baron de Hirsch, for food, for coal, for heat; it was the organizations that came together to give food and lodging, shoes and clothing for the cold weather. Whether it was my community or the Christian community or the other communities, they gave a helping hand and enabled us to feel a sense of comfort and welcome and then we made the choice to stay, to move on, to integrate, to associate, to make our way of life here in Canada.

That spirit, that generosity is found in the charitable social and cultural organizations of today. They all need respect, understanding and they need and come for some form of support as they work to face a very changed dynamic in society. Society is a great big global village whose people have still not learned how to live respectfully in many of the lands from which they come.

We have an important job that is different than before because technology has changed. The world we now see is in conflict and those conflicts are now coming here and we must stop those conflicts. It is a different kind of situation.

It is important that these volunteer organizations help us work toward social peace and social harmony. If we reach out our hand in friendship and we welcome the newly arrived as the host society, we will have received them at our table with grace and dignity and we will help others integrate into our society under the value system that we have built into our society.

It is fairly new. When we talk about what we have put in here it is the spirit of multiculturalism that moved much of the change that we saw as we brought in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we brought in the Canadian Constitution, as we signed international documents to eliminate all forms of discrimination, all forms of racism, as we put into place acts of employment equity.

I have said it before and I will say it again. It is time for us to get up to date, to understand and to explain to constituents just what multiculturalism means for Canada, just how important it is to the fabric of life here.

We have never been a static society. Canadian federalism is a growing and evolving modern society. It is governance that looks at and adapts to change. It is not frozen in any particular mode or model. It has guiding principles today that form the very core of this nation and it moves based on fundamental principles. It means that Canada has been and is now and will continue to be a host country and a home country for people from around the world, from a multitude of other cultures that all share the same goal of making a good life for themselves and their families within the framework of our laws and our prin-

ciples of justice and fairness, of peace, order and good government at all levels of our society.

It is obvious that people see the structures we have in place and that is why they want to come here. As citizens we have adapted it, have adopted it and have allowed it to evolve because we do not all have in our hearts and our minds the goodwill we need to have to help ensure that the fundamentals are there and that we move forward with them.

It is very healthy that we have dialogue around the goals of multiculturalism. It is very healthy that we look at and analyse our society and recognize the ugly face of racism, recognize that those groups, Heritage Front, the Ku Klux Klan, are here, are out there, are spreading their poison and it has to stop. This is not a place where we allow them one seed from the maple tree to settle in the earth of this land.

Community groups, social, cultural and educational groups contribute their skill, knowledge, expertise and creativity to Canadian life. It is the responsibility of all Canadians in the public as well as the private sector to encourage the conditions that allow all of us, regardless of our origins, to expect these principles of fairness and justice flourish and grow and that we support those initiatives.

The government's multiculturalism programs are in place to assist us in reaching this goal. It is not an unreasonable goal and it is not an unattainable goal to expect that all Canadians be integrated into our society and become contributors to the country's progress.

I did not say assimilate. I did not say that one should lose one's identity, but one should learn to live in co-operation with respect and understanding in our neighbourhoods. Those are the choices we have in this society. This is nothing more than good common sense. It allows for peace. It allows for civil society. The multicultural programs are there because unfortunately there are still barriers that prevent some individuals and groups from realizing their full potential.

Canada was founded on a tradition of democracy, decency and civility, values of fairness and justice associated with this system that have guided and shaped our social structures, laws and institutions.

We have strayed. We have erred, but we have also grown and learned to cherish the fragile form of rule that we have in place here which calls for constant vigilance. It is in civility and respect, it is in an appreciation of our diversity that we live. Pluralism, diversity, multicultural and multiracial backgrounds are our reality. Together we shall weave a tapestry that forms the fundamentals that is Canada, as we look in the House and see how different we are, how different are the geographic regions, the backgrounds, the lands and the languages.

There is no one in the House who can look back more than two or three generations, maybe four. There are some here who tell me they have been here for six generations, but that is not the lifetime of this nation. We are all different and learning to live together, respecting each other. We do not have to love each other, but we have to respect each other for our differences and yet for our Canadian appreciation of the values of life.

To live with this reality, to ensure social peace and cohesion will not happen by wishing. That only happens by working for it.

Multiculturalism is not incompatible with Canadian values. On the contrary, it is based on the principles of the rights and responsibilities set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Citizenship Act and I might even add the Employment Equity Act.

Canada's multiculturalism policy makes it possible to overcome obstacles more easily and to promote institutional change.

It recognizes the richness found in cultural diversity. It is modeled on the values which guide us, are essential to our way of life and underlie what we aspire to as Canadians.

When I visited numerous cultural communities across the country, I had the opportunity and the privilege to meet many men, women and young people who were all representative of today's Canadian society. Some are proud that their ancestors were among the first ones to step on Canadian soil. Others take pride in their dual citizenship, or in their newly acquired citizenship.

I met members of organizations and associations involved in many sectors, including business, health care, education, law enforcement, as well as municipal and provincial administrations, to name but a few.

The message is always the same. The Government of Canada must help Canadians of all backgrounds to build a society where we can live in our neighbourhood in peaceful respect, united in the common purpose of securing the well-being of our families. That is what they told me. They recognize prejudice, they recognize bigotry, and they recognize the need to ensure that we stamp it out.

I believe that the government's multiculturalism policy and the programs it supported can help to achieve this goal but only in participation with the private sector and community based groups that speak for all Canadians. Those multicultural councils are vital to our well-being.

To do this successfully we are going to have to meet a number of challenges. First, we must recognize that pluralism does not contradict our assured sense of national identity, nor does it prevent social cohesion. We must not confuse national values with cultural pluralism because values cut across religious, cultural and ethnic and racial lines.

Second, we are going to have to work on ways to facilitate the long term integration of first generation Canadians. We must give new citizens the tools to be effective, responsible, and informed so that they can contribute to Canada's development and become full and active participants in building a stronger country.

Long term integration starts with learning about Canada, starts with civics. So many of the countries from which people are coming and have come do not understand democracy as it is lived here in Canada today. They do not and have not lived in democratic states. They have fear of speech. They have fear of police. They have fear of neighbours. They have fear of difference. It is our job if we want to live together in peaceful harmony to enable them to understand they are welcome, as I said earlier, at our table as part of the family.

We teach that Canada is a democratic country. That is what we do in multiculturalism. We teach that we welcome the expression of opinion. We teach that we welcome difference while ensuring that racism and bigotry find no home here. Otherwise it is pointless and it would be a pointless lesson if we do not practise what we preach.

Democracy requires that all citizens feel they are valued in this society. They must know that the opportunities to participate are available to everyone and should be available equally. We have to stop creaming those societies of their top intellectuals, bringing them here and not recognizing their academic qualifications.

We must recognize that we must teach one of the official languages of this country. If we do not do that you cannot participate in a democratic society. You cannot shop in knowledge. You cannot look after your children and apply medications and buy medications. You cannot understand political parties. You cannot make rational decisions if you cannot read and speak one of the official languages of this country, depending on where you live and in what region you live and from where you came and what seems to adapt best to you. One of the official languages must be a part of the background of training.

There must really be no barriers to participation based on race, religion, ethnic background or language.

All Canadians must be able to express their views so as to be understood by others. This is why, as I just said, we have made education in both official languages a priority. This is important, because Canadians must have a decent standard of living, and they must participate in the daily activities of our society. Otherwise, people feel isolated; they can be manipulated and they may not lead the life they should be able to, here in Canada.

The multiculturalism program is therefore organized around four key objectives. First is to facilitate community participation and integration into the fabric of Canadian society.

Second is to help those who render services in our hospitals and health institutions and those who receive the services; the police, the municipalities and the schools as well, to ensure that their policies and programs adjust to the reality of our diversity.

Third is to strengthen social cohesion by promoting harmonious cross-cultural, intercultural and interracial group relations.

Fourth is to promote public awareness of the economic and social benefits of pluralism.

We know already that we have the support of many major Canadian organizations and institutions that understand the value of a respectful, open and participating society. One example I would give is that peaceful harmony means good business. Therefore, removing racism and acts of racial prejudice undertaking is valuable.

We thank the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which has produced $10 million worth of air time which has been devoted to the fight against racism. In our schools across this land, parents and teachers associations have helped us fight prejudice and misunderstanding in the schools and have distributed very valuable materials that are lessons in civicism and civility.

Other partners, the Conference Board of Canada and the Asia Pacific Foundation, have made it clear that diversity has an economic benefit and that pluralism gives us a natural competitive advantage in a global economy that is in itself multicultural and multilingual.

The Canadian Advertising Association has done some excellent research and has put out a document called "The Colour of Your Money" that enable us to understand how important it is to be able to deal with the customers who live on our street and in our district.

Our broad range of partners also includes the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Multicultural Help Association, the Canadian Advertising Council, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association of School Board Trustees, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, and the Canadian Conference on the Arts.

These are not song, dance and festivals. Although I would love to be able to finance them, we do not do that. They are partners that help us ensure an open, respectful and understanding society where we all have choices to live, choices to choose where and how we want to live within the laws of respect in this land so that we live in an integrated milieu that makes Canada the best place for all its citizens.

These are the partnerships along with the volunteer sector that open more lines of communication to provide all Canadians, men and women and our youth, with a greater knowledge of the richness and benefits of our diverse population.

We are working to change government from the inside as well as to ensure interracial understanding. The same way we work with shop foremen to prepare that floor as the host community to the new arrivals, so we are doing within our own house. For example, we worked and are working with the Departments of National Defence, Customs and Excise, and the RCMP to help ensure they are sensitive in their response to Canada's reality.

Our programs related to interracial relations and cultural comprehension, and also to the integration of first generation Canadians, help all Canadians, through community support, to work together to build an economically sound and socially just country.

Multiculturalism is not based on compartmentalization, nor on division.

It is not based on being a hyphenated Canadian.

It seeks to build an integrated society where everyone has an equal chance to succeed, as well as an opportunity to understand and apply the principles governing citizenship.

It is also not as I said before about funding song and dance, and unicultural festivals, as important as they are.

When we see the tragedies which occur every day in the world, we have no choice but to cherish human life, and that includes all men and women-Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, be they black, yellow, brown, red or white-who adhere to the democratic values of the Canadian society.

With an investment of less than $1 per year per Canadian, the federal government helps to promote a fairer society.

In a society with a government that spends less than $1 per year but depends on additions to that dollar through the voluntary sector and through voluntary effort, the federal government helps to promote a fairer society in which all Canadians have a chance and a choice to participate equally and with respect.

This is an investment we cannot afford to ignore. The value of our multiculturalism programs to Canadian society must be confirmed by ensuring that they can work effectively within the Department of Canadian Heritage. All of us, whether in this House or not, must be ever vigilant in our defence of the values of a democratic, free and open society.

[Multiculturalism, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have just tabled the letter I sent to the following groups: the Chinese Canadian National Council, the German Canadian Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canadian Ukrainian Civil Liberties Association.

The letter conveys the government's decision on redress. This is not a decision the government has taken easily, but it is one that after much discussion reflects a commitment to building a more fair and equitable society.

In the letter I wrote that as Canadians we are proud that our citizens trace their origins to every part of the world. Together we have built this country on the principles of fairness, generosity and compassion. Our history records the remarkable success we have achieved by applying those principles.

Our history also records that at times we have strayed from them. There have been episodes that have caused suffering to people.

In the crisis atmosphere of war, some Canadian ethnocultural communities found their loyalty questioned, their freedom restrained and their lives disrupted.

In the past Canada enforced some immigration practices that were at odds with our shared commitment to human justice. Canadians wish those episodes had never happened. We wish those practices had never occurred. We wish we could rewrite history. We wish we could relive the past. We cannot.

We can and we must learn from the past. We must ensure that future generations do not repeat the errors of the past.

Seeking to heal the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments, six ethnocultural communities have requested redress and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The government understands the strong feelings underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.

The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come.

Therefore the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring. The government will continue to take concrete measures to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life by combating racism, prejudice and discrimination through education, information and the promotion of the values of fairness.

We have already made progress. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms now guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, we are committed to the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in shaping Canada's destiny.

By passing the Canadian Human Rights Act and upholding the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, we have taken another step in entrenching the principle of equality.

The letter goes on to say a further major step forward is the establishment of the Canadian race relations foundation. The government will proclaim the act establishing the foundation in the spring of 1995. The foundation, first proposed a decade ago, will play a fundamental role in moving toward the elimination of racial discrimination in Canada.

We honour the contribution of all those communities whose members, often in the face of hardship, persevered in building our country.

Together we must ensure that all Canadians can face the future with pride in Canada, in our values and in their own heritage. We are a nation of inclusion. Our task is to strive together to guarantee that the actions of the country match the principles of its people.