Jay Hill

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Better green than red.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I want to use this opportunity to talk about what it means to be Canadian. In 1993 when the Right Hon. Kim Campbell announced the reorganization of her government, the big selling point was the reduction of federal departments from 32 to 23 and the elimination of all minister of state positions.

She further justified the new structure by selling it as a significant step toward streamlining government. This was going to give Canadians a leaner, more accessible government. Multiculturalism was placed under her new Department of Canadian Heritage together with a mishmash of other programs and responsibilities.

Recognizing the level of public support for reducing the size of federal bureaucracy, the new Liberal government kept most of her changes and multiculturalism remained quietly buried in a new superministry of Canadian heritage.

This Liberal government failed to inform the Canadian people that the public perception of a government commitment to downsizing is unfounded. We have fewer ministers than we had under the previous government but now we have nine secretaries of state in addition to the full fledged ministers.

One of these new secretaries of state has a portfolio solely devoted to multiculturalism and the status of women.

The only major difference between a secretary of state and a minister is the name. Secretaries of state are not allowed to sit in cabinet and must report through the minister, but they have offices, staff and responsibilities for policy development in the departments to which they are assigned. They also receive an extra $35,000 a year salary and a car allowance.

This is not downsizing. What about the Canadian heritage department itself? Will taxpayers save any money through this restructuring and reorganization? Apparently not. When announcing the official establishment of this new department, top bureaucrats made it very clear that there would be no layoffs. Civil servants are being shuffled between new ministries but their jobs are secure, even if the future of some of the programs is not.

The number of employees in the multicultural program will remain at approximately 6,000, the same as 1992-93 levels. Multiculturalism now falls under another department but it is possible to compare current funding to that of previous years. In 1992-93, $39.8 million was spent on multicultural programs. Last fiscal year it was $36.9 million, and this year's forecast is $38.8 million. This does not include some of the spinoff programs that fall under the government's multicultural agenda.

For example, although the proposed Canadian race relations foundation is not functioning yet, the federal government

earmarked $24 million for it. This is hardly what I would call a stellar performance in cost reduction or downsizing.

Why do we have the multicultural policy we do? Why do we spend money to support special interest groups to maintain or rediscover their differences, rather than for the promotion of our shared symbols and positive Canadian qualities?

Immigrants have come to Canada for countless reasons over the years. For many it represented a place of safety to rebuild lives shattered by wars. For others it was a land of opportunity; if they worked hard they could become financially secure, send their children off to university and express their will within a democratic society.

These people came to Canada to become Canadians. They willingly left their country of birth and chose Canada as their new home. They came here to build a new life and a new reality for themselves and their children. To them, Canada symbolized hope. It was not just a place where they could become rich. It represented freedom from oppression or tyranny, from hunger or civil strife.

It was a land that, for the most part, accepted them as newcomers and tolerated their differences until they learned more about their chosen country and its culture.

Refugees come to our shores for many of the same reasons. Because Canada is isolated from refugee generating countries by vast oceans and by the United States, refugees must make a conscious decision that this is the country they want to move to. They must make extensive plans and pool their resources just to get here to claim refugee status. I believe they choose Canada for the same reasons that immigrants have in the past; an opportunity to get ahead in a country they are proud to be part of, a country that respects human rights and freedoms, a country where they will not have to live in fear.

Although immigrants and refugees left their homes to find the Canadian dream, what do newcomers to Canada find today? They discover a government that promotes cultural diversity, that tells them it is more important to maintain the identity they left behind than it is to become a Canadian. How many years is it before they are truly considered a Canadian? With our multicultural policy, how many generations will it take before people start thinking of themselves as Canadians rather than as outsiders? How can we eliminate racism or ghettoization if we perpetuate hyphenated Canadianism? How much time will it take for this government to understand that being a Canadian to a Canadian is more important than where you or your ancestors came from?

Everyone should be proud of their roots but they should also be proud to be a Canadian. We should be working toward the creation of a single national identity that we can all live with. Being Canadian is more than holding down a job, it is people pulling together for a common purpose and a common goal. This country is built on the efforts of people who came from all over the world to help create a nation they are proud to call home.

Throughout our history immigrants have worked hard to help forge the country we see today. They started out as immigrants but they built it as Canadians, for Canadians.

We are among the most tolerant people in the world. Regrettably, we have also had black periods in our history during which certain groups were not respected for their contribution or were denied access to our institutions and to some fundamental human rights.

We have grown a great deal over the past several decades. We have abolished institutionalized discrimination and promote respect for human rights at home and abroad. We must remain vigilant to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians but we must not let the pendulum swing so far toward accommodating special interests that we lose sight of who we are.

By promoting all cultures we will end up with none. What glue will hold our nation together?

As the make-up of our population changes, our national culture will naturally evolve to reflect that diversity. It is not something government can legislate or control. When government steps in, as it has, to encourage differences between people rather than fostering unity by encouraging common Canadian values other segments of our society will feel threatened because they will perceive their cultural values to be under siege.

When the cultural make-up of our population has changed to the point that our institutions no longer reflect the Canadian identity then there will be overwhelming public support and pressure for those changes to occur.

Government cannot dictate culture and government cannot control its expression. The government's role should be to clarify our similarities, not aggravate our differences. Cultural change occurs over generations but a nation must have a touchstone for its national identity, a reference point that immigrants from other countries can refer to.

We leave them floundering, having to rely on our multicultural policy of celebrating diversity as a guide to what it is to be a Canadian.

Canada has a distinct identity. We can all feel it. We know it is there but most Canadians cannot articulate it. When asked what it is to be a Canadian, many people used to respond that it is not being an American. We are more than a negative. We have our own positive sense of national identity and it must be communicated to all newcomers to this land.

To me being Canadian is many things. Being Canadian is truly believing in our inherent right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully, freedom of the press, tolerance for differences and respect for human rights and democratic institutions. These are some of the common values I believe make us Canadians.

There is also an expectation held by the majority of Canadians that we will continue to support and, if necessary, defend our individual and collective rights to these freedoms.

[Avro Arrow, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Royal Canadian Mint recently issued a set of coins commemorating milestone aircraft in Canadian aviation history.

To my surprise missing from this series is the Avro Arrow. As we all know, the Arrow was an aircraft decades ahead of its time and its cancellation resulted in a setback to the Canadian aviation industry from which it has yet to recover.

Most of the talented Canadians who worked on its development were forced to move to the United States where a great many were snapped up by NASA to work on the Apollo space program.

In 1958 the Arrow achieved speeds nearly twice that of sound and altitudes approaching 60,000 feet. Despite this the government of the day cancelled the project and ordered all tooling, plans and aircraft destroyed.

By allowing the exclusion of the Arrow from the series this government has effectively reinforced the shameful decision of a previous Conservative administration.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of my constituents.

The first petition requests that current laws regarding assisted suicide be enforced and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Health Care, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the health care crisis we are currently experiencing in northern and rural Canada.

The government is proud to talk about the sanctity of our universal health care system. However, when one of the towns in my riding advertised to replace a retiring surgeon for over a year it met with no success.

By and large Canadian doctors seem unwilling to settle and work in the north. Consequently northern communities have had to increasingly rely on foreign physicians who must weigh the opportunity of working in Canada against an uncertain future caused by short term work visas.

Our patient to doctor ratio is around 1,700 to 1, compared to about 160 to 1 in Vancouver.

Northern natural resources contribute billions to government coffers, yet our hospitals are being shut down or their services drastically cut back, resulting in northerners travelling hundreds of miles to receive adequate health care.

Is this an example of the accessibility promised by the Canada Health Act?

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to introduce a private member's bill to amend some of the more contentious clauses in the Criminal Code pertaining to gun control.

This bill decriminalizes offences against regulations respecting storage, display, handling and transportation of firearms. It simplifies the FAC renewal process and allows previous law-abiding gun owners to acquire an FAC without going through the course and test.

It allows gun owners to bequeath grandfathered restricted guns. It clarifies the legal obligation of this government to provide compensation for confiscated firearms. It makes all future and existing regulations subject to review by the House of Commons.

Canadians are demanding crime control, not gun control. It is time for the government to get tough on criminals, not create more red tape for legitimate gun owners.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, September 21st, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act (Interpretation).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce an act to amend the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act.

One of the more serious flaws in Bill C-33 allows the agreements of the Yukon First Nations to take precedence over Canadian laws. The bill would amend Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, so that federal or territorial law will prevail where there is an inconsistency or conflict with any final agreement or transboundary agreement.

We are all Canadians and the laws of the land should apply equally to all.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree the emphasis has to be placed on trying to educate the young people. With my three young children at home I certainly have endeavoured to do that. I have tried to tell them to do as I say and not as I do, obviously.

Although I have smoked on and off for 25 years, I did quit for four and a half years at one point, quite an accomplishment I felt at the time. However, along came the 1988 election and by the time I had gone through the election I was smoking again. It might say something for the profession I am currently in.

As to what we can do to encourage young people, I think it is incumbent on every one who has children or young people around them-if you are a coach of a team, if you have young nieces, nephews, grandchildren, whatever-to certainly encourage them not to smoke and to warn them about the dangers of smoking. That is something each and every one of us can do.

I do not believe, as someone else said earlier, that plain packaging or government advertising programs which spend millions of dollars will be that effective. I have talked to a number of young people. When they see these frightening ads on television that try to portray the danger of cigarettes, they do not relate to them. Peer pressure is much greater and it will not be offset by that advertising.

Personal contact from people they know and trust, their family and friends, would be much more successful in preventing them from starting to smoke or convincing them to stop if they do start.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, speaking as an experienced smoker, I can tell my hon. colleague that Canadian cigarettes are the best cigarettes in the world. I have travelled in Europe and I have travelled quite extensively in the United States. I must say their cigarettes and tobacco simply do not stack up. I am quite prepared to state that yes, Canadian smokers would be prepared to pay more for Canadian tobacco. That is a great indication of what a terrific job Canadian farmers do in growing quality products.