Jan Brown

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see how the government side gets its exercise for the day: up and down, up and down.

The government's pursuit of improved ethical guidelines is just a red herring to divert attention from the failures of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and from the incredible lapses in the Prime Minister's office. Reform MPs will not be diverted.

[Ethics, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have clear rules on dealing with quasi-judicial bodies. We have very clear statements in the 1976 Trudeau guidelines. We have the 1984 Starr-Sharp guidelines. We have the government's conflict of interest code. We have the guidance for ministers guidelines. The guidelines from the Privy Council are very clear.

I ask the Prime Minister: Since the government has plenty of guidelines, is not the real problem a shortage of confidence and integrity from the front benches?

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Verchères.

In his motion my colleague recommends that the House should officially recognize the historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible, democratic government in Canada and in Quebec.

Before I start I would like to quote briefly from an article written by S. W. Wallace, which was published in the first issue of the Canadian Historical Review :

The real significance of Canadian history lies in the fact that in the evolution of the new and unprecedented phenomenon, the British Commonwealth of Nations, Canada has played a leading part. It was in Canada that responsible government was first worked out in the colonial sphere.

Responsible government is undoubtedly a Canadian concept. It is part of our rich sociopolitical history. Question period, for example, is one of the ways in which the government can be challenged to remain accountable for its actions.

In any event, I am not here tonight to debate who fought harder for the concept of responsible government in the British North American colonies, Joseph Howe or the duo of Louis Joseph Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie. Each contributed in his own way to the establishment of responsible government in Canada.

What I am concerned with is the fact that we are seeking to recognize a holiday based on a history which focuses on ordinary citizens taking up arms against the government of the day. Even if the motion of our colleague from Verchères should pass the House when would he suggest that the Patriotes and the Reformers be commemorated? The closest Sunday to November 23, just like the Parti Quebecois declared in 1982?

I am aware that my colleague is not demanding a national holiday. However, we already set aside two days when Canadians can pause and reflect on this great country of ours. These two days are Heritage Day and Canada Day.

On these days Canadians reflect and celebrate their country. What prevents us from commemorating on the third Monday of February or on July 1 the contributions of the patriots and the reformers to the establishment of responsible government?

For example, in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, and all around the south shore area, the Canada Day weekend is the beginning of a local heritage celebration called Privateer Day. Privateers were men who smuggled supplies instead of serving in the Royal Navy during the American revolution, the Napoleonic wars and the war of 1812.

During these commemorative festivities fireworks are lit on Friday night over the Liverpool harbour in memory of the privateers. On Saturday there are two parades which recreate the events of days gone by. To my knowledge, the privateers of Nova Scotia have never been officially recognized by the House of Commons for their contribution to the economic prosperity of the south shore of Nova Scotia, yet every year during the Canada Day weekend the entire community remembers the privateers.

What is preventing our hon. colleague from Verchères from encouraging community leaders to organize events commemorating Louis Joseph Papineau and his followers? He certainly does not need the federal government's approval to organize such festivities.

My real opposition to this motion stems from the unique place in history given to the Patriotes by the Quebec sovereignists. I think it would further fan the flames of nationalism and separatism if this motion was adopted by the House.

I would like to quote from an article that appeared in L'action nationale which is without a doubt a propaganda tool for the Quebecois nationalists. The article was penned by Gilles Rhéaume who at the time was director of the Ligue d'action nationale as well as president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal which is one of the most radical nationalist groups in Quebec. In his short article, Mr. Rhéaume stated:

"Admiring the Patriotes of 1837-38 is fine, but being inspired by their example is better. Let us draw our inspiration from their devotion to freedom and sovereignty. But, in order to do so, we need special occasions. That is why the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal welcomed the order issued by the Quebec government declaring the Sunday nearest to November 23, the anniversary date of the victory at Saint-Denis, as National Patriots Day".

The Quebec sovereignists use the patriots of 1837-38 rebellion as a weapon of legitimization in their fight for Quebec independence. The sovereignists of today try to demonstrate to their fellow Quebecois that Louis Joseph Papineau and his followers were rebelling against the intransigent tyranny of the British powers, much like the Bloc is doing in this Parliament against the federal powers.

Granted, conditions in Lower Canada during the 1830s were difficult and frustrating for the French Canadian majority, difficult because economic hardship seriously affected the francophone working class, frustrating because the francophone petite bourgeoisie constituted the majority of members in the lower House. Yet these same members had very little say in the financial management of the colony.

What concerns me if this House adopts Motion No. 257 is that we will be playing right into the hands of the Bloc Quebecois as well as those of the Parti Quebecois. Certain parallels can be drawn between the causes fought for in 1837-38 and the present day battle over Canadian unity.

Once again, I will draw upon Mr. Rhéaume's comment to support my argument. Mr. Rhéaume states that economic conditions, especially the lack of control over the purse strings of the colonial treasury were one of the main causes for the 1837-38 rebellion. Today Quebec nationalists complain that they have only partial control over their economy. The essential levers of power rest within the hands of the federal government where the Quebec representatives are a minority.

The Patriotes believed that only full control of all economic levers could permit the French Canadians to survive as a people. The Quebecois nationalist elite uses the same argument today to preserve its language, culture and tradition.

I clearly see comparisons being drawn by Quebecois nationalists between the events of 1837-38 and those unfolding in 1994-95. If this House is seriously fighting for a strong Canada it would be hypocritical for its members to vote in favour of this motion.

Since our colleague for Verchères is very interested in history, as all Canadians should be, let us look back on some of the Patriote commemorative ceremonies which have taken place over the years. Since 1962, the 125th anniversary of the rebellion, commemorative ceremonies held in Montreal in honour of the Saint-Denis victory have taken on a nationalistic overtone. For example in 1970 at the height of the October crisis about 3,000 people rallied at the Patriotes monument. Representatives of the Chevaliers de l'indépendance, as well as those of the FLQ were on hand. Camille Laurin, leader of the national assembly of the Parti Quebecois, stated:

The most insidious means are used to perpetuate colonialism in Quebec, but Quebec will achieve its independence through peaceful means.

At a similar celebration in 1973 Francois Albert Angers, one of Quebec's most important proponents of economic sovereignty, asked French Canadians to stand behind the Parti Quebecois so that they could defeat more easily the anglophone political party. Links do exist between Quebec sovereignists and Patriotes commemoration.

In 1977 the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal awarded its Patriote de l'année award to Camille Laurin, the minister who steered Bill 101 through the national assembly. This is no coincidence. The nationalists use the term Patriote de l'année when giving an award to a Parti Quebecois minister who severely restricted, we could almost say outlawed, the use of English in his province. The Parti Quebecois during its last tenure in power also renamed a highway in honour of the Patriotes in addition to declaring the Sunday nearest November 23 as the official day for commemorative ceremonies.

The Parti Quebecois is using the battles of their forefathers during the 1837-38 rebellion to legitimize their struggles against Canadian federalism. Today the term patriote has taken on an almost anti-English anti-federalist connotation in Quebec. Whereas the original Patriotes fought in part to establish responsible government, today's patriots seem to be working toward the demise of this great country of ours.

Louis Joseph Papineau, William Lyon Mackenzie and their followers certainly have enriched Canada's history as have thousands of other men and women. In opposing this motion I do not want to belittle their contribution in any way. However, I am concerned for the message we would be sending out to the Quebecois sovereignists if we legitimized the Patriotes' actions. I therefore urge all members of this House who want to preserve our country to vote against Motion No. 257.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I believe we still do have a Minister of Canadian Heritage on the other side.

With respect to the communication between the CRTC secretary general and my office, yes indeed I did have a panic-stricken secretary general call me yesterday.

My question is focused on the Deputy Prime Minister in this instance. Yesterday in an interview the minister of immigration stated he would not send a letter to the Immigration and Refugee Board. He said it would be wrong for him to write to a quasi-judicial body that reports directly to him. I do not understand this. The minister of immigration appears to understand it, but the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not.

The Prime Minister is not applying the same ethic requirements to all of his cabinet. I ask this question specifically and directly for an answer. Why is he giving the Minister of Canadian Heritage such special treatment in this instance?

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We learned that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has written eight letters to the CRTC. Seven of these letters do recognize that he cannot interfere, yet in the eighth letter he does not qualify his interventions. The minister knew that he was not to interfere in seven cases. Why did he choose to intervene in this particular case with the quasi-judicial body for which he is responsible?

[Crtc, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is obvious because this whole process has been tainted. They had no other choice.

The Prime Minister even today has used the minister's second letter of September 30 as a defence that there was no intervention and that nothing was done wrong. We also know now why this second letter was missing from the CRTC file.

The secretary general of the CRTC says that the second letter was never put in the file because it came too late to be considered by the CRTC. This means that when the CRTC made its decision it was always under the impression that the minister had intervened and it remained so.

Given this new information, how can the Prime Minister possibly continue to defend the integrity of his minister?

[Crtc, October 31st, 1994]

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

My office learned in discussions this morning with the secretary general of the CRTC, and I quote Mr. Darling: "The commissioners on the subcommittee may have been influenced by the minister's letter".

When the Prime Minister decided to support the actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage was he aware that the secretary general of the CRTC believed that the minister's letter may have influenced the process?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for the interest of the House I would like to provide the reasons for bringing forward the subamendment that was presented yesterday.

The issues in the reorganization of this department are complex. We are seeing five ministries becoming one. It consolidates several subcabinet departments: the Secretary of State; the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship; the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport; Parks Canada; components of Environment Canada; and the heritage component of the Department of Communications.

The government has talked a great deal about meeting its deficit target. I was really quite astounded to hear that this reorganization is going to save the huge figure of $7.3 million. Our debt today is over $536 billion. We have a deficit of $40 billion. Yet this reshuffling and this reorganization is going to save $7.3 million. Not a single person-year is lost; everybody has been reshuffled and moved off to other departments. Therefore I am not quite certain where the savings are.

The other side of the House, the government side, has often challenged the Reform Party MPs to come forward with some good ideas. We certainly want to ensure that the finance minister indeed does have access to this report by June 23, 1995 to help him with his short term deficit targets that he puts and that he wants to reach.

I also felt it was important to express one last time for the record and for Canadians generally exactly what we mean by special interest funding. This really is a ministry of special interest.

I have with me a number of items I would like to read into the record which come from a 703 page document listing all of the special interest funding that is available to Canadians today. It is important for us to look at these particular elements because they clearly describe special interests in Canada.

In the 1993-94 fiscal year $17,200 was given to something called "The Hidden Advantage". It was a series of round table discussions to be held in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Saskatoon on the relationship between diversity and international trade with a particular focus on the Pacific rim. Participants would include opinion leaders in the Asian Canadian community.

A staggering $85,000 was committed to the Canadian Advertising Foundation. It was for "Minorities in advertising; we are all Canadians". This is a communications outreach. It was for the dissemination of the findings of the research done by Goldfarb Consultants for the Race Relations Advisory Council on advertising and the provision of suggestions on how to include and portray visible minorities in advertising. Once again, $85,000 for that particular activity.

The 1993-94 program funding for the Canadian Council for Multicultural and Intercultural Education was $198,000. This was to provide program and project support for the following activities: operations of the national office, co-ordination of CCMIE activities, the board, executive, meetings, ECE and Race Relations Resource Advisory Committee workshops at the CCMIE national conference that is held every year. That was almost $200,000 to that group.

There is also the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Culture, Community and Health Studies. It received $5,000 for a national symposium titled "Models of Health Care in a Pluralistic Canada". It was a two and a half day national symposium on models of health care appropriate for a pluralistic Canada, whatever that means. It was held in Toronto and was for research workers, health care providers, health educators, public health agency staff, policymakers and consumers.

The Conference Board of Canada received $86,635 on "Dimensions of Diversity in Canadian Business". This was a two-year research and information dissemination project on the importance of diversity to Canadian economic prosperity, with a particular focus on managing and valuing diversity in the Canadian private sector.

There was $15,000 committed to the public service announcement campaign on violence in society and the development of a public service announcement, a PSA. This campaign was going to focus on violence in the community and the media.

The Ethnocultural Business Advisory Committee of metro Toronto received $20,000 for its small business week on ethnocultural business activities. This is a co-ordination of events to be held during small business week by eight Ethnocultural Business Advisory Committees across Canada. These events include trade shows, workshops, business awards and networking events. This is part of an annual national event for small business.

The next thing I want to bring into focus is the $40,000 that was given to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Chief Administrative Officers department. It is for municipal procurement strategies and minority economic development. The municipal government will adjust its procedures for bidding on contracts to ensure they do not present barriers to minority owned businesses and it will train its managers on the implementation of those procedures.

Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that the National Association of Friendship Centres received $15,000 for phase three of its national race relations strategy. This project will develop resources and tools that will be used to train race relations workers from friendship centres across Canada.

The Steering Committee Forum for Central and Eastern European Canadians on Business Development in 1993 received $10,000. This was a forum for central and eastern European Canadians on business development. This two-day national forum was to be held in Toronto. It was on how the Ukrainians, German and Polish Canadian communities in Canada could utilize the business expertise within their respective communities to become more involved in business activity.

The next one I want to raise is on drama and education to foster understanding. Easin Productions received $10,000. This project will introduce students and community groups to race relations and cross-cultural issues through the medium of live theatre and workshops. There will be at least 174 presentations in schools and community groups.

I really wonder how unifying all of these different activities are in Canada today. We are seeing so many of these projects and workshops unfolding that highlight more and more of our differences. They are not bringing us together or unifying us on how we are the same.

The Black Educators Association of Nova Scotia received $34,442. This was for program funding to address educational concerns and deliver workshops in black communities to increase parental involvement in education issues.

The Dartmouth Police Department received $3,526 for a 14-week employment project for two visible minority students.

The Eye Level Gallery received $1,507 for workshops presented on key video works by a black artist and a cultural skill development workshop.

The International Education Centre received $34,160 to conduct a series of multicultural and race relations programs for teachers, education administrators, students and community groups.

The Parents for a Model School Committee of the St. Joseph A. McKay Home and School Association received $11,970. This was for a proposal for phase one of a model school project for this particular association. It was for the development of the infrastructure and support system for an anti-racism and anti-poverty project for an inner city school in Halifax.

Shelburne County Cultural Awareness Society received $25,645. This project is researching data and conducting an archaeological survey on a site of historic significance to the Nova Scotia black community which has been selected for a regional landfill.

In closing I want to state for the record once again that the reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage is really a ministry of special interests. The government is creating a new superministry of cultural identity that will legislatively entrench grants to feminist, multicultural, linguistic and environmental groups. I submit that it denies us an opportunity to define ourselves as Canadians.

[Crtc, October 28th, 1994]

The minister's intervention has now tainted the CRTC decision regarding CHOM and Telemedia. In fact, both applications have been denied. How can the minister deny that his intervention did not influence both decisions?

[Crtc, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this minister has compromised the integrity of every member in the House. The minister's intervention has now tainted-