Jan Brown

[Multiculturalism, April 5th, 1995]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Multiculturalism, April 5th, 1995]

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The woman concludes her letter with the thought that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Post Polio Syndrome, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, new midlife medical nightmares are surfacing, but childhood cruelty still revisits polio victims.

Post polio syndrome undermines an adult future so many of us take for granted with healthy active lives and being in charge of our futures. It is not so for these adults who are stricken with PPS. Muscular weakness, fatigue, joint pain and respiratory problems result in necessary and dramatic lifestyle changes.

Today I acknowledge the courage of Dodie Spittal, Charly O'Brien, Reny Chamberlain and Vern Hamm. They are with us today and bring their stories of post polio survival to Ottawa.

I also salute Paul Martin, Sr., responsible for ensuring that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children received the Salk vaccine. His tenacity in securing the vaccine was evident in his remarks taken from the Calgary Herald : ``On the basis of this extensive experience and the safeguards provided, it is the unanimous feeling of the provincial health authorities that the vaccine is safe and no changes in the immunization program are contemplated''.

Polio is not-

[Government Spending, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 45,000 civil servants did not get a trip to the Philippines to have fun in the sun.

The government appointed Simms in January when it knew it was going to disband the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Simms wasted taxpayers' money on questionable expenses during her tenure as head of the council. Now the government is allowing her to waste even more money on this needless and frivolous trip to the Philippines.

Will the Prime Minister demonstrate to Canadians he cares about government waste, cancel the junket and terminate Simms appointment?

[Government Spending, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday I asked why Glenda Simms, the past president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, was being kept on the government payroll and going on irrelevant junkets when her position is now defunct. The Prime Minister responded by saying that he was giving her time to adjust to the new reality.

The government is throwing 45,000 civil servants out of work. They, like many other Canadians, will have to adjust to their new reality, so why does Simms get special treatment? Is this another example of Liberal double standards?

[Government Spending, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as Mrs. Simms adjusts to the new reality, we hear now she is on a taxpayer funded nine-day junket to the Philippines. While her colleagues in her department are packing their bags, Mrs. Simms and her assistant are packing theirs to go on this wonderful trip to the Philippines.

Given that her job is finished and given that this trip is redundant and frivolous, will the government commit here and now to cancelling this junket?

[Government Spending, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Canadian advisory council on the status of women has been disbanded. As of April 1 its president, Glenda Simms, is out of a job. Despite this, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women keeps Simms on the government payroll until the end of October.

Both the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board have stated in the House that if you do not have a job, you do not get paid.

How can the government justify this extravagant waste of taxpayers' dollars?

[Canadian Heritage, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage has taken on the appearance of a dying turbot flip-flopping on the slippery decks of a trawler under siege. There is no focus, no direction and no guidance from the minister who continues to be AWOL, awfully weak and out of the loop.

What a string of broken election promises. There is the broken promise of new copyright legislation due last spring; the broken promise to Sports Canada for secured funding for amateur sport; the broken promise to assist the Canada Council as it refocuses its activities; the broken promise for a cultural policy review; and the broken promise to give future direction to the CBC.

Canadian cultural organizations need guidance to shepherd them into greater reliance on themselves and the private sector, but the government is failing to provide that leadership.

What has changed since the Tories? Nothing. The minister is having so many problems in his department that he has appointed a former Tory cabinet minister to give him a hand. And will he become the next fall guy in a government that no longer seems to know the difference between a Liberal and a Tory?

[Crtc, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question was very specific. It was specifically focused on the CRTC and the issue of the current innovative tax grab, as I say. However I appreciate the eloquence of the hon. member.

The CRTC has flip-flopped on the consumer rebate. It has not only imposed an information highway tax but it has also required these companies to pay into a Canadian program production fund. This is nothing more than a tax to subsidize Canadian content. Consumers will no longer stand for this behaviour from the CRTC.

How can the Prime Minister justify this tax without having consulted the Canadian consumer?

[Crtc, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On January 1, 1995 the CRTC launched an innovative tax grab on Canadian cable subscribers. It ignored its previous decision to issue a rebate to consumers which would have caused cable rates to decrease. Instead, half of the money will go to line the pockets of cable giants such as Rogers.

Why will the Prime Minister not protect the interests of Canadian consumers by getting rid of this hidden tax?