House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 49% of the vote.
Social Security Program October 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with the hon. member's observation that reform is badly needed in the country. Amen to that.
I agree also with his observation that the best social program is a job. If he believes that or if his government believes that, why then does it persist in its destructive anti-employment policy of taxing the life out of the Canadian economy in order to maintain its spendthrift habits? Is this not an unreasonable approach?
Immigration October 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, for more than two years a herd of 800 Canadian owned alpacas has been held in Australia pending clearance by Agriculture Canada. These animals originated in New Zealand where they may have contacted the neuroparasite E-Cervi from deer.
There is no evidence that alpacas can carry and transmit this parasite, but it has not been proved that they cannot. The parasite has a dormancy period of several years and there is no clinical test for it.
One must wonder why Agriculture Canada's concern for the health of Canadian animals is greater than the concern of Immigration Canada for the health and welfare of Canadian people. Every year thousands of immigrants enter Canada without being screened for HIV. The transmission vectors of this virus are well known. Many years may pass before HIV carriers develop full-blown AIDS but the virus is readily detectable by-
Yukon Surface Rights Board Act October 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill spoke at some length on matters not directly covered by Bill C-55. In his remarks he referred to the lack of understanding of we on this side of the House. Perhaps the problem is that we understand only too well what is going on.
The hon. member speaks of the generosity with which aboriginal people bestowed their heritage and their resources on our ancestors. This is a misleading and I think unfair interpretation of history. The native people lost their territory and resources because they were confronted with overwhelming numbers of people who possessed technological superiority.
No right-minded person would suggest the game was fair. The invaders were not adverse to double dealing, chicanery and theft, but some native tribes were not exactly angels either. The past is past.
My question for the hon. member is short and simple. He long ago joined the Canadian mainstream. Why does he continue to promote and propagate the idea that other native people should not also join the mainstream?
Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act October 18th, 1994
I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would be delighted to participate in the unanimous consent for the most recent division.
I was absent from my seat and I would ask that as the votes are being applied my vote be applied with the government caucus.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, at the departmental briefing, officials from this new department told us there would be no streamlining, no downsizing and no cash savings. A few moments ago the parliamentary secretary was talking about a saving of $7.3 million.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us where that saving is going to come from. Where is it going to get that money, especially since there is a recommendation tabled with the bill that will allow the department to spend more money? I wonder if the hon. member could straighten us out on this point.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I will go to the bottom first and work back up.
I am aware of those figures. I had intended to mention them in my speech but through oversight I did not, and I thank him for bringing that to the attention of the House.
I know that this is by its very nature a multiethnic society. There will be people who will be assimilated quickly into a melting pot, as they call it south of the border. There will be others, like the Hutterian Brethren, who will maintain their individuality for generations.
As long as this is done as a matter of free individual choice, neither I nor my party has any difficulty with it. The magic words are free individual choice. Do it on your own folks. Do not expect me to pay for it.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very astute observations. I applaud him for not participating in riding the gravy train. He probably noticed that I was looking right at him when I made that portion of my speech.
With respect to the Hutterian Brethren, I do not think there is any contradiction when I say that I have no problem with their continuing to live their lives apart from Canadian society the way they do. The reason is that they do this entirely with their own resources. They are not subsidized. They are not getting part of that $25 million a year. They do not have civil servants coming around telling them: "Fellows, have we got a deal for you". They are very independent people. There are several of their colonies in my constituency and I have no problem with that at all. I have problems with the other things I mentioned.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting exchange. I rise to oppose Bill C-53 because it affirms the continuation of officially sanctioned multiculturalism. It encourages division along racial, linguistic and cultural lines.
We are going to continue to have anglo Canadians, French Canadians, native Canadians, Chinese Canadians and a host of other hyphenated nationalities, but apparently no plain, ordinary Canadians. John Diefenbaker must be spinning in his grave.
It is ironic that a department dedicated to "the preservation and enhancement of Canadian heritage" should be charged with state sponsored multiculturalism. This is a contradiction in terms.
For generations Statistics Canada, which used to be called the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, has been obsessed with our ethnic origins. Until fairly recently one could not even if born in Canada be recorded by the census taker as a Canadian. Ottawa now accepts the reality that we Canadians exist. However the 1991 handbook for census takers assures us that they must continue to inquire into the racial origins of our ancestors, again I quote: "to ensure that everyone, regardless of his or her cultural background, has equal opportunity to share fully in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada".
I am not sure what that pretentious bureaucrat slop means but one interpretation could be this. The government wants to know where the money should be sent to buy votes, where to distribute the pork and how to tailor certain government policies to appease voters whose first loyalty is still to the old country.
The Liberals and the scattered remnants of the other two traditional parties endorse official multiculturalism. This foolishness began with the racially and linguistically biased concept that Canada is a coming together of two founding nations, French and English. This understandably irritated native Indians, western Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry, Newfoundlanders whose ancestors were here centuries ago and just about everyone else. As a pedigreed Heinz 57 Canadian I was a little ticked myself.
To resolve the problem it was ordained that everyone belongs to a distinct subspecies of homo-Canadiansis, another of the Trudeau government's wonderful legacy of destructive policies. The maintenance of ancestral culture should be a matter of
personal choice at one's own expense. That would be commendable.
What we do not need are federal politicians saying: "Here is money to preserve and promote the cultures of the societies which your ancestors wished to escape from". This is an absolutely immoral abuse of the power of taxation.
It is the Reform Party's position that official multiculturalism is a divisive force that encourages ghettoization and wastes our tax dollars to do it-$25 million last year. This annual slush fund is doled out to hundreds and hundreds of entities without justification.
Why for example should the various Ukrainian committees get hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funding? If they want to dance the prysyadka, more power to them. They are better men than I, but why should I help to pay for their athletics? Most of them are at least fifth generation Canadians. The first and second generations living in rude cabins in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan got all the exercise they needed clearing land and working away from home to earn a little hard cash. They prospered, helped to build a nation and preserved their language and culture with no help from anyone.
Four years ago I spoke at a Reform Party organizational meeting at a hamlet north of Yorkton, Saskatchewan. The meeting was held in the Ukrainian hall, a 70-year old building made from hand hewn logs, nicely finished and decorated with icons, scrolls and pictures of patriarchs. No civil servant had had a hand in it. That is multiculturalism.
Why do the descendants of these Ukrainian settlers have their hands out now? I suspect it is because they see everyone else lining up for grants. Being practical people they want some of the action.
According to clause 7(a) of the bill the minister may provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments to any person. That is outrageous. One of the principal functions of Parliament is the approval of appropriations. This legislation gives the minister, in other words the bureaucrats, carte blanche to give away money without even cabinet oversight.
The long list of grants to cosy little social and cultural organizations contains such gems as $12,000 to the Icelandic League-more fifth generation Canadians-to finance a convention; $22,575 to the Institution of Ethnic Minority Writing; $72,000 to the National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations-we are going to dance the tinikiling too-$20,000 to the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Here is a beauty: $19,254 to the Lu Hanessian Productions: Love Notes, to produce a musical review of 27 songs and musical vignettes about human relationships.
The government has apparently become a little sensitive about these long lists of grants that appear in newspapers. More and more of this stuff is being camouflaged in grants to umbrella groups like the Canadian Council for Multiculturalism Intercultural Education, $205,000; the Cross Cultural Communications Centre, $114,000.
I have been thinking of organizing a club for my particular ethnic group. I will call it the Mixed Origins Line Dancing Association for the Genetically Challenged. That should be good for a grant of at least $100,000, provided I make the application in a red envelope.
I grew up in an ethnically diverse community. All of western Canada had been ethnically diverse for generations, when Toronto was still a WASP enclave where on Sundays travellers could starve or die of thirst right on Yonge Street. Times have changed; I will not pretend that we lived in a sea of brotherly love. Every group felt superior to some other group, but we got along. We were glued together by a common language, shared history, the adverse conditions of that time and place and, above all, by a lot of intermarriage.
Now the federal government by stressing diversity instead of human commonality is weakening that glue and it is weakening the social fabric of our nation. Ghettoization is in; adaptation to new surroundings is out. Why learn the language and social customs of your adopted country when you can hide in an enclave from which emissaries are sent out every day to come back with sustenance and interface with the wicked outside world.
Every few years a politician will stop in your community, figuratively pat people on the head and patronizingly solicit your votes as a vehicle to combat racism or preserve cultural diversity.
Now lest any hon. member dismiss my deeply held convictions on this matter as the insensitive views of one white guy in a suit, somebody who does not understand, I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting a few recent immigrants.
Dr. Rais Khan is a very wise new Canadian who heads the department of political science at the University of Manitoba. A couple of years ago he was guest speaker at the Reform Party assembly in Winnipeg. I would like to quote some of his remarks verbatim. He said: "I did not come here to be labelled as an ethnic or as a member of the multicultural community or to be coddled with preferential treatment, nurtured with special grants and then sit on the sidelines and watch the world go by". Later in the same speech, he said: "If I want to preserve my
cultural heritage, that is my business. If I want to invite you into my home to eat some spicy traditional food, that is our business. If I expect you to pay for my cultural activities, that is your business".
Bharati Mukherjee, a writer who emigrated to Canada from India, felt marginalized here. She blamed Canada's obsession with multiculturalism for making her a psychological expatriate, so she moved to the United States after being here for 15 years. She says that Canada has chosen to be a mosaic but by preserving differences it also preserves bias.
One of the most eloquent opponents of multiculturalism is Al Meghji, a professor of law at Dalhousie University. I believe he is Canadian born but in the eyes of the multiculturalists he is an Indo-Canadian whose fragile identity must be preserved from the dark forces of assimilation. I will quote him at some considerable length.
He states: "Multiculturalism undermines the efforts of those who are seeking to forge a national identity and prevent the disintegration of an already fragile nation. Whatever the purpose of multicultural policy, the net result is that it highlights and accentuates differences among Canadians. What is needed is not a policy that emphasizes differences but one that promotes common goals and nationally shared values while at the same time allowing the expression of individual identity".
I have one last name on my list. He has been previously mentioned. I would like to quote him at a little more length. Neil Bissoondath is a prominent Trinidad born Canadian author. Some of you may have read his collection of short stories Digging Up the Mountain . He was a darling of the chattering classes until he had the temerity to question the doctrine of official multiculturalism. Now he is in big trouble for saying things like multiculturalism is a policy that seeks merely to keep a diverse population amenable to political manipulation.
A very prominent and very white chatterer who is well known to most of us in this House has asked a snide question. Now he wants to reject his brothers, his sisters, his nieces, his nephews. So much for politically correct tolerance.
It is the responsibility of government not to encourage immigrant people to maintain their separateness but to help them, especially through language courses to integrate into Canadian society. Even that would be more than the old timers got. They put down their roots, helped each other and thanked the stars that they had arrived here. Their children became unhyphenated Canadians through their own efforts and now this government like those that have preceded it for the last 20 years is trying to rehyphenate their great grandchildren. You cannot bind a nation together with hyphens.
Questions On The Order Paper October 17th, 1994
With regard to the Department of Industry, has federal funding been provided to Para-Ordnance located in Scarborough, Ontario, If so, how much, for what purpose and for how long?
Petitions October 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions containing 60 signatures from residents of the town of Assiniboia and district in my constituency.
Whereas the library book postal subsidy is necessary for the continued operation of interlending services among libraries and plays a vital role in the distribution of cultural and technical information and whereas cancellation of the subsidy or changes in the amount of subsidy would result in severely hampering the public's access to information housed in libraries, wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to continue the library book postal subsidy and to ensure that there will be no further erosion in the resulting library book postal rate.