CONTENTS
Monday, October 3, 1994
(At 11.43 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.) 6416
The House resumed at 12 p.m. 6416
Bill C-53. Motion for second reading 6416
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6419
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6424
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6424
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 6435
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6435
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6438
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6438
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6440
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6440
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6440
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6441
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6441
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6441
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6441
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 6442
Bill C-278. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6445
Bill C-279. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 6445
Motion for concurrence in 37th report 6445
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6446
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6446
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 6446
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6449
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6451
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6452
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6453
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6454
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6458
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6459
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 6460
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 6463
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6464
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6464
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6465
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6466
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6472
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6473
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
6411
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 3, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act so that taxpayers
whose income may fluctuate from one year to the next would be able to average
their income over five years.
(1105 )
He said: Madam Speaker, I introduced this motion some time
ago and it was drawn within the last year. The reasons for the
motion are fairly clear-cut. It is based on the assumption that the
Canadian economy is much more diverse than what some of our
policy makers perceive it to be over the last number of years.
We still have literally hundreds of thousands of individuals
who are basically self-employed, who work to fulfil a dream of
producing what they want to produce on the hope and the
assumption that the price or the value of that production will go
up or on the hope that they will eventually be able to produce
enough of the product to make it an economically viable entity.
While the Canadian economy may have become more
industrial and more global, there are still many people who work
on this basis. They are farmers, fishermen, real estate brokers,
builders, prospectors, architects, artists, musicians and a host of
others who sometimes work years without any real
remuneration. Eventually the big income year comes and they
have in the past been encouraged in their activities which are
useful to the whole of Canadian society with the concept of
income averaging.
There is a great deal of income fluctuation in some of the
sectors of our economy simply because of changes in production
due to cyclical weather patterns whether it is in fishing, farming,
forestry or a whole host of other businesses attached to those.
There is also fluctuation as world prices go up and down. No
matter how efficient a producer one is of wood products or
agricultural products or fish products, when the world price is
down one is going to show a loss.
However those people do not give up and quit simply because
they have a loss in one year. They know that it will turn around.
They hope that it will turn around. They realize that their
activities are of use to society in general. People have to eat.
People need wood for their houses and for their shelter and so
they continue.
I brought the motion to the House because we once had three
methods of averaging income for the diverse group of people
who have up and down incomes. We had general averaging
which was available to all taxpayers. At one point it was actually
worked out by the department itself when incomes exceeded 120
per cent of the previous year. It was almost automatic.
We had for a while income averaging using annuity contracts
which was introduced for a few years. We had five-year block
averaging for farmers and fisherpeople.
I want to do a bit of past history of these with a brief
explanation because in 20 minutes one cannot do justice to the
issue. Prior to June 1992 general averaging, as I said, was
available to all. We could go back five years and pay not only
income but losses in those five years. This was finally replaced
in 1982 with something called forward averaging.
However even tax experts admit this is only helpful when
incomes decrease significantly so that a person can be put into a
lower tax bracket. It is used by retirees, by athletes who are on
their way out, by people who are pulling back rather than to
encourage production which is what the original averaging plans
did.
Tax experts like Beam and Laiken conclude that the forward
averaging has not been a suitable replacement and has not done
the job it was hoped it would do.
(1110 )
The income averaging annuity contracts which I mentioned
were available as well were of very limited use. They were used
for the collapsing of RRSPs when people reached the age of 70
or 71 years.
It was used for the utilization of capital gains provisions
which were changed in 1982. It is probably not used very much
6412
any more. It was basically a way of permitting people to adjust
to the capital gains provisions in 1982 and some later budgets.
The five-year block averaging which had been available to
farmers and fishermen lasted a bit longer. Although it was
announced in the budget of 1982 it officially ended in 1987,
which means that the last year most people could use it was
1991.
There are some exceptions to that such as in cases in which
taxpayers had such low incomes they did not bother filing a
return. That is not considered to be one of the years. If they did
not file a return in 1988, for instance, they could go until 1992. If
they happened to miss three or four years they might still be
eligible to pick up on those last remnants of five-year block
averaging simply because they have to use five years when they
file on time. These could have high incomes or losses and they
could all be averaged out.
We need to look at what the replacements for five-year block
averaging were. The block averaging has been replaced with a
form of forward averaging. There have been a couple of
inventory rule changes that were supposed to pick up the slack
for farmers and fishermen. While they are helpful in the short
term they do not meet all of the advantages that were there for
the five-year block averaging.
There is a mandatory inventory adjustment for people with off
farm incomes. This is almost all farmers now. Last year we are
told that the average family farm incomes were in the
neighbourhood of $43,000, of which just over $30,000 came
from off farm sources. Therefore on average on farm income
was about $13,000 and roughly $30,000 came from off farm
sources.
It is interesting to note that a lot of economists and
government policy makers seem to think that the answer is to
move to larger farms so that incomes can be generated from
those larger farms. At least that is the theory. The reality is that
when we look at the data the larger the farm, the larger the off
farm income. It is virtually impossible to generate a family
income from farms regardless of the size under the economic
conditions that have existed for the last several years in Canada.
The second inventory adjustment program allows bringing in
livestock, which seems to be defined by the courts as anything
that is a living, sensate being, from rabbits to fish to ostriches
and llamas as well as the usual horses, cows, pigs, sheep, et
cetera.
Some difficulties with the program have been discovered,
since a cash accounting method has been permitted. This is a
good thing for most farm operators, especially individual
operators who are not incorporated. That method of computing
income is still available. It allows some transferring of income
from one year to the next by selling in one year but collecting the
money the following year for livestock sales and grains and
oilseeds.
This is a possibility in most regions of the country. These
provisions do not recognize the fact of wide income variations
that were handled under the old five-year block averaging
system. It might mitigate a sudden income surge at the end of a
year and allow some of that income to be shoved into the
following year. It does not take into account the large cyclical
changes in prices which are then reflected in huge cyclical
changes to income for farmers and fishermen which usually ride
for three to five years.
(1115)
The five-year averaging provision permitted people to hang
in there. Perhaps they would lose money for five years, hoping
they would recover in a subsequent five years. This allowed for a
shifting of income over the five years and paying the tax
accordingly.
The new provision does not permit that kind of flexibility and
has provided some real horror stories where the lives of farmers
or ranchers are interrupted. They leave an estate which can find
itself paying unwarranted amounts of taxes because of the legal
work that may not have been done in the proper sequence
according to the department of revenue. If step a is taken before
step b the department will double tax.
Paying taxes should not depend on a chance happening
initiated unwittingly by so-called professionals acting on behalf
of taxpayers or their estates. Rules should be as simple and as
clear as is possible. The block averaging is relatively simple in
its concept, in that it applies to the total income of the taxpayer
and not just the part that exceeded a certain threshold amount. It
permits a complete levelling of net incomes over the averaging
period, including the offsetting of losses within the period
against profits.
Prior to its demise in 1982 block averaging had existed since
1946. It had accomplished a fairly progressive and widespread
growth in the economy. It should be used again in the 1990s in
recognition of the continued need in our country for the
recognition that there is a wide and diverse choice of economic
activities that Canadians choose to be engaged in, or are
sometimes forced into, which recognizes that some necessary
and crucial economic activities have periods of poor returns but
that society must permit some recognition through the tax
system we continue to need that we need these people for the
smooth and efficient working of our society in general.
Most of the groups I have mentioned in regard to tax
averaging are not eligible for most of the so-called safety nets
that our society takes pride in providing. Most of them are
self-employed individuals ineligible for unemployment
insurance benefits. Most do not quality for welfare even though
their
6413
incomes are definitely poverty level from parts of their income
cycle, sometimes for three to five years.
I argue that the government should consider the advisability
of reintroducing income averaging provisions once again to
recognize that fluctuating incomes are a reality for a great many
productive individuals in our Canadian system. Fair treatment
demands that it be given a higher priority if Canada is once again
to flourish.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak on private member's Motion No. M-256. I question the
advisability of moving in this direction at this time.
I am extremely concerned about further complicating the tax
system and setting up a situation whereby those with money and
in the higher income brackets have the ability to manipulate the
tax system to their advantage.
When I talked to Revenue Canada about the issue I was
informed its previous experiences with income averaging has
shown that such averaging may result in unfair tax advantages to
those taxpayers who are able to arrange their affairs so as to
control the amount and timing of their income and in turn their
tax liabilities.
(1120 )
By checking the retirement savings system we will find that in
extremely good years some individuals may make significant
tax deductible registered retirement savings plan contributions
based on income. Where an allowable contribution is not made
for a year, it may be carried forward for seven years. RRSP
contributions may be made in a year or within 60 days after the
year ends.
This system can help individuals to lessen any increased tax
burden that might arise as a result of an increase in income,
while at the same time fulfil its primary goal of encouraging
Canadians to save for retirement. It is a very important point that
we have within our tax system the ability for people in their
years of good income, when they do not have to draw down on
their funds for cost of living and so on, to contribute dollars into
retirement savings. It helps them and society as a whole.
Averaging provisions generally introduce a great degree of
complexity into the tax system. If the government and Revenue
Canada have time to look at the various issues, rather than
spending a lot of time looking at block averaging over the years I
would certainly favour spending time looking at ways to make
those with larger incomes pay their fair share.
I am surprised that greater emphasis is not placed in the
motion on those who are somehow dodging the tax system in
some way. We should be making those individuals pay their fair
share. In fact I am worried about the motion opening up the
possibility for wealthy individuals to manipulate the tax system
again to their advantage.
Talking about the complexity in the tax system, any income
averaging formula entails detailed and often complex
calculations in addition to very specific rules designed among
other things to prevent its use for an unintended objective. That
is what I am speaking about. Will the motion and its possibilities
allow greater manipulation of the tax system? I am very worried
about that.
A formula would have to take into account and recalculate
benefits and means tested tax credits in low income years, such
as child tax benefits, goods and services tax credits and various
provincial tax credits, and additional taxes and credit
reductions, for example, minimum tax, reduction in age tax
credits, and old age security clawbacks in high income years
included in the averaging period.
As well, where other supporting individuals have claimed tax
benefits based on the income of a particular taxpayer, for
example, spousal tax credits, their tax liability would also be
adjusted based on the averaged income of the taxpayer.
Those kinds of problems really open up the possibility of
manipulating the tax system further to an individual taxpayer's
advantage and cause a considerable number of administrative
problems in terms of the government department's ability to
administer these taxes to see that they are paid fairly and
administered by the rules of the act.
Averaging provisions would interact adversely with the
alternative minimum tax. The purpose of that tax is to ensure all
Canadians with significant incomes in a given year pay at least
some level of income tax. Providing income averaging could
increase the number of higher income Canadians who pay no
income tax for a particular year. This is generally perceived to
be manifestly unfair.
(1125 )
I do not have anything more than that to say on the issue.
However I want to underline one point. I do not believe we
should now be opening up the tax system to the possibility of
further manipulations by individuals who have extreme amounts
of income. We should be looking at other ways of improving the
tax system by ensuring that the very wealthy in society pay their
fair share. I do not believe the motion deals with that problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Madam Speaker, before
I start my speech on Motion No. 256, allow me to congratulate
the people of my riding, especially those of Rouyn-Noranda, for
making it into the Guinness Book of Records with the longest
banner in the world. This 425-metre banner was made by
several families to draw attention on the International Year of
the Family. It was stretched in the streets of Rouyn-Noranda,
yesterday. It was quite a sight, I congratulate them.
6414
Now, let us move to the motion of the hon. member for
Mackenzie which I will read before commenting on it:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the
advisability of introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act so that taxpayers
whose income may fluctuate from one year to the next would be able to average
their income over five years.
The hon. member explained the objectives of this motion. At
first glance, it would seem that it would benefit a number of
people in very special job categories. For example artists can
make a lot of money one year and very little the next. There are
also those who are into production of some kind, like farmers or
fishermen. Think of all the self-employed persons who, from
one year to the next, do not know how much their income will
be. This is the most positive aspect, which does not mean there
are not others.
We tried, through various schemes-be it unemployment
insurance, crop insurance or others-to stabilize income as
much as possible, with relative success, depending on the area
of activity. These insurance programs are precisely income
stabilization schemes which guarantee a certain income
stability.
The problem is that the motion is not restrictive in any way,
and would apply to people with very high incomes in a given
year, even though they do not belong to any of the categories I
just mentioned. Does it mean that anyone with a sudden high
income would be able to defer it at will? This might be a way of
ensuring that individuals go on a sabbatical every four years. It
just might be. But then again is that really the objective?
I believe that the real objective is more to help people whose
income fluctuates due to the type of economic activity they are
involved in. On several occasions, the member referred to the
fact that nowadays our economy is very diverse and that it
should be taken into account. However, I doubt very much that it
is appropriate to do so for everybody since, obviously, the more
time you have to plan how to manage your taxes, the easier it
becomes to evade them. Balancing revenues and expenses is one
of the fundamental principles in accounting but this goes
slightly in the opposite direction and the more you separate the
two the more complicated it becomes.
Of course, as the Liberal member mentioned later on, we must
wonder whether the whole tax credit system and the entire tax
structure would have to get adjusted to take the deductions into
account? Should we allow the same income averaging? It would
become extremely complex. This does not mean that we should
not permit a certain level of income averaging in some specific
economic sectors or for individuals involved in these sectors,
but it should be done as simply as possible and only in a very
limited and strictly controlled way. Obviously, this kind of
measure cannot be very simple.
The Income Tax Act allows companies to carry forward
profits and losses, at times with some degree of success, but at
other times, the government is depriving itself of significant
revenues. Companies are allowed to do some tax planning and
they certainly take advantage of it. You could say that they
reinvest this money in the economy, except that, in some cases,
they minimize the taxes they will have to pay.
(1130)
I have some concerns about extending this system to include
all Canadians. I think that we should identify our target more
clearly and even take a hard second look at the provision in our
tax system that allows businesses to carry forward profits and
losses over a certain number of years.
Family trusts are another means used to defer taxes. We have
been looking at this issue since our arrival in the House of
Commons and this morning is an ideal time to speak about it.
As you know, in the case of trusts taxes can now be deferred
until the last beneficiary has died. In some cases, this represents
80 years of tax deferral. With tax planning horizons as distant as
this, you can be sure that the government will be seeing very
little revenue indeed. There are limits-taxes cannot always be
avoided-but the longer they can be deferred, the more
possibilities there are and the greater the amount due will vary.
I therefore have some reservations about the motion, and
rightly so, in my opinion. Not that we need linger too long over
the motive for the motion. I can recall people, particularly
artists, calling for income averaging. Given that only people in
certain sectors are affected by it, I think it should be looked at
more closely.
The hon. member seems to have examined the question very
carefully because there was a similar system in the past. He
should now focus his attention on specific groups in certain
areas of economic activity rather than on all taxpayers. When
this is done, it will be possible to comment with more assurance.
At this stage, there are arguments for and against.
We understand the reasons for the motion, but cannot give our
support to something this broad. The goal is very obviously to
allow all high-income earners to average their income, but it
could lead to some odd situations. Would not those with high
salaries or income from company profits-in other words,
dividends from businesses they own-have an opportunity to
average even more of their income than is already the case?
They will have two ways of allocating their dividends or
corporate revenues. This will produce rather surprising results
at the fiscal level.
6415
Public finances being what they are at present, I doubt very
much that such an idea could be put forward. Since allowing this
would reduce the tax impact on certain clients-artists,
self-employed and seasonal workers were mentioned-such a
measure would deprive us of revenues.
I think that we should secure revenues from other sources. Of
course, a motion cannot pursue several goals at the same time,
but we should keep in mind the need to look for revenues
elsewhere. If we stay with the same approach, we may have to
look at corporate or trust tax deferrals, particularly the
extraordinary revenue losses from family trusts whose renewal
had been allowed by the previous government. The current
government, for its part, does not appear committed to
correcting the situation as it does not seem to believe that there
are large revenues to be collected from this sector.
In conclusion, although the goal is commendable, the motion
is much too broad and troubling because everyone would be
allowed to average their income. It would be difficult to support
the motion but, given its goals, the hon. member could explain it
further and ensure that specific sectors are targeted, in particular
the arts community. From there we could move on to a private
member's bill or something more concrete in order to get good
results.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, the
entrepreneurial spirit is a driving force to the Canadian
economy. I say again that there is a particular group of
Canadians who are a driving force in the Canadian economy.
They are the entrepreneurs. They are the people who get up in
the morning with a blank page in their diary and go to bed at
night having filled that page by exhibiting personal initiative.
They have filled that page with creative, productive activity.
(1135)
The entrepreneurial spirit moves forward with no boss
pushing. These are the self-starters. Truly, if they do not do it, it
will not get done. They are the farmers, ranchers, fruit growers,
independent small business people, artists, writers, people in
real estate sales or sales in general, freelancers and consultants.
Let us define what we are talking about here. We are talking
about taxation and the way it relates to the entrepreneur. Tax is
an arbitrary confiscation of wealth by government so that it may
provide services and under political direction redistribute that
wealth. The wealth is in the form of dollars and cents. It is
capital. We are talking about the confiscation of capital for
altruistic purposes. What we are really talking about is fairness
in the taxation system.
I support the thrust of the motion because I believe the current
tax system discriminates against entrepreneurs who are, I state
again, a major driving force in the Canadian economy.
Assuming that the government historically has not
intentionally discriminated against the entrepreneur, this
question still must be asked: Now that it has been drawn to the
government's attention, why would it want to continue to
discriminate against people who have the handicap of never
seeing a steady month to month paycheque? Why should these
people have to suffer the disadvantage of irregular income along
with the other insecurities of trying to provide for their families'
welfare, their children's education and their own futures?
In debate in the House on September 20, 1991, Lee
Richardson, member of Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Transport, said in part:
When income of individuals fluctuates significantly from year to year, the
total of the income taxes they pay over several years may be greater than if their
income stream has been more constant over that period. This is because in those
years, when incomes were high, they are subject to higher marginal tax rates and
thus pay a greater portion of their income in tax. In such circumstances,
averaging the income over a number of years would result in lower taxes each
year, thus lowering the total tax burden over that period.
Using farmers as an example, in the same debate at page 2500
of
Hansard the member for Edmonton Southeast said:
I would like to pick up a thread that was made, I think, yesterday by a
member. Right now the average farmer in Canada produces food for about 95 to
100 Canadians. At the same time, since most farmers are men, his spouse has to
go off the farm to earn money to feed the family on the farm. That is a
catastrophe.
I believe and support the point the member for Edmonton
Southeast was making that currently the tax system
discriminates against the family farm. In many cases it forces an
undesirable situation within families.
Staying with the same example of the farmer, in a letter from
Mr. Ken Gadicke of Folkman and Gadicke, chartered
accountants in my riding of Creston, British Columbia, he says:
The taxpayer in question reports his income on a cash basis, meaning
revenues are reported only when received and expenses reported only when
paid. For the first time, the farmer has sold almost his entire crop prior to the end
of his current fiscal year. Furthermore, in almost every sale case he would be
able to collect the cash also prior to his year end. However, this would put him in
the position of receiving two crop years of revenue in one fiscal period, the
1993 and 1994 crop revenue. As this would mean a large absolute increase in the
amount of income tax he would be paying, he has made the nonsensical business
decision to ask his customers to not make their payments to him until after his
year end. In turn, he has had to ask his bank to extend his line of credit, incurring
unnecessary financing costs.
In a case such as this some form of averaging of income may have benefited
the taxpayer by allowing him to collect the cash, reducing his need for financing
from the bank and no increase in his overall tax burden.
(1140)
As shown in Mr. Gadicke's letter about farmers, the
impediments are common with impediments to all small
business
6416
people and individuals who are concerned about cash flow or
having to become involved with interest payments which result
specifically from the action of the current burdensome taxation
system that confiscates wealth or the working capital they so
desperately need. This can lead to a situation where the business
person or individual has to make some nonsensical business
decisions.
Other examples of individuals would fall into the area of real
estate sales people and especially sales people who are on 100
per cent commission. They frequently cannot control when their
next commission cheque is going to arrive. This group includes
writers who want to work on books, reporters who sell their
columns by the word or staff people with professional skills or
extensive background work and experience who, when they
encounter layoffs, become consultants and work on contract.
There is a growing pool of experienced contract workers who
are serving the business community well. Additionally there are
artists who have work in progress who may be forced to push
forward a finished product.
At the risk of overusing the agriculture example, in my
constituency with the downturn of demand for Delicious red
apples many orchardists in Creston pulled up their apple trees
and replanted a specific form of Japanese cherry. This was a
very prudent decision to build revenue for the future. However it
has serious taxation implications because of the inability to
average income.
A parallel example would be that the inability to average
income could hamper entrepreneurs as they try to improve or
change their current situation. Business people need flexibility
in the taxation system in order to retool or invest in response to
market pressures. If they cannot rationally make changes it is an
impediment to productivity.
Let me restate that I support the motion because I fully
acknowledge there is a particular group of Canadians who are a
major driving force in the Canadian economy. I support the
entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial spirit.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): As no other member
wishes to speak and since the motion was not selected as a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
The sitting of the House is hereby suspended until 12 p.m.
(At 11.43 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.)
[English]
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
_____________________________________________
6416
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to move second
reading of the bill to grant official legal status to the Department
of Canadian Heritage created one year ago. Passage of this bill
will enable the department to pursue its mandate with
confidence and enthusiasm.
At first, we had some reservations about the name of the
Department of Canadian Heritage. What did Canadian heritage
mean, and what reason could be given to justify consolidating in
a single department such diverse elements as communications,
cultural industries, official and heritage languages, national
parks and historic sites, voluntary action, multiculturalism,
state ceremonial and amateur sport? But if we think of the word
``heritage'' in its broadest sense, that is to say the set of signs
that enable us to recognize ourselves as individuals who belong
to a group or even a country, then the department's name is
fitting.
Heritage is closely linked to questions of individual and
national identity, which is why it can have such far-reaching and
important influence. In today's world of changing geopolitical
borders where the map of the world is being redrawn and
nationalist groups around the globe are making constant
demands, the Department of Canadian Heritage is in a sense the
flagship of Canadian identity.
Each and every unit of the department is connected in some
way to the soul of Canada. Combined, these units form a striking
picture of what we were in the past, what we are today and what
we want to be in the future. It is therefore impossible today to
limit the meaning of heritage to the legacy of years gone by.
Heritage is far more than a collection of remnants of the past; it
is the manifestation of a link between the members of a
community and a means of defining the relationship between the
community and the world around it. From this perspective,
although the scope of the activities undertaken by the
Department of Canadian Heritage may seem huge, it is entirely
justified.
6417
The Department of Canadian Heritage is active in three main
areas that have a common objective namely, promoting
Canadian identity. First, the department is the chief custodian of
the natural and physical heritage comprising our national parks,
our historic monuments and canals; these sites highlight the
uniqueness of our country and contribute to Canada's reputation
as a tourist destination. Our rich natural and historic heritage
includes 36 national parks, 750 historic sites, nine historic
canals and four marine areas located throughout Canada.
Stretching from Ellesmere Island National Park in the Artic
Circle to Point Pelee National Park on the shores of the Great
Lakes, from the Cape Spear lighthouse on the Atlantic coast to
Pacific Rim National Park, they are among the most beautiful
gems of world heritage.
(1205)
Parks Canada will continue to protect, preserve and promote
these sites which Canadians hold dear. The traditions of the
Parks Canada program, now embraced by the Department of
Canadian Heritage, have very deep roots. They date back to
1885, when Canada's first national park was created in Banff.
Our network of historic sites was established more than 75 years
ago. In a short while, we will be celebrating with joy and pride
the 75th anniversary of Parks Canada.
Canada's parks and historic sites are important to the national
economy, generating annual revenue in excess of one billion
dollars, including some $275 million from foreign tourists, and
providing jobs for roughly 30,000 Canadian men and women.
They are the lifeblood of the Canadian tourism industry; in
1992, almost 27 million people visited our national parks and
historic sites.
Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage devotes much
of its attention to promotion of the official languages, amateur
sport, community support and participation and other cultural
elements that enrich our own culture and set us apart in today's
world economy.
The history of this country has to a large extent been shaped
by successive waves of immigration and the interaction between
the newcomers and the society in their new country. The way
immigrants adapt their way of life to Canadian society will
continue to be a determining factor in the Canadian identity, and
the Department of Canadian Heritage plans to take an active role
in making their integration as sucessful as possible.
We have to realize that the co-existence of cultures is one of
the biggest challenges facing countries around the world as the
century draws to a close. Canada has always been in step with
the many cultures that can be found here. This diversity includes
vast human resources that are part of Canada today and that
could be, in a world with an increasingly globalized economy
and culture, a definite asset in maintaining our place on the
world stage. It is also a virtually limitless cultural resource that
we can use to our advantage and that sets us apart from other
countries.
The Department of Canadian Heritage plans to tap these
resources and encourage all cultural communities to contribute
to the growth and development of Canadian society. We hope to
rally the mighty forces of multiculturalism behind a cultural
identity that is uniquely Canadian.
Amateur sport and related events, like the Canada Games and
the XVth Commonwealth Games held this summer in Victoria,
are a fundamental vehicle for fostering and illustrating
important Canadian values such as the pursuit of excellence and
cultural diversity. In this regard, I would like to take this
opportunity to say again how happy we are to be hosting the
1999 Pan-American Games in Winnipeg. We also hope that
Quebec city will be given the honour of playing host to the
Winter Olympics in 2002 and are working to make that a reality.
(1210)
We have inherited a country whose strenght comes not only
from its cultural diversity, but also its linguistic duality.
Preserving and promoting our official languages do not make
Canada a real Tower of Babel. It is important not only to protect
the right of individuals to speak whichever language they prefer,
but also to realize that the English and French languages open
the doors to two of the greatest sources of universal culture.
Canada's official languages are inextricably linked to
Canadian identity and culture. For this reason, it is vital for a
department like ours and for society as a whole to promote them
and broaden their sphere of influence.
[English]
Moreover, in these days of market globalization, knowing two
of the most widely spoken languages in the world is a definite
plus. English is an official language in no fewer than 33
countries around the world, French in 25 countries. From a
purely economic standpoint our two official languages already
give us an edge in our efforts to conquer new markets.
Of course we must not forget the incredible number of
international languages spoken by new Canadians. Their
language skills are critical in expanding our trade and cultural
relations to new countries.
The fact remains however that the linguistic landscape in
Canada is dominated by two official languages as English or
French is spoken by 98.6 per cent of the population. To ensure
that both languages continue to thrive in all regions of the
country the Department of Canadian Heritage is committed to
supporting the development and enhancing the vitality of
linguistic minority communities in all sectors and encouraging
Canadians to learn their second official language.
Specifically the department's aim is to give these
communities the means to ensure their own economic
development which is the key to a better future. With this
objective in mind it has taken measures to encourage all federal
institutions to promote
6418
the full development of minority official language
communities, measures which I announced this summer during
the Acadian World Congress.
Third, the department is focusing its efforts on the
management of cultural development in Canada and on means of
communication which are crucial not only in ensuring our
uniqueness but also as a powerful instrument of economic
development. Culture is not an abstract concept separate from
the real world, nor is it mere decoration. It is first and foremost a
way of looking at the world and a manifestation of our
civilization. This unique view of the world is one of the features
that allows one group to distinguish itself from others. In short,
without culture, there is no identity.
In this age of trade globalization and amid the proliferation of
information technologies, our cultural resources have become
not only a means for Canada to carve out a place for itself on the
world stage but also a powerful economic lever. The numbers
speak for themselves.
In 1991-92 the cultural sector accounted in total for 3.7 per
cent of the gross domestic product or approximately $22 billion.
In addition, the sector employed almost half a million people,
which represents a rate of employment growth of approximately
21 per cent between 1986-87 and 1991-92. The economic
impact of culture is far too great to be left entirely to chance.
(1215 )
The rate of growth may be impressive but it must not
overshadow the problems our industries have to address. I need
not point out that cultural industries do not have the capital or
the market to compete in Canada with the big producers of mass
culture, namely our neighbour to the south, the United States,
the richest cultural market in the world and one which is
increasingly visible in Canada because of the new distribution
technologies.
Bringing all cultural functions together in a single department
will enable the Government of Canada to take more concrete
action, making it possible to defend the interests of the cultural
community, our cultural community, on many fronts. From this
standpoint the department's responsibilities are primarily
national in scope. The department has a duty to contribute to the
emergence of Canadian culture, foster a sense of belonging and
instil national pride. It is responsible for providing funding for
and encouraging the development of cultural agencies that have
a national mandate such as the CBC, the National Arts Centre,
the Canada Council, the National Theatre School, Telefilm
Canada and the National Film Board. It is also responsible for
museums, archives and the National Library.
The department also has to spearhead legislation aimed at
fostering the full development of creative activity in Canada.
The aim of copyright legislation, for example, is to enable our
authors, producers and performers to earn a decent living from
their crafts and be fairly compensated for their work.
Let us get one thing clear. After a very long period under the
former government during which culture suffered from
marginalization and was considered merely as a distraction, not
to mention a luxury, we must bring back culture to the forefront
of society's concerns, for it is essential to our identity, to our
pride, to our unity and to our independence in international
society.
Culture contributes to our quality of life. It is part of the ever
richer heritage that is our legacy to future generations. The
Department of Canadian Heritage has international
responsibilities relating to the promotion, distribution and
marketing of Canadian culture. For example, the department is
expected to negotiate agreements on cultural exchanges with
other countries and identify foreign outlets for Canadian
cultural products.
In keeping with this mandate the department was actively
involved in the development of TV-5, the international French
language television network that serves as a cultural and
commercial window for French language programs and
francophone artists from Canada and other French speaking
countries.
The Department of Canadian Heritage also has a mandate to
ensure Canadian participation in international exhibitions. The
most recent Canadian initiatives of this type took place last year
in Taejon, South Korea, one of Canada's largest export markets.
It produced excellent results as Canada banked on economic
partnership for the first time. Exhibitions of this kind are
outstanding international fora that combine both culture and
communications. They are also an important part of the mission
of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
For example, the government's commitment to implementing
a Canadian strategy for the information superhighway augurs
well for the cultural industries. The super highway is far more
than a technological infrastructure. It will be a powerful vehicle
for Canadian content and will ensure wider distribution of our
cultural products, making them more accessible to all
Canadians.
(1220 )
The department is particularly sensitive to broadcasting
issues, as broadcasting is without question the most popular and
the most powerful of all cultural media. More than 99 per cent of
Canadians own a radio; 99 per cent also own a television set; and
more than 75 per cent own a video cassette recorder.
Because broadcasters are among the companies most
vulnerable to competition from their American rivals, the
Department of Canadian Heritage has to be very vigilante and
adopt policies and programs that make Canadian culture as
accessible to Canadians as possible.
6419
Clearly the mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage
is closely linked to the major issues facing Canada today. Our
agenda is very full and our mission extends into many sectors of
Canadian society.
It is more important now than ever before to start thinking of
Canada's cultural complexity as an asset in an age when
openness to rest of the world is as important as the preservation
of our identities. That is where the Department of Canadian
Heritage comes in. The Department of Canadian Heritage does
not deal exclusively with the past, but it is focused on the future.
It is at the nerve centre of the major challenges facing
contemporary society.
The department I have the honour of overseeing must have
official legal status if it is to continue its work of fostering the
emergence of a strong cultural identity in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, the Canadian government is coming to the
House of Commons today for second reading of Bill C-53, an
act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to
amend and repeal certain other acts.
First of all, the surprising thing is that the government took
nearly a year to draft Bill C-53, which for all practical purposes
confirms what Prime Minister Kim Campbell announced when
her cabinet was sworn in in the summer of 1993. In so doing, the
present Prime Minister and his government are confirming the
same mistakes in decisions made by the previous government
when for economic reasons Ms. Campbell decided to reduce the
size of cabinet and merge several departments; among those
decisions was the creation of the Department of Canadian
Heritage. This is totally unacceptable, both for Canadians and
for Quebecers.
At first glance, this bill seems to be a purely technical
measure that should pass quickly without lengthy debate, since
its primary purpose is to establish a department, Canadian
Heritage, and amend all related laws accordingly. After
thoroughly examining this bill, we unfortunately must come to
the conclusion that such is not the case.
This bill is more than a purely technical measure. It would
create a department where the minister would have the
following powers, duties and functions, under clause 5:
-initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement (and promote) national
policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and values,
cultural development, heritage-
Madam Speaker, through you, I draw the attention of
members of this House to the fact that the adjective ``Canadian''
refers to the following four items in the list I just read, so it
should be taken to read as follows: ``In exercising the powers
and performing the duties and functions (assigned to the
minister by section 4), the minister shall initiate, recommend,
coordinate, implement (and promote) national policies, projects
and programs with respect to Canadian identity, Canadian
values, Canadian cultural development and Canadian heritage''.
(1225)
Accordingly, you will not be at all surprised to learn that the
Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a bill, for many reasons,
but mainly these.
First, this bill shamelessly infringes on what so far has been
considered provincial jurisdiction: culture.
Second, the steadfast obstinacy of the Canadian government
in refusing to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec society is
totally unacceptable.
Third, based on our reading of this bill and on the old saying
that the past is a guide to the future, it is far from obvious that
the Department of Canadian Heritage provides the guarantees
required to defend the French language and culture, especially
those needed for the francophone and Acadian communities in
Canada to continue to develop, flourish and even exist.
Mr. Milliken: It is in the Constitution.
Mrs. Tremblay: Let me speak, please, sir.
Fourth, Canadian culture is in danger, given the government's
inability and lack of political will to correct its predecessor's
mistakes.
As regards cultural rights, telecommunications and the
electronic highway, the government maintains the existing
division of jurisdictional responsibilities between the ministers
of Canadian Heritage and Industry.
Put simply, this means that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
will be responsible for the content, while his colleague from
Industry will be in charge of the means required, such as wires,
optical fibres, microwaves, etc. In other words, the former will
be responsible for culture, while the latter will look after the
business side of things. However, the recent experience with
Ginn Publishing makes us wonder about this arrangement. The
minister responsible for culture had only one thing to protect,
culture, but he had no weight. Consequently, the influence of the
Minister of Industry, who pledged allegiance to the U.S.,
prevailed. We think that maintaining the artificial dichotomy
created by the previous government is to recognize the
supremacy of the dollar over cultural and social values which
apparently-but only apparently-do not always seem to be the
most profitable ones. Consequently, the bill before us makes us
fear the worse as regards the future of Canadian culture.
Let us see what is meant by the provinces' jurisdiction. The
Canadian Constitution, that of 1867, gives provinces certain
powers regarding culture and communications. These powers
are included in subsection 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867,
6420
which provides that all strictly local and private matters fall
under provincial jurisdiction.
Moreover, subsection 13 of the same section recognizes that
Quebec has jurisdiction over civil law, which is a fundamental
feature of our distinct society. Also, section 93 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, confirms that provinces have
jurisdiction over education, which is undoubtedly an essential
element of the cultural sector.
Finally, section 40 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides
that where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1)
regarding education or other cultural matters, Canada shall
provide, and I quote: ``reasonable compensation to any province
to which the amendment does not apply''.
So, in reality, provincial legislatures have exclusive
jurisdiction over most cultural matters.
(1230)
The federal government has interfered in the cultural
jurisdiction only because of its spending power, and we know to
what extremes its uncontrolled spending power led it. The
federal government must withdraw from that field, because it is
using its power in a way that goes against the will
Quebecers-and at times other Canadians-have expressed for
the last 30 years.
Let us look at the historical demands of Quebec in the cultural
area. The federal government's refusal to recognize in this bill
the distinct nature of Quebec society is unacceptable. In
February 1994, in his address in reply to the throne speech, the
hon. leader of the Official Opposition said, and I quote: ``Our
cultural objectives are closely linked to our collective
objectives. Culture is what unites the men and women who want
to live together. It represents the essence and the basis of any
society. Measures and policies must be undertaken to protect
and reinforce Quebec's unique and specific culture''.
The mandate of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as defined
in clause 4(1) of this bill being considered at second stage, is as
follows: ``The powers, duties and functions of the minister
extend to and include all matters -relating to Canadian identity
and values, cultural development, heritage and areas of natural
or historical significance to the nation''.
This bill does not refer to Quebec as a distinct society nor
mention its cultural specificity. Again, Ottawa deliberately and
knowingly ignores Quebec's cultural reality by mixing it in an
hypothetical pan-Canadian cultural identity based on
bilingualism and multiculturalism, whose risks for Quebec's
language and culture have often been denounced.
In doing so, the federal government ignores the historical
demands Quebec has made these last 30 years. In 1966, Mr.
Daniel Johnson stated that Quebec must make its own decisions
concerning its cultural development, in the arts, literature and
linguistic areas. In 1969, Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand maintained
that cultural affairs were a provincial jurisdiction.
In 1971, under Bourassa, when Quebec went through its
cultural sovereignty period, Quebec asked for some changes to
the jurisdiction pertaining to culture, under the Constitution. In
1973, Quebec demanded total control over all cultural policy,
including the budgets.
In 1975-76, Quebec proposed that every province be able to
legislate exclusively in art, literature and heritage matters. In
1978, based on its primary responsibility in cultural and natural
heritage matters, Quebec asked the Canadian government to
negotiate the return to Quebec of the management of cultural
property and historical sites and property located in Quebec.
In 1985, Quebec requested that all grants and contributions
given by Ottawa, pursuant to its spending power, to individuals
and institutions involved in culture and education be approved
by the Quebec government according to its spending power.
In March 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau report said that
Quebec should have the exclusive jurisdiction and
responsibility over its social, economic and cultural
development as well as language matters. In 1991, the Allaire
report recommended that culture be Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction.
In 1992, following extended consultations and discussions
with major stakeholders, Quebec adopted its own cultural policy
statement. On this point, in 1992, Ms. Liza Frulla, Minister of
Cultural Affairs in Quebec's previous Liberal government,
speaking before the Standing Committee on Culture, said: ``As
for programs, the federal government does little or no
consulting''. And also: ``When, as often happens, it is faced with
a fait accompli, Quebec has to state its real needs after the fact''.
(1235)
As you can see with this brief historical background, Madam
Speaker, successive Quebec governments all agreed in their
demands concerning culture and communications.
Unfortunately, the federal government almost always turned a
deaf ear to these claims, giving way naturally to many a
confrontation and overlapping. This kind of overlapping was
criticized many times.
Here is what can be found in the Arpin report on the Cultural
and Arts Policy, which was submitted to Mrs. Liza
Frulla-Hébert in June 1991. ``We can conclude that there is
obvious duplication between the two levels of government in
terms of program structure, in terms of clients and even in terms
of legislative and tax measures. We can even say that this
duplication is driving up the costs. There are differences in
directions and priorities depending on the clients. Some
measures taken by the federal government go completely
against Quebec's options. The harmonization of interventions
by both levels of government has always been difficult. The
federal government has
6421
never been willing to recognize Quebec's supremacy with
regard to culture''.
It is not surprising that this government would introduce such
a bill. The Prime Minister's whole career has been centred on
one important thing: to counter the recognition of Quebec's
unique character.
Remember that during the 1980 referendum campaign, he
made a lot of promises regarding the Constitution. Since then,
he has refused any type of constitutional negotiations with
Quebec and is doing everything possible to try and grab powers
that have traditionally belonged to Quebec.
Remember also that in 1982, without warning Quebec, the
then negotiator who is Prime Minister today secretly concluded,
in the middle of the night, a constitutional accord with the
English-speaking provinces. The main purpose of this accord
was to strip Quebec of an important cultural power, namely the
power to legislate on language matters. That is why the National
Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously against this federalist
attack.
The Meech Lake accord recognized Quebec's unique
character. But an ambitious lawyer named Jean Chrétien, who
already saw himself as leader of the Liberal Party and future
Prime Minister of this country, joined forces with the known
enemies of Quebec's unique character, worked hard in secret to
kill in the womb any type of affirmation of Quebec's cultural
identity and fought ferociously against the distinct society
clause. The Prime Minister showed us then who he really is. It is
very difficult to believe today that he is and still feels like a true
Quebecer.
The refusal by Jean Chrétien's federal government to
recognize Quebec's unique character does not surprise me. It is
obvious that his government has no desire to see to it that
Quebec's culture and language can blossom within the Canadian
confederation, but that it would rather see that province's unique
character die a slow but sure death.
All Canadians witnessed recently the situation where the
Prime Minister tried to have Quebecers pay a double price
because their government had wanted to hold a referendum
according to their own specificity. That is totally unacceptable.
The referendum legislation and election rules are part of the
distinctness of Quebec. Its respect for democracy has led
Quebec to adopt, in the area of electoral equity, a legislation
which is comparable to no other in Canada or elsewhere in the
world.
This refusal by the federal government to admit the distinct
character of Quebec has serious consequences and generates all
kinds of duplication and overlapping.
(1240)
We must remember that duplication caused by the intrusion of
the federal government in the cultural area, which normally is
under provincial jurisdiction, cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds
of millions of dollars. Acknowledgement of the distinctness of
Quebec by the federal government would mean a repatriation of
the cultural sector and of all the related budgetary envelopes. It
would result in some important savings and would be more
attuned to the logic which has been fundamental to Canadian
cultural policy for many years.
How can the Governor General explain the dual principle in
terms of culture? Clause 4.(2) of the proposed legislation states
that the Minister's jurisdiction encompasses jurisdiction over,
and I quote:
(j) the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment;
In other words, for the last thirty years, Canadian cultural
policies have been aimed at limiting foreign investments in the
cultural area in order to ensure the survival of the Canadian
culture. At the same time, and according to the same
fundamental principle, that is the safeguard of the Canadian
culture, Canadian governments have tried to impose to the
various media a minimum Canadian content and ownership.
According to these principles, the Canadian government is
saying that governments must defend their culture, that it must
not be left in foreign hands or allowed to be submerged by a
foreign culture. Canada should therefore recognize the fact that
Quebec is in the best position to defend its culture, which is
different from Canada's.
When the subject is Quebec culture, all those high-sounding
principles supported, for instance, by the Canadian intellectual
elite, fall by the wayside. Then they call it isolationism,
tribalism and narrow-mindedness. When one hears such
vehement statements, one wonders why Canada, as a sign of
protest and to deny any hint of narrow-mindedness and
isolationism, does not simply put its culture into the hands of the
Americans. If managing their culture is good for Canadians,
why would it be so bad for Quebecers? Again, a double standard.
Under Canadian federalism, English Canada has the right to
defend its culture against the American invader, but Quebec
should drop its own culture, according to the bill before the
House today. They want to make us all one nation and deny there
are two. There are two nations in this country, and the act to
establish the Department of Canadian Heritage should reflect an
awareness of the situation in Quebec and the flexibility that
Quebec needs to develop and prosper.
This bill contains no guarantees for the French language and
culture in Canada. Instead of defending French language and
culture, the Department of Canadian Heritage is being used by
6422
the Canadian government to undermine French language and
culture in Canada.
The Department of Canadian Heritage administers all
programs connected with clause 4(2)(g) of the Act, and I quote:
(g) the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and
the enhancement and development of English and French linguistic minority
communities in Canada;
First of all, it is strange the legislation does not refer to the
equality of French and English. According to the department,
however, this kind of wording would be far too coercive,
although the present minister is French speaking. The
legislation therefore refers to advancement, to moving towards
a hypothetical equality.
Since for the past 125 years or more, we have been moving
nowhere at all, francophones can hardly be expected to believe
they will get there some day.
Similarly, the Canadian government is careful to avoid any
reference in this bill to recognizing and promoting the position
of Canada's two founding nations, since such recognition would
have involved genuinely defending the French language and
culture in Canada. Inequality between francophones and
anglophones in Canada is systematic. There are many examples,
and I will mention a few that struck me after I got to Ottawa.
Example No. 1: I suggest that members who receive their
weekly green list of government publications compare the
number of documents available to anglophones and
francophones. On the list, it usually says that the French version
will be available later on.
(1245)
Example No. 2: It is a fiction that a francophone can make
himself understood and obtain services in his own language
across Canada. Even some of our so-called bilingual public
servants are unable to provide services in French. Even here in
the federal government, in the national capital, once you get past
the token francophone, there is a complete vacuum: almost
everything is in English. So much so that even the Assistant
Deputy Minister for Cultural Affairs of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage is losing his francophone roots and testifies in English
before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Thousands are being assimilated every day within the very
precincts of the federal government, because they know that
English means more status, more advancement and, as a result,
better pay.
I challenge the government to order a private company that is
serious and strictly impartial-which automatically excludes
the Commissioner of Official Languages-to find out to what
extent a francophone can expect to receive the same level of
service from the federal government in his own language. If the
government refuses to take up this challenge, I am prepared to
prove my point by revealing a number of bilingual positions
held by people who do not know a word of French. When people
find out what positions are involved and which citizens are
affected by these positions, they will be flabbergasted.
Example No. 3: Contrary to their anglophone colleagues,
francophones working for the federal government must, for the
most part, work in what is for them a second language. It is a
whole class of citizens who are being assimilated. In this
respect, the federal government behaves exactly the same
way-especially in the national capital region-that private
companies did in the late 1960s in Quebec, when francophones
were not allowed to speak French even while smoking in the
cafeteria. As soon as they entered the plant, they had to speak
English. I demand an independent and earnest inquiry into this
matter. This of course excludes the Commissioner of Official
Languages.
Moreover, I am asking all French speaking civil servants,
especially those in the national capital region, who are required
to work exclusively in English, to systematically complain to
the Commissioner of Official Languages so that he can no
longer hide behind the lack or small number of complaints to
avoid taking action and severely reprimanding a government
which claims to promote French language and culture but which
forbids a significant number of its French-speaking employees
to work in their own language. I will add that it would be useful
to send me a copy of the complaints so that I can act upon them,
while preserving the complainants' anonymity, and defend in
the House of Commons French speaking civil servants who have
been deprived of their fundamental rights.
Similarly, how can it be explained that the federal public
service in Quebec, excluding the Outaouais region, is made up
of 54 per cent bilingual positions, which are truly bilingual,
whereas in Ontario, excluding the national capital region, only 8
per cent of positions are bilingual? Given the respective
minority, English in Quebec and French in Ontario, to be fair, 25
per cent of positions in the Ontario federal civil service should
be bilingual.
This shows how little the federal government cares about its
French minority and how great his concerns for its English
minority in Quebec are. As a matter of fact, the federal
government is using its civil service to impose bilingualism on
Quebec. After all, when every francophone can speak English,
who will need French?
I will remind my hon. colleagues that the promotion and
development of French and English minorities in Canada is one
of the responsibilities of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The only minority in Canada which does not have its own
schools-and when it does they do not have toilets or running
water-, which hardly has any cultural instruments, which does
not have health services or social services in its own language, is
the French-speaking minority. The maximum of services should
6423
go to this minority. If cuts are necessary, they should not be
made at the expense of the neediest.
(1250)
I am surprised that this principle, considered so sound in other
areas, should not be acceptable when it comes to francophones.
The minister wants to cut $25 million from cultural minorities in
Canada, on top of the other 5 to 8 per cent cut that the Minister of
Finance is considering and which will not spare the minorities.
The minister confirmed these cuts in a document he called
``Confidence in the future''. When I see such a title and when I
consider the content of this document, I wonder how the
French-speaking minority will make out.
Indeed, like the English-speaking minority, it must decide
itself where the axe will fall and it must cut to the same extent as
the English-speaking minority in Quebec. Yet, the minister,
who has discretionary powers, should make his savings at the
expense of those who can afford it, that is the English minority
in Quebec.
The minister must cut where the need is least, and not across
the board. The English minority has its own school system, its
health system and social services, its cultural network. So the
minister, ever respectful of social and cultural justice, should
put the burden of the cuts on those who can support them,
irrespective of the language they speak.
Moreover, all input of public money intended to promote
bilingualism: immersion classes, scholarships and so on, should
be cancelled. On the issue of cuts the minister is acting like a
doctor who can choose between giving a cardiac massage to a
patient in danger or teaching a person in very good health how to
give a cardiac massage.
The lack of logic in the distribution of jurisdictions between
the departments is a threat to Canadian culture. As I said earlier
in my statement, Bill C-53 aims at establishing legally the
Department of Canadian Heritage. Canadians could rightly
expect the government to put some order in its house. One would
have expected the government to take this opportunity to
organize a bit more strictly the various jurisdictions dealing
with heritage. But it seems to be asking too much of the Liberal
government. For instance copyright, which is directly linked to
culture, will come under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Industry as provided in Bill C-46.
Remember that the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage stated officially and unequivocally that the
adoption of phase II of the copyright legislation was a priority.
Apparently this was only baked wind since by favouring the
Department of Industry over the Department of Canadian
Heritage, the government is forcing Canadian Heritage
officials, who are defending the copyright, to submit to the
dictates of their colleagues at Industry who think first of all in
terms of dollar bills.
As a matter of fact, the latter will always be able to argue,
during the numerous interdepartmental quarrels that will ensue,
that it is their right and that they have the last word since
copyright comes under their jurisdiction. The most tragic aspect
of that story is what it underlies. The government has already
told us in the Ginn case that the cost effectiveness of culture, be
it American or another, must come before the need to protect the
Canadian culture. In other words, the Department of Industry is
willing to sell large segments of the Canadian cultural industry
to Americans.
This is why the Department of Canadian Heritage has
approved the sale of the important Canadian publishing house
Ginn Publishing to an American company. Once more, having to
choose between Canadian cultural integrity and its wish to not
displease the Americans, this government has chosen to grovel
before the Americans.
I remind members that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
tried to justify his actions by saying that there had been a verbal
agreement between a junior official and Paramount.
For obvious reasons copyright reform that the cultural
industry is waiting for so impatiently because it is crucial to its
survival will probably be shelved. The same lack of logic which
seems to be the trademark of the governing party has prevailed
in the case of telecommunications which were cut up into so
many pieces. The government could have taken the opportunity
to answer the industry's long standing request and regroup the
whole of telecommunications in the Department of Canadian
Heritage and, in so doing, make up for the mistakes of the
Campbell administration.
(1255)
Even when I arrived in Ottawa, the deputy minister told me
that this was a monumental mistake, that he intended to
recommend to the present minister that it be corrected when the
department was created. Once again, the Department of
Industry, no doubt a heavier player in the cabinet, inherited the
lion's share of jurisdiction in the field of telecommunications.
Chances are that the Liberal government, who so staunchly
defends federalism, and by extension, the duplication of
services, continued overlap, and the waste of money, will see
this division of the field of telecommunications as an
opportunity to form joint committees of civil servants seconded
from here and there. It will be an opportunity to increase the
numbers of civil servants, committees, meetings, all those
things that are a waste of taxpayers' money, but that for the
Canadian government, and its deficit in the hundreds of billions
of dollars, is the federalist thing to do.
For why simplify when it is so easy to complicate matters? In
this bill, the government, true to form, is merely ratifying
6424
reform put forward by others. What did we expect? It has done
nothing new since it came to power one year ago.
Fortunately, in the near future-and I will not mention dates,
that would only stir things up-the people of Quebec will be
asked to choose between an unlikely cultural existence as part of
Canada and a cultural existence as a sovereign state. The
federalists will point to venerable institutions like
Radio-Canada as proof of the cultural viability of the Canadian
federation.
When we know that the endangered culture in Canada is the
French culture, we cannot believe that this very federal and very
federalist imbalance will ensure its survival in the Canadian
context. No wonder that in a 1980 survey conducted by the
Fédération des jeunes Canadiens français, the reply of young
French-speaking Canadians when asked in which language they
listened to television, radio, video games and videocassettes
was ``mostly in English''. Perhaps it would not be so, had the
federal government not treated them as second-rate citizens
culturally.
If Quebec is to survive culturally, it must repatriate all
culture-related powers and monies. I should point out in that
regard that all the governments in Quebec have been asking for
just that for 30 years and that for the past 30 years, this has been
denied to everyone of them by the federal government.
Basically, at the next referendum, Quebec will have a choice
between two alternatives: cultural death within the Canadian
federation and development as a French speaking sovereign
state in North America.
That is why I would like to introduce a motion at this time.
Seconded by the hon. member for Québec, I move:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word
``That'' and substituting the following: ``Bill C-53, An Act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other Acts,
be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill
withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will take your proposal
under advisement and advise you in a moment as to its
admissibility. I would suggest that you continue with your
remarks in the meantime.
(1300)
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, the main thing about our
motion to defer second reading, to not read this bill a second
time but to refer it instead to the committee, is that it is
absolutely essential in our view that all the overlapping in the
cultural area be reviewed and really reported on to this House.
This bill, which had probably been drafted by the previous
government, meets Ms. Campbell's wishes. It must be amended
to avoid all sources of conflict, all overlapping, all unnecessary
expenditure of Canadian taxpayers' money, and particularly to
ensure that the Quebec community can see its uniqueness
reflected in this bill.
Understandably, Madam Speaker, it is impossible for a
Quebecer to feel at ease as part of the Canadian Heritage.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Your motion is
admissible, hon. member.
Before giving the floor to someone else, I would like to
remind the House that sometimes, with motions, we forget that
it is not our practice to name individual members of this House.
We can refer to them by their titles or ridings but not by name. I
did not rise but that was done several times and I would ask all
hon. members to be more careful.
Mrs. Tremblay: When I named the Prime Minister, I was
referring to him when he was a lawyer. I could not say ``Prime
Minister'' as he was just a lawyer at the time-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will check the ``blues''
but I think you are mistaken. If I am wrong, I will get back to
you, but I would first like to see the blues for that part of the
debate.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-53, an act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
Before I begin my speech I would like to state for the record
that in order for a reasonable and conscientious debate to take
place, as we are hoping to do with this bill, it would be greatly
appreciated rather than receiving an amendment 20 minutes
before rising to speak in the House that we be given an adequate
response time. This has happened continuously throughout this
session of Parliament and I do object most strenuously.
The bill is intended to establish legislatively some of the
changes to government that the member for Sherbrooke and his
Conservatives bequeathed to us in Parliament. In reality it is
nothing more than moving the tables and chairs of a bloated
bureaucracy. There is no downsizing, no cost savings. It is the
status quo once more, the consistent refrain of a Liberal
government that has become one of review, study, consult,
discuss. Quite frankly it is do nothing mumbo-jumbo.
I am going to address a number of issues today explaining
why my colleagues and I will oppose the bill. Further I will
address those changes that should be made to the bill which
would allow my Reform colleagues and I to support it. Having
just heard the Bloc amendment, in principle I can say we will
support it because it will move the bill to committee for further
extensive examination.
With respect to the bill itself we oppose it for a number of
reasons. First, it will legislatively entrench multiculturalism
spending, national enforced bilingualism and the funding of
special interest groups, all of which the Reform Party is
ideolog-
6425
ically opposed to. Second, the establishment of the department
will not streamline, will not result in downsizing and will not
result in any financial savings. In fact the bill will end up
costing Canadian taxpayers.
In June 1993 shortly after taking office then Prime Minister
Kim Campbell announced what were supposed to be sweeping
changes to government. The changes were intended to
streamline the bureaucracy to make it more efficient and more
cost effective. As the bill demonstrates, none of these objectives
were accomplished by the changes which the Progressive
Conservatives proposed.
(1305 )
The Tories had put forward a concept which was simply
window dressing in an attempt to satisfy voters who were
looking for leadership in a government that had continually
demonstrated its arrogance by showing it did not care about the
size of government, the accountability of government, the
responsibility of government, or the cost of government.
Canadians continued to believe as I do that they remain
overgoverned.
Attempting to change that impression the Tories decided to
reconstruct a smaller cabinet, to downsize government. We all
know what a good job they did to change public perception.
They did such a good job that they suffered the largest electoral
defeat in the history of the country.
Now we have the Liberals who inherited these proposed
changes to government. It is astonishing but they actually
appear satisfied with these leftover, stale Tory ideas, satisfied
enough to implement the changes left to them. It epitomizes a
government which has resigned itself to the status quo. There
are no new ideas, no creative solutions to the problems we face
and there is continued disdain for the best interests of
Canadians.
I find it difficult to understand why the Liberals have
introduced Bill C-53 at this time. The president of the Queen's
Privy Council is undertaking his program review which is
purported to be laying the groundwork for the government's
restructuring and downsizing. This review is not expected to be
completed, so it is reported, until sometime this fall. Why is the
Liberal government establishing departments prior to the
release of the results of the program review? A number of
possible answers come to mind.
Perhaps the government is not planning to make any
restructuring changes at all, but this would contradict the
Minister of Finance who has already promised there will be cuts
made in next year's budget. Perhaps there are some interim
results of the review which the government is acting upon but
has not yet made public. This action is quite conceivable given
the events in the House of the past two weeks. Perhaps the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has heard from the President of
the Privy Council about the restructuring of the Department of
Canadian Heritage but remains very content at this time to
symbolically move the tables and chairs.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is a mishmash of
responsibility, a helter-skelter of activities, programs,
departments and bureaucrats. The department is responsible for:
the Canada Council; the CBC; Telefilm Canada; the Museum of
Civilization; the Museum of Nature; the CRTC; the National
Archives; the National Arts Centre; the National Battlefields
Commission; the National Capital Commission; the National
Film Board; the National Gallery; the National Library; the
Museum of Science and Technology; the Public Service
Commission; the Advisory Council on the Status of Women;
Status of Women Canada; amateur sport and official games;
official languages; Parks Canada, historic sites and monuments;
Canadian Race Relations Foundation; Canadian Heritage
Languages Institute; multiculturalism; and copyright.
There is no strategy, no evident plan for the management of
this department. It simply serves as a grab-bag for anything that
smacks of heritage. The Liberals have spent no time planning an
effective and downsized ministry but have rushed headlong to
put Bill C-53 in place giving the minister broad and sweeping
powers.
Copyright is a good example of this poor planning. Presently
copyright is split between the Departments of Industry and
Canadian Heritage. Industry is responsible for the technical side
of copyright; heritage is responsible for copyright in so much as
it relates to heritage issues. This duplication of responsibility is
extremely inefficient.
In fact phase two of the copyright legislation was due last
spring, but it was postponed until this fall. Now we hear that
phase two of copyright will not be tabled in the House until next
spring. The duplication of the responsibility for copyright has
resulted in administrative and territorial hassles which have so
far put the legislation more than one year behind schedule. It is
this kind of inefficiency that Canadians want to see eliminated.
(1310)
Copyright is not a heritage issue. Copyright is commercially
based. It is the exclusive legal right granted for a specified
period to an author, designer, producer, or another appointed
person to print, publish, perform, film, or record original
literary, artistic or musical material. All these artistic activities
relating to copyright do fall under the auspices of the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
However, when creators apply for copyright protection they
are essentially protecting a business enterprise. Publishing and
distribution rights as well as protection under copyright laws
6426
create a commercially based business enterprise. This is a view
that I support, encouraging more artists to take a business
approach to their work. When copyright protection is acquired
or sought an artist becomes a businessman or businesswoman.
Currently our copyright laws are antiquated and completely
out of sync with other areas of the globe. There is a need for
worldwide harmonization. This becomes far removed from the
focus of Canadian heritage. In fact it moves copyright beyond
the mandate of this ministry.
Support for copyright changes will be driven by financial
considerations, irrespective of anything the Bloc Quebecois has
put forward. It will come from the business community, both
domestic and international. This scope is externally driven as
our copyright laws must interface with those that exist both
within and without the country of Canada. It first must be
appreciated that it is essential that copyright responsibilities be
delegated to only one ministry.
As I have said, copyright is a business issue which is
commercially based and externally driven. As such it should
remain within the portfolio of a ministry that deals primarily
with the performance and regulation of business and that is the
Department of Industry. This same conclusion is drawn from the
following example.
Consider a computerized accounting package that is
developed in New York, patented there and distributed
internationally, including to Canada. Whoever and wherever are
the business considerations given to the marketing of that
product.
The pirating of such computer programs is reported to cost the
computer industry some $7 billion a year in lost revenue in
North America. Whose responsibility should it be to protect the
copyright laws in this instance? Surely not the Department of
Canadian Heritage. Copyright is part of the international
information highway. It should be in the ministry that deals with
the organizations that are most affected financially by the
legislation. That department is the Department of Industry.
I repeat that I cannot support Bill C-53 at all. As I stated at the
outset the intent behind all of this departmental shuffling is to
downsize government and to save money. At the briefing for this
bill the question was put categorically: Will this bill cause any
downsizing of personnel or decreases in spending? The response
was equally categorical. It was no.
This fact alone should be sufficient to merit the bill a
unanimous rejection by all members of the House. The original
intent is now muddied because there will be no downsizing and
no reduction in expenditures. The bill failed dismally on its
original intent. How can we support a bill which is so
fundamentally flawed?
The taxpayers of Canada told the last government in no
uncertain terms what they thought of a government that does not
keep its promises, that fails to balance its books and that fails to
pay its debt.
(1315 )
We have in the bill another example of the Liberal
government failing to learn from past mistakes. The government
does not care about balancing the budget or addressing the
national debt. If it did it would begin by restructuring and
downsizing government departments.
The state of Canada's finances is shocking. The Liberal
government spends over $110 million more every day than it
generates in revenues. Instead of doing something about it, it
continues to introduce bills which do not save any money. Nor
does it cut spending. Instead it introduces legislation like Bill
C-53 that costs Canadians more and more money.
Despite this reason, which is in itself reason enough to oppose
the bill, there are others. In fact the bill should have another
name. Instead of Bill C-53 it should be short titled the special
interest funding bill.
The special interest funding bill grants to the minister the
power to spend millions and millions of hard earned taxpayer
dollars on such things as grants for thousands of special interest
groups.
Canada is in a fiscal crisis. The federal debt is more than $532
billion. What is needed is a plan to address this dire situation.
The Minister of Finance continues to ask members of the
Reform Party for constructive ideas for cutting the deficit. The
minister should wake up and pay attention because my
colleagues and I have been responding since the beginning of
Parliament with good ideas about where to find a whole lot of
spending cuts. The Minister of Finance can begin by cutting all
federal funding to promote multiculturalism in Canada.
The Reform Party supports a number of principles that I fully
endorse and believe in. We believe that the legitimate role of
government is to do for people whatever they need to have done
but cannot do at all or do as well for themselves individually or
through non-government organizations. We believe in the value
of enterprise and initiative and that governments have a
responsibility to foster and protect an environment in which
initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and
groups. We believe that public money should be regarded by
governments as funds held in trust and that governments should
practise fiscal responsibility, in particular responsibility to
balance expenditures and revenues.
Having said that, one can understand why I believe in the
principle that individuals or groups should be free to present
their cultural heritage using their own resources. The Reform
6427
Party opposes the current concept of multiculturalism and
hyphenated Canadianism pursued by the Government of
Canada. We would end funding of the multicultural 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
his deficit, he will get rid of this aspect of special interest
funding and immediately save the Canadian taxpayers some
$38.8 million a year. If we include official languages in this
special interest cash cow we can save close to one-quarter of a
billion dollars.
Multiculturalism is an idea that is fundamentally flawed and I
will spend the next few minutes explaining this point.
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, especially in the
House of Commons.
In fact members of Parliament from the Tories, the Grits and
the NDP have all used the multiculturalism policy in an
insincere, superficial and shallow manner to garner political
support from ethnic communities. There is now a new voice,
another voice of reason in the House of Commons, a Reform
voice that takes the wishes of the majority of Canadians to the
House on any and all issues. That includes expressing a
categorical rejection of the federal government spending money
on multiculturalism.
(1320)
We all want the right to retain our roots but what we have is
Trudeau's enforced multicultural scams. The costs have been
excessive. Ethnic group is pitted against ethnic group and the
country is fragmented into 1,000 consciences. Trudeau's ideas
about multiculturalism continue to contribute as a primary
factor in the erosion of federalism and Canadian unity. Catering
to special interest groups à 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 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 the agendas of special interest groups at
the expense of the taxpayer.
Before continuing, let me quote from Philip Resnick's book
Thinking English Canada as he reflects on multiculturalism and
its limits:
The emergence of multiculturalism as a force in Canadian politics was a
belated response to a sociological transformation going back to the turn of the
century. Waves of immigration pouring into Canada at that period from central,
eastern and southern Europe could not with time dilute the overwhelmingly
Anglo-Saxon character of Canada outside Quebec. The further migration of
millions to this country in the post World War II period and the removal of de
facto barriers to non-European migration in the 1960s would deeply alter the
face of Canada and its urban centres in particular. Visible minorities from the
West Indies, Central and South America, the Far East, the Indian subcontinent,
the Middle East, even Africa have taken on a new importance to a point where
they will constitute 15 per cent of the total population of Canada by the year 2000.
Audible minorities speaking over 100 different languages and mirroring a
myriad of cultures have become an integral part of the Canadian mosiac. To deny
their specificity and their presence is to play ostrich, redneck or worse.
At the same time, people of diverse backgrounds have chosen to migrate to
Canada and, in most cases to become Canadian citizens. This decision means that
they and their offspring subscribe to the political, legal, and other features that
characterize this country and cannot expect special treatment or recognition as
groups apart, nor can they simply import with them blood feuds and hatred from
countries from which they originate and give them new expression on Canadian
soil. The price of forging a new nationality out of diverse elements is a fair degree
of tolerance and goodwill all around.
Reznick continues on multiculturalism:
In one way multiculturalism opens up wonderful opportunities to tap the
diversity of Canada's ethnic heritage, itself a microcosm, more and more, of the
planet as a whole. To the degree that English Canada, moreover, has become less
European or less white, to the degree that it has shed a predominantly British
Isles tropism, it has gone beyond ethnicity in laying the foundations for national
identity.
Such developments, in Resnick's opinion, are reason for
celebration. He says:
English-Canadian society represents a remarkable amalgam of cultural
communities and people; wisely it does not require that each of these surrender
its identity in order to become Canadian. If English Canada is to develop a sense
of itself as a nation, it will be through continuing to foster such open
mindedness in the years to come.
Where I would draw the line, however, is with a multiculturalism that might
seek to deny a specifically Canadian or English-Canadian identity altogether.
In a world where nationality remains a primary source of identity-whatever
the 21st or 25th centuries may bring-English Canadians must be careful not to
deny themselves the ability to think of themselves as a nation. National identity
requires a primacy for English against any other language, a minimal sense of
our past and of the political traditions we have developed, a sense of place, here
in the northern part of North America and nowhere else. English Canada is
multicultural but it must be based on something more than multiculturalism.
(1325)
Resnick's ideas capture the need we have in Canada for a new
vision of federalism.
6428
The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam placed a question
on the Order Paper which requested for 1993 the total amount of
funds received by individuals and groups from the Department
of Multiculturalism, who these individuals were and how much
they received. The response to the question staggered me and
should sicken taxpayers.
The response from the government was a 703-page document
that detailed 1,350 grants at a cost of $25,041,939. Let me share
some of the outrageous grants that are doled out in the so-called
interests of promoting multiculturalism.
Lu Hanessian Productions received $19,254 to produce a
musical review of 27 songs and musical vignettes about human
relationships. That is 20,000 taxpayer dollars wasted on a
montage of songs that could, indeed should, have been produced
with support from the private sector.
The Ottawa-Carleton Learning Foundation spent $9,044 to
study the feasibility of offering engineers courses that integrate
first generation Canadian engineers into the profession.
Engineers by virtue of being engineers are already fairly
privileged. I doubt that they need any further special integration
courses. This is an example of the government giving grant
money to individuals who do not need it but who should seek
professional support from their peers.
The Multicultural Society of Ontario spent $40,000 on
activities related to the Montreal venue of the national tour of
many rivers. We do not even know what the activities are, but
$40,000 is a lot of money for a tour of some rivers.
The Folks Arts Council of St. Catharines Multicultural Centre
is spending $28,000 to study the needs of the community with
respect to folk arts. This $28,000 is not even going to
multicultural groups themselves. It is going into the pockets of
self-appointed experts to determine what the needs of the
community are with respect to folk art. This is ridiculous. We
have a government spending more time and more money
worrying about satisfying folk art needs than it does addressing
the debt and deficit.
The Dance Centre will spend $30,000 bringing dancers
together to meet and create a list of dance resources. Here is the
Liberal government giving $30,000 so that dancers can meet and
create a list of themselves. This money is not even going to help
dancers dance.
As I said, the grants fill 703 pages. This list of outrageous
grants goes on and on. This is a 703-page example of
government wasting taxpayers' money. These are the kinds of
special interest handouts that have to stop.
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 shows 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. For at the same time that this poll was being
done, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future reported some
uneasiness about the Canadian public's attitude toward
multiculturalism policy.
(1330 )
It stated: ``Overwhelmingly, participants told us that
reminding us of our different origins is less useful in building 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, a Decima survey was commissioned by the Canadian
Council of Christians and Jews and 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 insist 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 among the groups targeted to receive
multiculturalism grants that such grants are divisive and not
uniting.
As I mentioned, criticism of the status quo has been
increasing from the policy's supposed beneficiaries. Jimmy
Wong 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 is not
necessary. Canada has freedom and work for anyone who wants
it and that is all newcomers need''. Richmond magazine editor
Anthony Choy
6429
agrees 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.
Earlier I referred to the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future.
This royal commission is better know as the Spicer commission.
Mr. Spicer's views were well enough respected to earn him the
chair of the royal commission on Canada's future.
We should take a brief look at his views on the future of
multiculturalism. Mr. Spicer clearly saw the need for
integration. In 1987 he said: ``Isn't the time coming to stop
making a religion of mosaics altogether and to start fostering a
national spirit we can all identify with? With constant
intermarriage, for how many generations more must an English
or Ukrainian Canadian revere his presumed roots?'' Spicer went
on to accuse the government of making a virtue of a weakness, a
glory of a hindrance to nationhood. We pay people to have
foreign roots.
Two years later, just before he was given the chair of the royal
commission, he wrote an article which appeared in the Montreal
Gazette stating that state funded multiculturalism encourages
not Canadians but professional ethnics and that
multiculturalism was an anthology of terrors: Balkanization,
ethnic politicians siphoning off political protection money,
ghetto mentalities, destabilization of Quebec leading to
secession-look where we are today-reverse intolerance for
Canadian culture and institutions and a devaluation of the very
idea of a common nationality.
At first blush the armies of the politically correct would have
us think that Mr. Spicer's views are extreme and
unrepresentative. However, nothing could be further from the
truth. I referred earlier to the 1991 Angus Reid study on
multiculturalism in Canada. It is the most comprehensive and
the most recent evaluation of Canadians' attitude toward
multiculturalism. Its findings echo the comments made by Mr.
Spicer.
In a section of the study on multiculturalism policy and the
federal government in general, groups knew little of the federal
government's policy on multiculturalism and most of those who
claimed familiarity were, upon further probing, unable to
provide substantive details of the policy. Further, the study
dispels the myth that it is only the west where we find people
opposed to multiculturalism spending. The report states clearly
that there was a widespread feeling that the government should
not be involved in multiculturalism especially in Toronto and
Calgary and the notion that multiculturalism policy was
ultimately divisive was expressed clearly in Montreal, Toronto
and Calgary.
(1335 )
The study also evaluated the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation and the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, both
of which are large components of the multicultural program.
Regarding race relations, respondents did not believe that it
was the task of government to eliminate racism. They believed it
should be handled within the community or one on one.
Regarding the languages institute, respondents in Toronto,
Winnipeg and Calgary expressed the view that ultimately the
responsibility for preserving heritage languages resides at the
family or the community level.
Importantly many participants noted that funds to any of the
organizations should come from private not public funding
sources. When people begin to criticize multicultural federal
funding, the liberal left often trot out section 27 of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to justify the continuous pouring of
taxpayers dollars down the multicultural drain. Section 27 of the
charter states: ``This charter shall be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the
multicultural heritage of Canadians''.
For the Liberal left any reference to the charter is meant to be
an immediate conversation winner as it serves as their Bible.
Any reference to it is as such deemed to be incontrovertible.
However, in this instance section 27 will not save them. Peter
Hogg, understood to be the leading constitutional expert, even
by the liberal left, doubts the utility of this section, calling it a
mere rhetorical flourish.
I must share the words of another Canadian author, Richard
Ogmundson. He writes:
Times have changed and we have moved on, apparently in the most
accidental fashion, to a new social policy called multiculturalism. My visceral
understanding of this is that the old social contract, upon which I based my life,
has been terminated. It has apparently been replaced with a new social contract
that emphasizes ``old world'' cultural identifications. It would appear that the
cultural ideal has become that of a hyphenated Canadian. Apparently, one is
now supposedly to identify primarily as Aboriginal, French, British, Italian,
Sikh or whatever, and only secondary as a Canadian. In this view, it would
appear that there is no cultural space available for someone, like myself, who
wants to be a Canadian. At best, this category is considered secondary, residual
or anomalous. At worst, someone who wishes to identify as a Canadian is likely
to be considered chauvinist, reactionary, racist, and bigoted.
My visceral reaction to this sequence of events is that I have been deprived of
my primary cultural identification by the opportunists who run this country. In a
way, one might consider the multiculturalism program to be a form of cultural
genocide aimed at the destruction of a pan-Canadian identity.
I feel an acute sense of betrayal. I feel a sense of demotion. I feel that I have
been told that, by virtue of my ethnic heritage, I'm not good enough to be a
full-fledged member of Canadian society.
6430
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 to a means of 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.
This discussion of multiculturalism serves as an example of
how Bill C-53 really is a special interest funding bill. I have
shown how the federal government's interpretations of
multiculturalism support must come to an end. We can no longer
spend money we do not have financing such a notion. The Angus
Reid study from 1991 clearly showed that not only has the
multiculturalism program failed but Canadians oppose it.
Bill C-53 gives to the Minister of Canadian Heritage the
power to spend money on programs which fundamentally
undermine the unity of this country. Canadians are tired of a
status quo government. Canadians will not support or tolerate
further special interest funding and they will not support the
bill.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to join this discussion in the House today and to
speak to Bill C-53, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.
The bill is designed to give legal status to the amalgamation of
five predecessor organizations, the Secretary of State, the
Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the
Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport, the parks
departments of Canada, a component of Environment Canada,
and the cultural broadcasting and heritage components of the
Department of Communications.
(1340)
This profound reorganization reflects the government's
commitment toward more efficient and effective government.
Under the new arrangement one department is responsible for
delivering a critical mandate. The Department of Canadian
Heritage brings together many elements that define us as
Canadians, as who we really are, a multifaceted, dynamic and
diverse nation with a very rich cultural and natural heritage. Our
geography and our culture are as diversified as one could
possibly find. We should not be asking the question of who is a
real Canadian. That is answered as a matter of citizenship. We
must ask ourselves what are our Canadian values and how do we
appreciate and communicate their importance to all Canadians.
I would say that those I have just been listening to have been
communicating a tremendous degree of misinformation. I hope
my remarks will put proper information in the hands of all
Canadians.
The fact is that we have always been a multicultural,
multilingual nation, from the many native communities and
native peoples that existed here before the founding of our two
nations, that is the British and the French who came here and
later joined the aboriginal people and the Inuit. We were later
joined by people from around the world to build a bilingual and
multicultural Canada and that is our reality. This new
department is responsible, and I will quote from the legislation,
for ``the promotion of a greater understanding of human rights,
fundamental freedoms, and related values as well as
multiculturalism''.
Canada's multicultural nature is something we have already
entrenched in section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is one of which all Canadians can be proud. No one has been
asked to remove their roots. Everyone has been told they are
welcome here in Canada and please bring their culture with
them, not their ancient angry patterns.
We have codified our commitment to respect the diversity of
this nation by unanimously passing the world's first
multiculturalism act. By placing this policy, this program, this
name, whatever we wish to call it, by placing multiculturalism
within the context of the Department of Canadian Heritage we
are ensuring that this is a policy that addresses the needs of all
Canadians.
Everyone in the House, regardless of colour, race, language,
creed or religion is a Canadian by right of birth or by right of
choice if they hold a Canadian citizenship passport.
My vision of today's multiculturalism relates as a word to its
policy, to its program, how it describes our reality. It is one that
encompasses the full diversity of our people. It includes those
whose families arrived from Europe many centuries ago as well
as those who recently arrived from the four corners of the globe.
Canada reflects the world for the world is here in the nature of
our people and the citizenship that they hold.
The mandated program is to provide and promote a greater
sense of intercultural and interracial understanding and that is
not laissez-faireism. That is active understanding of who we
are, how we came to be, and an appreciation of the uniqueness of
this Canadian mosaic. That is what I would have liked to have
heard from across the floor. It is most unfortunate that was not
the language of the discourse.
We must all recognize that in order to achieve this goal of
social cohesion, social understanding and acceptance, the
government is only spending $1 per year per Canadian. It is
barely enough I believe to ensure social cohesion, social
harmony and the great country that we are.
6431
[Translation]
It is a broad but essential mandate, if we want to consolidate
the elements needed to foster a sense of Canadian identity. The
place of multiculturalism in this context shows the paramount
importance of this policy in strengthening our national identity.
(1345)
A great deal has been said about the situations that caused
deep disagreements within our society. The so-called break-up
of the family, the greater visibility of our multicultural
population, the prolonged recession from which we are only
now emerging have all led us to ponder who we are and what we
represent, even though the United Nations still rates our country
as the best in the world.
The Department of Canadian Heritage was created to promote
understanding of our diversity, active involvement in Canadian
society and knowledge of our cultural and natural wealth. It
carries out this mandate by implementing policies and programs
designed to help resolve disagreements, clear up
misunderstandings and make us proud of our personal and
national identity.
[English]
The increasing diversity of our population is only one of the
dramatic changes that we are facing. Efforts to deal with these
demographic changes are occurring in the face of a number of
destabilizing and worrisome dilemmas: world recession,
structural changes in the economy, poverty, job losses and other
global moves, youth alienation and the difficulty of achieving
political consensus on major issues.
Our response to these challenges demands adjustment by and
for our people, both as individuals and in their national
institutions. Achieving progress can be a daunting task but a
worthy challenge.
For example, since taking on the responsibility of Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism and travelling across this land and
speaking with the people, I have become aware as never before
that nation building in a culturally diverse society is a
formidable but necessary challenge. The importance of this task
must not be underestimated because it involves reconciling
cultural diversity with national goals, with national identity. It
involves ensuring respect, understanding and appreciation for
differences. It involves ensuring that the tapestry which we have
woven together with its multicultural colours and its uneven
surface is one to be appreciated and one to be admired, with the
overwhelming need to ensure that national unity is understood
as a common value of which we can be very proud, talking about
a national unity, talking about a sense of pride.
I listened earlier to some of the remarks and I do not feel there
is a sense of betrayal. I certainly do not feel like a fractionated or
hyphenated or disembowelled individual who has to cut off my
roots and sense of belonging in order to have a sense of pride and
belonging in order to be seen as a Canadian with all the
attributes I bring in that personality and in that persona.
I am just not a hyphenated Canadian. I am a Canadian who is
proud of her cultural heritage. In Quebec I am a Montrealer. In
Canada I am a Quebecer and around the world I am a Canadian.
If anyone asks me it is with pride that I say I am a Canadian
almost anywhere in this world including in my own city or
province.
Let me make it quite clear that none of those identities is
incompatible with the strong sense of national identity and
pride. It is very much what I am. It is very much that which I am
first and foremost, a proud daughter with Jewish roots. I am a
mother. I am a grandmother. I share my care, my love and
concern and can spread it equally, evenly and as need be. For me
that is no conflict. For Canadians, I have spoken to all origins.
Whether Italian, Greek, Hungarian, Romanian, from Sri Lanka,
Indo-Canadians, whether they are Chinese or Chilean, Catholic,
Protestant, Muslim or Jewish, this is not the issue.
(1350 )
The issue is that there is a social contract in Canada that says
we share together, learn together, appreciate what we have here
and protect it. It is like a very tender young flower. It is a
democracy that is messy sometimes but it is the finest thing in
the world. We have every reason to be proud of our families, our
roots, our heritage. It is through the family and through
volunteerism and with participation with the state and the
institutions and structures of the state that we can accomplish
the kind of country we have all inherited, are inspired by and
have a responsibility to protect.
That is why we work closely and in partnership with other
levels of government and with key stakeholders in the
community. By bringing together various institutions we work
to assist them in becoming more responsive to the access needs
of our people, to the sense of belonging, to the need for
employment and housing, and respect in our health institutions
and all aspects of our daily living tasks. By working as
mainstream Canadians with newly emerging Canadians as well
as others we help to build a Canada that is inclusive of all
people.
Our partnership with organizations such as the Canadian
Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police, the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, the
Conference Board of Canada, Multicultural Canada, the
Canadian Advertising Foundation, the Asia-Pacific
Foundation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and as
well with the mayors of major cities we work and give our funds
to these organiza-
6432
tions in shared partnership as leverage so that we can promote a
better understanding and destroy myths and stereotypes such as
have been promoted from across this floor this morning.
We work with these partners to break down prejudice,
misinformation, disinformation and to ensure fairness and
equality for all people, to build understanding and create that
sense of belonging.
[Translation]
Fortunately, Canada's experience in the last 20 years
generally offers a positive viewpoint on multiculturalism
issues, on bringing cultural communities together. What is
needed to bridge the gap between new arrivals and the Canadian
community receiving them is to build a society based on a
consensus about what constitutes the common good for people
with diverse interests, backgrounds, origins and beliefs; give
everyone a role to play in the big issues; and identify peaceful
solutions to potentially explosive problems.
In short, social peace is behind all the efforts we make through
multiculturalism goals and strategies.
[English]
I have travelled across the country. I have listened sometimes
to the misunderstanding but I have listened to the people and
have heard what they have said about our diversity. I have heard
about the economic advantage of a diverse population,
advantages when we have such increases in foreign trade. We
have also learned that when business is responsive to and
reflective of its diversity it can be profitable as well.
The advertising council's colour your money study showed
that by producing representative advertising companies such as
the Bay, Zellers and McDonald's increased their revenues
because people felt welcome. They felt they could be received
behind the counter and were perceived as clients when the
advertising was put out; they belonged as Canadians and would
be served by Canadians.
[Translation]
This and other experiences have convinced me that the
programs and policies under my responsibility are a great help
in dealing with the problems facing us as a country with a very
diverse population comprised of many different groups and
peoples.
As you know, at least 46 different countries and ethnic
communities are represented in my riding of Mount Royal,
while Canada has over 100 ethnic communities.
(1355)
[English]
Frank Rutter, a foreign affairs writer for the Vancouver Sun,
has described multiculturalism as sweeping the world and as
trying to balance a multicultural heritage with a national soul.
The implications of not achieving that balance are very
worrisome, if not horrific. We only have to look at what is
happening in the world around us to see the results of not trying
to reconcile different realities of diversity and ensuring a sense
of unity, a sense of belonging and a sense of pride.
[Translation]
I stated the obvious because Canada must clearly approach the
issue of cultural diversity with rigour, sensitivity and
broad-mindedness or be willing to suffer the consequences. The
approach adopted by our country in dealing with
multiculturalism is an asset that has allowed us to avoid the
ethnic tensions plaguing other countries.
[English]
Let us realize the real picture of whom we are today.
Forty-two per cent of all Canadians have origins other than
British and French. With respect to our people of colour, those
statistics are often referred to in Statistics Canada reports as
visible minorities in Canada. Nationally these were 6 per cent in
1986, 10 per cent by the year 2000. In our major cities, 17 per
cent in 1986 and 30 per cent by the year 2000. However in
Toronto alone there will be approximately 50 per cent
non-English and non-French backgrounds with 30 per cent
visible minorities. Other major Canadian cities are undergoing
similar changes.
Therefore the increasing diversity of Canada has broad
ranging implications. Given an increasingly multicultural
reality, Canadian governments and institutions face a number of
practical challenges.
Let me close this part of my remarks by saying that fostering a
national sense of belonging does not mean asking people to cut
off their roots. It does not mean asking mainstream Canadians to
forget their origins. It means telling, asking, expecting,
teaching, training and educating so that we have an appreciation
of where we started, with aboriginal, multicultural, multilingual
peoples, whom we added and how we have lived together in
peace and understanding.
I would hope that as I continue talking about the Canadian
mosaic people will learn and appreciate the role that we play for
a dollar a year for each Canadian.
We have to talk about how we ensure and promote growth and
understanding of our diversity while recognizing our common
values. I believe we have to find and implement effective ways
to eliminate discrimination, prejudice, racism and bigotry based
on the colour of our skin, our religious beliefs or our cultural
differences. We have to learn how to encourage individuals and
institutions to make a commitment to work toward eliminating
and erasing racism.
6433
These are all programs and projects which we undertake
jointly with community groups to ensure that people can get
together to understand and know each other in a much more
neighbourly way.
How to involve people in welcoming and facilitating the
integration-
The Speaker: We will await the hon. member's words with
great anticipation.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6433
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Bosnia, Warrant Officer Tom
Martineau, who is serving in central Bosnia with the Lord
Strathcona's Horse Battle Group, was injured during an
exchange of fire between Bosnian government and Bosnian Serb
forces.
Warrant Officer Martineau received a single gunshot wound
to his left side while working at an observation post in the
Bosnian Serb side of the confrontation line about eight
kilometres east of Visoko. He was observing warring faction
activity from a Cougar armoured vehicle when he was struck
during an exchange of fire between the opposing sides. We are
very proud of the useful work that our Canadian forces are doing
on the international scene.
Warrant Officer Martineau is currently in the excellent care of
Canadian forces medical personnel at Camp Visoko and is listed
in stable condition.
I know that all members of the House of Commons here in
Canada will want to join with me in extending our best wishes to
Warrant Office Martineau and his family during this difficult
time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, we learned
today that companies, banks and unions contributed over $25
million to finance the national Liberal, Reform, Conservative
and New Democratic parties. Big corporations contributed $25
million to ensure that their interests are well represented here in
the House of Commons.
The Bloc Quebecois for its part received contributions only
from the people and is accountable only to them.
For the sake of the openness and democratic values which
guide us, I call on the political parties in Canada to be concerned
above all with the people's interests and to refuse contributions
from party sponsors. Members of Parliament ultimately owe
their loyalty to the people and not to big corporations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in
May I received an appeal from 16 of the high school staff at
Lumby, B.C., for assistance in deterring criminal acts such as
those committed against Rodney Bell, an Oyama who had his
skull smashed by an axe wielding youth, or an RCMP officer
who was crippled for life after he was intentionally struck by a
vehicle driven by adolescents.
My constituents are asking what the government is going to
do about the non-enforcement of our laws, particularly against
young offenders.
In their own words the Liberals stated in their red ink book
that ``dealing with the growing incidence of violent crime will
be a priority for a Liberal government''.
While the people of Canada are calling for crime control this
government instead has moved toward further regulation of
guns owned by responsible citizens.
Specifically these teachers and staff of Lumby ask the Liberal
government to consider caning as a viable option for legislation.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, the House
passed Bill C-212 that recognized hockey and lacrosse as
national sports. Hockey is a sport that unites Canadians
regardless of region. Canadians have a special relationship with
hockey and we are very disturbed over this strike.
I do not stand alone in the House when I say that the revenues
and salaries of hockey players and owners are sufficient.
League revenues increased 22 per cent last year from $549
million to $700 million. Salaries increased by 19 per cent. Small
markets like Winnipeg are losing money and jobs. Markets like
that cannot sustain a strike.
Fifteen to eighteen hundred jobs are directly attributed to the
Winnipeg Jets and over $50 million is injected into the local
economy of Winnipeg.
6434
Stop this madness. Lock yourselves in a room. Negotiate an
agreement and save five small franchise teams in Canada. Do
not destroy the livelihood of many ordinary Canadians who
depend on sport for income.
Last, I encourage the players and owners to get back to the
table, stop the lockout and give hockey back to ordinary
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
this opportunity to congratulate the Body Shop, the Canadian
Nature Federation, and the Sierra Defence Fund for their
national campaign which begins today to urge the federal
government to enact legislation which will protect Canada's
endangered species.
It will be important for all of us to pick up the call begun by
these groups. In order for future generations to have a
sustainable environment we must do everything within our
power to protect species, both plant and animal, which are in
danger of becoming extinct.
More and more people all over the world have begun to realize
over the last few years just how fragile our environment is. I
want to thank these groups for reminding us that the time to take
action is now.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, four
years ago today saw the dawn of German unity, when the
governments of east and west Germany forged one republic.
Heralded by the fall of the Berlin wall, the coming together of
the two halves of that nation hastened the end of the cold war.
The process was not easy. The political differences which
separated the two halves were formidable. But the will to
achieve a united nationhood and to act on it was stronger. Unity
of effort is no less important than unity of purpose.
I call on my colleagues to join in today's celebration of
German Unity Day. It marks the triumph of a people's freedom
to live in a democracy and the end of a tragic part of German
history.
May we find inspiration in the meaning of this day and pledge
to uphold the ideals of a Canada united in vision, purpose and
effort and thereby secure the strength, prosperity and freedom of
our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, the
consultations by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to
set immigration and refugee policy are like this government's
other consultations: while the people are being consulted, the
real decisions are made by a small group chosen by the minister.
The minister's questionable strategy of openness clearly
shows that he intends to keep the major stakeholders, namely the
organizations which defend the interests of immigrants and
refugees, away from the implementation of this policy.
How can the minister claim to really consult the people when
the decisions are made by a chosen few? When will the
government really act openly? Those are the real questions that
the minister will have to answer sooner or later.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker,
every year through RRSPs many Canadians manage to put aside
a small portion of their income for retirement.
This nest egg does not mean they are wealthy. But it does
represent their hard work and gives them some assurance about
their future. Today that nest egg is in jeopardy of being taxed
because of a government which cannot find a better way to
balance the budget.
Instead of encouraging Canadians to provide for themselves,
taxation of RRSPs in effect says, do not earn, do not save, do not
invest and do not plan for retirement.
To tax our RRSPs is to tax our future. It is a short-sighted
solution that will provide for the migration of Canadians and
their money out of this country.
On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan Centre I urge the
government to listen to Canadians. They are tax weary and they
are angry.
Today the debt of Canada stands at $532.8 billion.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I stand today
to congratulate a dedicated group of public servants who are
striving for excellence. The Latin American and Caribbean
Trade Division, Ambassador David Winfield and the staff in our
Canadian Embassy in Mexico are creating Canadian jobs.
6435
I recently attended the opening of the first Canadian Business
Centre abroad and I am proud of this smart initiative. This pilot
project in Mexico provides Canadian businesses with a venue to
showcase their products through exhibitions, trade shows,
conferences and seminars. The centre offers short term office
space, computer, secretarial and translation services.
The latest trade figures between Canada and Mexico are at an
all time high. The total two-way trade for the first six months of
1994 is up 40 per cent over the same period for 1993 for a total of
$2.8 billion. This translates into 12,180 Canadian jobs annually.
[Translation]
Investing in foreign affairs and international trade is one of
the best ways to create jobs and help Canada prosper.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, yesterday 25
Canadian communities walked the fourth annual Walk for AIDS
at the start of AIDS Awareness Week. In fact our own Minister
of Health was walking for AIDS in the city of Montreal.
More than 1,000 people from the region in which I live took to
the streets of downtown Ottawa, raising over $150,000 for
prevention and support services for local AIDS victims.
Throughout the week the Canadian AIDS memorial quilt will
be on display at the Ottawa-Carleton regional headquarters. A
benefit concert of traditional, contemporary and spiritual music
by the Canadian Centennial Choir will be presented on Thursday
night at St. Joseph's Church on Laurier Avenue. The week will
culminate in a 7 p.m. vigil at RMOC headquarters in
remembrance of those who have lost their lives to AIDS.
(1410)
I offer my best wishes to those who have organized these
events and I congratulate all those who have and will be
participating in AIDS Awareness Week.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, today Canada and countries around the world celebrate
Universal Children's Day, a day designated by the UN to
recognize the rights of children everywhere.
I pay tribute to Canada's children and highlight the many
Third World children in need of assistance. I particularly point
to PLAN International Canada, formerly Foster Parents Plan, a
group dedicated to lifting children from poverty around the
world.
To commemorate Universal Children's Day, PLAN today
unveils an African children's toy exhibit at the Ontario Science
Centre. These toys, made from recycled material by African
children, demonstrate the challenges they face and the ingenuity
they possess.
On behalf of the chair of PLAN's board of directors, a
constituent of mine, I congratulate the some 611 foster parents
of Fredericton-York-Sunbury for helping better the lives of
roughly 677 children. There is no better time than today to
encourage our constituents to support children everywhere.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, first in
Kingston and now in Longlac, in northern Ontario,
francophones are being denied their rights as taxpayers and
French speaking citizens.
The English majority trustees on the school board just
blocked the construction of a combined French school and
community centre. Francophones in Longlac have been
demanding this high school for six years now. According to the
daily newspaper Le Droit, and I quote: ``The ill will of
anglophones in Longlac towards their French speaking fellow
citizens is blinding them''. The chairman of the French section
of the school board is equally blunt: ``This is an anti-French
vote''.
Mr. Speaker, this is what one might call pulling a Kingston,
and yet this government touts the success of its bilingualism
policy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is
giving Canadians a real voice in government. This evening we
are going to experience the first ever, Canada-wide, live,
nationally televised, interactive electronic town hall meeting.
It is true that technologically we are limited to communities
receiving cable television and to people who have touch tone
phones, but this is a most important genesis of an idea whose
time has come. We are a democracy and it is time that our
citizens are heard between elections as well as at elections.
At a time when we are being pressured into redefining
Canada, the outcome of which will affect us all profoundly, I
urge all members of the House, as I urge all Canadians, to invest
the $1 user pay fee to express their views on the subject of
national unity. For French dial 1-900-451-4032. For English
dial 1-900-451-4841.
6436
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, the United Nations has designated the first Monday in
October as World Habitat Day.
World Habitat Day is marked through the efforts of the United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements. In this, the International
Year of the Family, it is fitting that this year's theme for World
Habitat Day is called ``Home and the Family''.
The objective of World Habitat Day is to focus special
attention on shelter. The conditions under which we live affect
our health, productivity and sense of well-being.
[Translation]
Home is not only a physical space; it is also a symbol of
warmth, security and identity.
[English]
In other words, home is where the heart is. Canada is among
the best housed nations in the world, thanks to organizations like
CMHC. Not all are so fortunate however. Over one billion of the
world's population are inadequately housed and over one
hundred million are absolutely homeless.
We still have work to do here in Canada to ensure all men,
women and children have decent shelter. Let us mark World
Habitat Day by renewing our commitment to this cause.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, this week
the government will be bringing forward its long-awaited social
policy reform paper. Certainly poverty is increasing in this
country, not decreasing, and there needs to be real change in the
way that we deal with these issues.
However, I would say that while we see lots of hype about
welfare reforms, let us take a look at whose welfare really needs
reform. Each year thousands of corporate companies get away
with paying no income tax and receive millions of dollars in tax
credits.
(1415 )
There are no means or income tests for the corporate sector as
there are for those on unemployment insurance or welfare.
In 1992, 7 per cent of tax revenues came from corporate
income tax and 48 per cent came from personal income taxes.
Poverty is on the increase in this country and the Liberal
government has decided to hit the middle class yet again through
social policy reform while continuing to let the corporations off
scot-free.
Take the Auditor General's recommendations. Taxing
offshore profits is $600 million and taxing private family trusts
is another $400 million.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, climate change represents a real and growing threat to
Canada's economy. It threatens our forestry, fishing and
agricultural industries, worth over $50 billion. The unabated
growth in greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more frequent
and severe weather events costing billions of dollars for all
Canadians.
The government recognizes the nature of the threat and is
committed to having an action program in place on greenhouse
gas emissions by 1995. Furthermore, Canada is committed to
table its plan. A draft report on options for such action will be
before the Canadian public. Consultations are being held this
week and next week and comments collected then will be
incorporated into the report.
Once a credible program for stabilization is achieved the
government will work with urban and provincial governments
with the aim of reducing emissions. Climate change represents a
tremendous opportunity for Canadians to propose creative and
credible solutions. Our children's children are looking to us. Let
us not let them down.
_____________________________________________
6436
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's
office said in a rather offhand way, and I quote: ``The invitation
to participate in the trade mission to China was addressed
exclusively to the Premier of Quebec''. The federal government
would not let Mr. Parizeau be replaced by one of his ministers,
and the same spokesperson for the Prime Minister even let
Quebec know, somewhat contemptuously, that it was not as easy
as ordering pizza.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether her
government would reconsider its decision and let Mr. Parizeau,
who obviously has more pressing matters to attend to, send one
of his ministers instead.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we assume the premier of
Quebec can accept the invitation since he was elected by
Quebecers on a promise of economic growth. He was invited to
take part as premier like all the other premiers, and we are
waiting for him to reply whether he will play on Team Canada.
6437
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, one wonders since when does the federal government
have the right to set the agendas of provincial premiers?
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since Bob Rae may
have to decline as well, what Team Canada will look like if
neither Quebec nor Ontario are on the team?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the team Canada is sending
to the Orient includes a number of outstanding members of the
business community in Quebec, including Laurent Beaudoin
and Guy Saint-Pierre, who both accepted the invitation. We are
still waiting for the Premier of Quebec to decide that the
invitation extended by the Prime Minister of Canada is
important enough for him to take part as Premier.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, how can the Prime Minister of Canada expect us to take
his commitment to co-operate with the new Quebec government
seriously, when at the first opportunity, his attitude is so
uncompromising and so inflexible that he refuses to let Mr.
Parizeau be replaced by one of his senior ministers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the main question is
that if the Premier of Quebec was elected on a promise of
economic growth, is it important enough to him to play on Team
Canada?
(1420)
I think none of the other Premiers were given an opportunity
to be replaced, not the premier of Ontario nor the premier of
Alberta nor the Premier of British Columbia, because we wanted
a delegation at the first ministers' level. That is important, Mr.
Speaker.
[English]
This effort by Team Canada is an effort at the prime
ministerial level. We do not want substitutes because we want
Team Canada to be represented by the first ministers across the
country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last week, in reply to a question, the minister claimed that her
department was involved in the preparation and monitoring of
the operation to clean up sediments contaminated by PCBs in the
St. Lawrence River, across from the city of Massena. This
operation has in fact been put on hold because of serious safety
problems.
Will the minister confirm the direct involvement of her
department in this extremely delicate operation, or is her
department merely receiving and blindly approving plans made
by American authorities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, last week, I personally
contacted the Canadian government representative regarding
this issue. Indeed, I was informed that the curtain is not working
and that the operation has been delayed. The Canadian Minister
of the Environment was on hand every day. I personally wrote to
the U.S. EPA administrator to ensure that no operation would be
undertaken in Massena without our approval.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, how can
the minister claim that her department is fully involved in the
clean-up operation when a memo provided by her department to
SVP and dated September 23 indicates that no emergency plan,
in case of a disaster, had yet been made public, this on the eve of
the PCB clean-up?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the note from my ministry
made it quite clear that the Canadian government was on site and
that the curtain which was supposed to contain the sediment was
not functioning. That is the reason the operation did not begin.
I personally contacted the administrator of the EP in the
United States to advise her that the Canadian government was
taking the very firm position that no dredging would go forth
until we were satisfied that the technology was going to protect
the environment and the health of Canadians.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, the
well orchestrated leaks to the media from the ministry of human
resources leaves little doubt as to the contents of the social
policy discussion paper.
The Deputy Prime Minister says this social policy exercise
will not go to reduce the deficit. Yet the finance minister says:
``It does not take a genius to figure out that the government will
have to slash spending to meet its deficit cutting targets''.
Given that two-thirds of all spending after interest is on social
programs, how does the government square these two
statements?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question.
The hon. member has to understand that Canada's social
security system dates back almost 40 years. There have been
6438
many changes in our system. I think this will give the hon.
member an opportunity to debate fundamental issues.
One thing is certain however. The hon. member can rest
assured that this government on this side of the House is not
advocating the lion's bite as stated by the Reform Party to cut
$15 billion, taking away student programs, taking away seniors'
programs, taking away all the programs Canadians have grown
accustomed to.
Early on in the debate it was quite clear that the Reform Party
only cares about who is paying. The Bloc Quebecois only cares
about who controls. The only people who truly care about the
quality of life of Canadians is the Liberal Party.
(1425 )
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker,
members opposite lose no opportunity to distort what Reform
says on social programs.
Reform's deficit elimination plan calls for reductions in
transfers to provinces and now so does the government's social
policy paper. For years Reformers have proposed restoring UI to
its original role as a short term insurance support in case of job
loss and now so does the government policy paper. For years
Reformers have proposed a voucher system for distributing
federal education dollars and now so does the government's
policy paper.
I ask the minister this: When did the government stop reading
its red book and start reading the Reform policy blue book?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member once again for her question. I want to
clearly outline to her that we have not tabled the discussion
paper yet. I think it is only a couple of days away. She can wait.
The member can rest assured that there is only one measuring
stick on this side of the House, the discussion paper. The
implementation of the legislation thereafter will only be
successful if it improves the quality of life for Canadians. That
is what this government is all about.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I only
wish that we could hear about these proposals here first instead
of in the media. The government has obviously been reading the
Reform policy book but it has been reading it backward. We
recommend reductions to social spending only after there have
been cuts in other areas, including reductions in subsidies to
businesses, interest groups, crown corporations, government
operations and Parliament itself.
Now that the government is proposing cuts how long will
Canadians have to wait for cuts to MPs' pension plans?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has to understand that far too many of our
children live in poverty, far too many of our students are having
a hard time finding that very first important job, far too many of
our workers are having problems with the transition from work
to work. The social security review is about bringing positive
change to the lives of Canadians and I am sure that the hon.
member will participate in this historic debate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. During the
Gynaecologists and Obstetricians Conference held in Montreal
last week, the physicians confirmed they have on occasion
treated young girls suffering from the after-effects of genital
mutilations done right here in Canada.
These statements show that excisions and infibulations are
more widespread than we would have thought. Is the Deputy
Prime Minister still of the opinion that the current provisions of
the Criminal Code are sufficient, as the Minister of Justice says?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said
in this House, and it is our opinion, that according to the
Criminal Code, in Canada, to mutilate a person's genitalia is a
criminal act. However, the Minister of Justice also agreed to
make sure the Criminal Code was properly enforced in the case
of genital mutilation and if not, he said he could take other
actions. He will be presenting a report to this House on that
issue.
In Canada, it is already a crime for anybody, including a
physician, to perform an operation mutilating a girl's genitalia.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, is the
Deputy Prime Minister not of the opinion that the best way to put
a stop to those inhuman practices is to criminalize them through
specific clauses leaving no possible margin for doubt?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): There is no doubt possible. It is definitely
against the law as it stands today. In Canada, it is a crime to carry
out any mutilation of a woman's or a girl's genitalia. The
minister has promised to make sure the Criminal Code is
properly enforced. It is already a matter of fact that in Canada
nobody has the right to mutilate women's genitalia.
6439
(1430)
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, last week
was a good week for intoxicated criminals. Thanks to the
Supreme Court, drinking and driving may hold less serious
consequences and extreme drunkenness is now a legitimate
excuse for rape.
Does the Minister of Justice agree with these appalling
decisions? If not, what does he plan to about them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised a serious point. The decision has
concerned many Canadians. I will bring her question to the
attention of the Minister of Justice. I am sure he has this matter
under review.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, the House
and the country are getting tired of reviews.
A sane society should move toward zero tolerance of drinking
and driving, not away from it. A sane society puts rape victims
ahead of rapists.
Will the minister urge upon his government a constitutional
amendment or the use of the notwithstanding clause to ensure
that when the rights of victims and the rights of criminals
conflict that the rights of the victim will always prevail?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice is deeply troubled by the
decision in the sexual assault case involving alcohol. He is
looking into it, as is the department. The minister assures the
House that the Department of Justice will come forward with its
report on this very important situation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On
September 22, Canadian Pacific put out a proposal to buy all of
the CN rail network east of Winnipeg. The federal government
responded on September 29 by setting up a parliamentary task
force on the privatization of Canadian National.
Does the minister not think he was cavalier announcing the
creation of such a task force just days before the
federal-provincial conference of transport ministers, while the
future of rail transport depends to a large extent on its
connection with highway transport, which comes under
provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that the
task force in question is not a parliamentary one, but rather a
group of government members who were asked to examine the
possibility of marketing Canadian National activities across the
country.
Naturally, if the government received a counter-proposal
from CP, such a proposal would have for effect, if accepted, to
privatize all railway operations in eastern Canada, east of
Winnipeg. I think that we must make sure we are in a position to
submit -not only to the government and to Parliament, but to
all Canadians- any alternative contained in the unsolicited
proposal from Canadian Pacific.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport again.
Why did the minister not give directly to the Standing
Committee on Transport, in which the opposition is represented,
the mandate of reviewing the CN privatization plan, instead of
assigning this responsibility to a special task force made up
exclusively of Liberal members?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that the last thing we would want to do, whether
as a minister or government, would be to tell the Standing
Committee on Transport what to do.
As my hon. colleague and my friends from the Reform Party
know-they announced just last Friday that the committee
would be holding hearings on airport transfer, on the air
navigation system and on bilateral talks with the United States;
this makes for a very busy schedule- nothing stops this
parliamentary committee on transport from reorganizing its
schedule to review the whole issue of how the railway system is
going to operate in Canada. Nothing is stopping it from doing
that.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, another two
million fish are missing from the Fraser River. That brings the
total this year to well over three million sockeye.
(1435 )
Will the minister allow his management of the west coast
fishery to come under the scrutiny of a judicial inquiry, which
can subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the estimates of
salmon provided to both Canada and the United States for our
respective management of these fisheries is provided by the
Pacific Salmon Commission. This is a bilateral commission
6440
which is jointly funded and jointly authorized by both countries
and is independent of both countries.
He also knows full well that on Friday past the executive
secretary of the Pacific Salmon Commission acknowledged the
counting procedures of the commission and that the numbers
which are provided to both countries are off this year. The
commission announced its own internal review.
He should know as well that this morning this same
commission held a press conference in Vancouver. The
commission expressed its deep regret and offered to co-operate
fully with the independent review already announced by this
government last week.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, the review the
minister refers to is not an independent review. It is a review by
people with deep DFO connections. We had an in house inquiry
after the disaster in 1992 and obviously it proved nothing.
We need an independent judicial inquiry which would
consider not only the scientific evidence but also the human
factor, the management of the resource. Why will the minister
not commit to an independent judicial inquiry?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has committed to an independent inquiry
led by Dr. LeBlond of the University of British Columbia. Also
included are Mr. Joe Scrimger, an acoustics expert from British
Columbia; Dr. Dick Routledge from Simon Fraser University;
Lee Alverson, a scientist from the United States; and the Hon.
John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Heritage. Last
Friday, six radio stations across Quebec closed when the AM
networks of Radio Mutuel and Télémédia merged, resulting in
the sudden lay-off of over a hundred news employees.
Does the Minister of Heritage agree with the merger of Radio
Mutuel and Télémédia, given that it concentrates the news
media in Quebec's regions?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, we are never glad when jobs are lost anywhere. What I
can say is that at last report, the CRTC received an application
for this merger from Télémédia and Radio Mutuel. The case is
before the CRTC, which will hold public hearings; under the
circumstances, I think that it would be inappropriate for the
Minister of Heritage to comment.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, can the Minister of Heritage promise in this House to
do what is necessary to have the CRTC hold these hearings as
soon as possible so that we can get all the facts on this merger
and its possible consequences?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Heritage cannot dictate to an
independent body like the CRTC, which is also a regulatory
agency. It would be quite inappropriate for the Minister of
Heritage to tell it what to do.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the Minister of the Environment on last week's
announcement on the toxic substances policy in order to protect
human health and the ecosystem.
When will the minister put into effect the important measures
she announced regarding pesticides? How long will it take
before the overall policy is fully implemented?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I know he has particular interest in toxins that are
killing wildlife and endangering human health. That is the
reason we have moved with the toxics framework.
We have asked for a 60-day period for public comment. We
hope to receive those comments by the end of November with
the intention of introducing implementing legislation in the
early spring.
* * *
(1440 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, in one
year we have come full circle. Last week a Liberal government
made a payment to the Government of Quebec for additional
referendum costs and in justifying its decision based it on the
honour and truthfulness of Brian Mulroney. My question is for
the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Apparently it was the practice of the previous government to
commit millions of dollars on the basis of verbal agreements. If
that is what the government is saying, will the minister admit
that is not appropriate? In the future will cabinet ministers only
make these commitments with full and written documentation
and with formal cabinet authorization?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we were simply following a
6441
statement made by the hon. member in question when he stated
on September 29: ``The federal government is certainly morally
obligated to fulfil its agreement''.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should read the rest of the quote. If government
members cannot justify this decision, the Reform Party is
certainly not going to do it for them.
How can the government justify the inconsistency of paying
$34.5 million to the Government of Quebec on the basis of a
vague verbal conversation some two years ago when it refuses
the right of due process through the courts to Canadian
companies that have written contracts with the government to
develop terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
it is quite a simple matter.
The hon. member is taking the position of his transport critic
who said: ``There is nothing wrong with the Pearson deal''. That
is what the member of the Reform Party who represents their
position on transportation matters said: ``There is nothing
wrong with the Pearson deal''. Anybody over there who believes
that will never understand anything I tell them about the Pearson
deal.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, at the
Acadian World Congress, the heritage minister announced that
the Cabinet had just approved an overall policy on the
development of francophone and Acadian communities.
However, what was announced is nothing more than the
minister's usual commitment to fulfil his own obligations.
Unfortunately, the minister did not put in place a real
comprehensive policy for developing the francophone
community.
While the heritage minister is wasting time on the merits of
his action plan, francophones' rights continue to be flouted.
How does he account for the systematic obstruction of Ontario
francophones' educational rights as is the case in Kingston and
Longlac?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the heritage minister is not stalling
anything. The previous government, a Conservative
government, had commitments under the Official Languages
Act that it never honoured. So how could a government that
respects minorities and takes all necessary steps to enforce the
law be accused of stalling? If that is what you accuse it of, I do
not understand your language at all.
Of course, some provincial governments do not behave like
the federal government. They have responsibilities to those they
must serve, particularly in the field of education. I am very
interested to hear the Bloc ask a question in which it wants the
federal government to get involved in the field of education.
Now I have heard it all!
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not agree that the tremendous difficulties experienced
by francophone communities throughout Canada clearly show
that the federal government's actions have not done anything so
far to protect them?
(1445)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, we heard an opinion which is not necessarily shared by
the communities I serve. But I see that my colleague wants to
portray himself as a great soul and I would be happy to give him
food for thought by quoting my grandfather, a native of
Sainte-Flore: ``God, in His wisdom, made the soul invisible so
that no one would know who has a soul and who does not''.
The Speaker: I will not enter this debate.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister criticized us for using 1-900 numbers to solicit
the opinions of Canadian people. I heard that a little while ago.
Now what I find is that the Liberals are paying for 1-900
numbers on the backs of the taxpayers and they do not even
know it. An internal document from a federal institution, of
course, shows mostly unauthorized long distance charges of 111
hours in one month alone in this institution.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since some of
the calls were to 1-900 numbers, is it not a double standard for
the Liberals, for the whole government, to criticize Canadian
citizens for taking part in an exercise in democracy when their
own people are dialling the latest fishing news and the latest
dating services to 1-900 numbers at taxpayers' expense?
The Speaker: The Chair is having some difficulty. I presume
the question is directed to a department of the government. If
that is the case, I will permit the Deputy Prime Minister to
answer if she so wishes.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I understand from the
implication of the member's question that employees of the
Government of Canada have been wrongfully dialling 1-900
numbers that we are supposed to be paying for.
6442
Obviously as a taxpayer and as a representative of the
Government of Canada I do not want our employees dialling
numbers for which the public is paying, quite clearly.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, that is
refreshing. Nevertheless it is being done. This example of
spending money is so typical of the government. It would be
funny if it were not so pathetic.
The case I am referring to is taking place in a federal prison. I
might as well ask the Solicitor General about it. Is it government
policy to allow only prison officials to phone same sex dating
services at taxpayers' expense or are the prisoners also allowed
to reach out and touch someone?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
will check to see if the prison officials monitor all those
outgoing calls.
In the meantime, perhaps on another occasion the hon.
member can tell me why he is so fascinated by this subject.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1450 )
The Speaker: This is getting to be a very touchy day.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions.
In the red book the Liberal Party addressed the need for small
businesses to have access to capital to allow entrepreneurs to
make the transition from innovative ideas to actual production.
In Burlington small businesses create many jobs and have the
potential to create even more if they could get financing.
What initiatives will the government take to create access to
capital for small businesses?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for Burlington for that question because I think it concerns every
member of the House as to the future of small business.
We have undertaken several initiatives in the last nine months
which will become public in the next few weeks. Everyone will
see the hard work that has been done. For example, the
Department of Industry and the Department of Finance have
been working through a private business community group to
come up with a number of suggestions for financing. The House
of Commons committee on industry will have its report out in
the next few weeks on the future of financing those small
businesses.
The government has been working very hard to convince the
banks to make their lending procedures with small businesses
more transparent. We expect to see a new code of conduct
become public.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Following the closure
of military bases, Maritime provinces lost 3,000 jobs but
received $20 million from the federal government to diversify
their economy.
In Quebec, 1,000 jobs were lost through the same cuts, but the
province only received $200,000 to cope with the situation. How
can the Deputy Prime Minister explain such unfair treatment to
Quebec, considering the compensation made to Maritime
provinces following the closure of military bases?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member does not have his facts straight. There was an
equitable distribution of mitigation moneys.
Leading up to the budget earlier this year on February 22, I
said that there would be no mitigating measures the likes of
Summerside and GST centres replacing lost economic activity
at military bases. There were some moneys available, about
$50-odd million that defence made available on a regional basis
to the ministers concerned: western diversification, FORD-Q,
minister of industry for Ontario and the minister of government
services for the maritimes. There was an equitable distribution
of those moneys.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, on top of
setting up the Peacekeeping Training Centre in Cornwallis, the
federal government allocated $7.5 million to diversify the
economy of that community. Why such a double standard, since
the government still refuses to compensate the city of
Saint-Jean for the closure of its military college?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, again
the hon. member has his facts wrong because my colleague, the
minister of intergovernmental services, negotiated an
agreement with the former Government of Quebec dealing with
the transition of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. It is a
provincial institution whereby certain language instruction and
military activity would continue. That costs money. I believe
that most of the money we allocated to FORD-Q under the
6443
auspices of the mitigation program went for that particular
settlement.
Even saying that, I should remind the hon. member that the
share of military spending in Quebec actually increased from 19
per cent to 22 per cent as a result of the budget because
everywhere else in the country was hit even worse.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
responding last week to questions about mismanagement in the
defence department, the parliamentary secretary stated there
had been no wrongdoing.
Almost every page of the Lagueux report details conflict of
interest, contracting irregularities and questionable business
practices. People call my office to say that the $327,000 is far
lower than the correct figure for the DM's renovations and
following on from Lagueux, other reports have reached the same
conclusions of chronic problems.
Again I ask, will the Minister of National Defence
commission an independent public inquiry into his department
to clear up this matter and enable him to resolve any problems it
reveals?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the parliamentary secretary, when he gave his
response last week in my absence was absolutely correct in that
he believed the question was pertaining to allegations of
wrongdoing by senior officials in the department such as the
deputy minister or assistant deputy minister.
(1455 )
I want to assure the House that no such wrongdoing has been
proven in any way and I have full confidence in the senior
officials and my deputy minister.
Second, on the question of the renovations of the deputy
minister's office this is really an Order Paper question that is
separate from the larger question that the hon. member-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: If he would listen, it is separate from the
larger question that the hon. member has a right to be concerned
about. There were irregularities in contracting. There was
harassment. There were management practices that were wrong.
The Lagueux report, an arm's length report from a senior
ADM in the department, uncovered these wrongdoings. In one
case there was a criminal prosecution. In the other there were
dismissals.
The hon. member has all the facts. I think he now has read the
Lagueux report. In no way does this implicate any of the senior
officials in the department. The fact is in a big organization like
defence or any corporate organization there are going to be
problems. When we see that the problem is there, where we find
irregularities, we deal with them. Some people were dismissed,
one person was charged and subsequently convicted.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the minister for his forthright response and I want
to go on record as saying I am not accusing anyone of anything,
nor have I ever meant to do that.
I would like to say that a confidential memo dated April 13,
1994 and released under the access to information reveals that
officials in the defence department informed the minister that
the media might be asking questions about the deputy minister's
office renovations.
If his own staff felt compelled to warn him about media
interest, will the minister not admit that there was at least a
perceived problem with this matter and move to resolve it by
getting on with an independent inquiry?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, one
of the problems we have in government is that there are from
time to time disgruntled employees. In this case there was a leak
from the department about certain renovations.
Those renovations to the executive suite of defence I believe
can be fully justified. I will make all the documents available to
the hon. member. I will table them in the House.
We have to keep some perspective here. It is not cheap to run a
government. It requires that administrative measures be taken.
In this case the expenses were fully justifiable.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
I know that all Canadians were shocked last week by the tragic
sinking of the ferry Estonia and that they join me in extending
our deepest sympathy to the families of those so tragically
affected.
Could the minister give Canadians his assurance that our
Canadian ferries are safe?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this is not a laughing
matter.
I join with my colleague who has just expressed our deep
sorrow and regret at the tragedy of the Estonia and therefore the
question is quite appropriate.
6444
I want to take this opportunity to convey to Canadians that our
passenger ferries are absolutely safe. Since 1987 Canadian
passenger ferries have been subjected to independent audits to
ensure that safe operating procedures are followed.
I must also add that Canadian standards for inspection of
ferries exceed those of international communities so that the
Canadian public and this House can be assured that our ferries
are safe.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, in the absence
of the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member inadvertently
made his first statement. We do not refer to the presence or
absence of anyone in the House. Would he please put his
question.
Mr. Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Western Grain Transportation
Act was presented by a past Liberal government as a new
balance between the needs for railway revenues and the
legislative guarantees to farmers in the historic crow benefit.
The Minister of Transport has made cuts to the farmers' side
of the equation and is proposing to stop the payments altogether.
What is the government proposing for the various lucrative
formula induced revenues that the railways receive under that
same legislation?
(1500 )
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
again does not have his facts straight. The minister has not made
any statement as to the future of the WGTA. He has made a
statement and has put in process the opportunity for all of the
participants in the grain industry to take part in a debate in the
consultation process regarding the future of that type of support
to Canadian agriculture.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, in a judgment
rendered on April 28, Judge Demetrick of the Alberta Provincial
Court declared that portions of the definition of a firearm
contained in the Criminal Code are so convoluted as to be legal
fiction and twice removed from reality.
I ask the Minister of Justice to comment on Judge Demetrick's
declaration and to tell us how such convoluted legislation can
have any impact upon the criminal use of firearms.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice, when going across the country
this summer to speak to groups concerned about these proposed
changes to the firearm laws, assured the people with whom he
spoke that he would undertake a review of what was Bill C-17
and the regulations to assure that the language and the intent of
those laws and regulations were pertinent and of value. If they
were not, if they were convoluted, he gave the assurance that he
would either change the wording or remove the regulations
altogether.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec is once again asking the
Minister of Finance not to eliminate, next January 1, the federal
tax deduction for money paid by Quebec businesses to finance
health care with Quebec taxes on payroll.
Will the Minister of Finance urge his colleague to maintain
this tax deduction, in compliance with the views expressed by
the Minister of Finance himself, when he was in opposition?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, all provinces are discussing this issue
with the government and a decision will be made beforeJanuary 1.
_____________________________________________
6444
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1) and 108(2), following
consideration of the evidence received and the conclusion
reached by the subcommittee, we have studied the process by
which order in council appointments are reviewed by the health
committee.
The committee has agreed that any such review should
preferably involve referred nominations rather than
appointments and should focus on the qualifications and
competence of the individual, having taken into consideration
any regional aspects important to Canadians.
6445
(1505 )
The committee agreed to recommend that the House consider
referring the issues raised in this report to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that although the Bloc
Quebecois members sitting on the committee approved the
report, they disagreed with the following statement: ``It would
be appropriate not to take into account the political allegiance of
those appointed''.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 37th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership in standing committees. If the House gives its
consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later this
day.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-278, an act to amend the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for
the establishment of a system allowing persons who do not wish
to receive direct mail advertising or mailing of printed matter
without further address than householder, box holder, occupant
or resident to notify Canada Post Corporation accordingly; and
that Canada Post respect the wishes of the home owner if they do
not wish to receive junk mail, and that Canada Post comply
accordingly.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-279, an act respecting flag day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today a
private member's bill, the subject of which is to recognize the
third Monday of February of each year as flag day, a national
holiday.
Previous attempts at recognizing this holiday have referred to
the day as heritage day. However I believe flag day more
appropriately reflects a symbol which unites us as a nation. This
is a flag that is recognized throughout the world. The fact that
1995 will represent the 30th anniversary of our flag is one more
reason to take this occasion to reflect on our traditions and
customs.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you would find consent of the House to dispense with
reading of the 37th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
In that same spirit of consent I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Cumberland-Colchester, that the 37th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented
to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to present this petition on behalf of my constituents
who call upon the government to support the ethanol industry,
and thus support farmers and rural communities in the dramatic
creation of long term jobs.
This petition is in addition to the 10,000 names my colleagues
and I have already presented on ethanol earlier this year.
(1510 )
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have two other
petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by 76 of my
constituents who call upon the government to amend the
Criminal Code to extend protection to the unborn child.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present. The first one has 200 signatures. These
people comment on the fact that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition has travelled to other parts of the world to promote
the separation of Quebec from Canada.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to inform the Leader
of the Opposition that he is not supporting the majority view of
the residents of Ottawa Carleton when he is travelling to
promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition is with regard to tobacco and the Hazardous Products
Act. The petitioners believe that tobacco is a hazardous product
6446
and that the exemption that it presently has under the Hazardous
Products Act should be removed.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition from 1,455 people across Canada
with respect to the post office.
They cite that the Government of Canada has allowed that the
Canadian postage stamp to be printed outside of Canada by
another country. As petitioners they request that Parliament
enact legislation against the Canadian postage stamp being
printed outside of Canada.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by hundreds of residents from across Canada.
[Translation]
This includes Quebec residents. The petitioners point out to the
House that the Criminal Code, as it now reads, deprives
terminally ill patients and people suffering from irreversible
and debilitating disease of the right to choose freely and
voluntarily to end their life with the help of a doctor.
Consequently, they urge Parliament to amend the Criminal Code
to ensure that all Canadians have the right to die with dignity.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of
the town of Maple Creek in my constituency.
They petition Parliament to ensure that the present provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide are
enforced vigorously 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.
This is in addition to several petitions on this subject signed
by hundreds of my constituents which I have previously
submitted.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present two petitions on
behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre today.
The first petition requests that the Government of Canada not
amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the
undefined phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
Refusing to define the statement leaves interpretation open to
the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a second petition on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre on the subject of euthanasia.
The petitioners request that current laws regarding active
euthanasia be enforced.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6446
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage
and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I was
addressing the challenges that were before us as a society to
erase racism, to ensure social cohesion and to also assure that
there would be shared responsibility between different levels of
government, between citizens and industry and the private
sector to enable Canadians to live in peace and harmony with
respect and understanding.
(1515 )
The questions I had been addressing, as members have heard,
include those about how to address the special problems faced
by disadvantaged minorities, by immigrant women, by women
of colour, by youth caught between two cultures, by dislocated
seniors, by those who look different from the majority, by those
seeking medical assistance who face language and cultural
barriers and how to ensure fairness and equity of access and
equivalent accreditation of skills and educational undertakings
learned in other places but brought to bear, to enrich and to
enable our country to grow and develop.
Last, how do we marginalize those groups which would
actively promote hatred against others. In that regard, I would
like to warn members of the House and the public of the
activities of the Nationalist Party in the promotion of European
Heritage Week. This group is clearly racist in its intent, white
6447
supremist, and we must not support the activities that they are
undertaking.
Do not be fooled by fancy posters. Look at the group behind.
They have become very sophisticated in their approach. I
particularly want to thank Mayor Rowlands of Toronto for
bringing this matter to my attention.
These are the important questions that together we want to
answer at all levels of government and institutions. I believe
those institutions that we have put in place are there to protect
our democracy, which I pointed out earlier is very fragile. With
the non-governmental organizations and our community-based
volunteer groups, we can make a difference.
After nearly a year on this job, I have to report that it works. I
have travelled to hear and to listen. The framework that brings
together the wide-ranging concepts of our society associated
with heritage are in place, for example, our cultural policy, our
official languages policy, the policy on multiculturalism, the
physical properties of national parks, the importance of human
rights, charter challenges, volunteerism, sports and a number of
others.
Despite the fact that Canadians have diverse backgrounds and
origins, they are united by a shared sense of values and an
attachment to Canada which we have built together, in English
and in French, as well as with respect for the heritage, language
and customs of our Canadian citizens.
It is also apparent that Canada's increasingly diverse
population provides a unique resource, a resource base actually
for successful development and expansion of our economy on
domestic and international levels. We all know that business is
international today, that business is multicultural today.
We have found in Canada people from all languages, cultures
and religions who understand the culture of business around the
world. They could help us develop and expand our economy at
the domestic and international level.
What this implies is that we will fully use those cultural
languages and skills and the knowledge that people have, and
the fullest potential of everyone who comes to this country,
recognize the personal contacts and the means that people have
to open doors to business, to new markets, to new products and
new services.
If we have the collective will to use the potential of all our
citizens, and in a sense of fairness and equity for the individual
and in an undertaking in the best interests of all Canadians, I
believe we will move forward with a great sense of prosperity
and understanding.
To close off, I want to talk for one moment about this. Canada,
in its very multicultural mosiac, has a set of laws that are unique
in this world. They have been coalesced under the proper kind of
umbrella for their added protection. We wish to all share in the
development of the experience that we have had here, in the way
we have the machinery of government in place and that is to be
shared with the rest of the world.
We have been asked to do that. Australia has just copied us.
We have been asked to go elsewhere where things are even more
sensitive. Here at home I want people to recognize that we have
built a constructive model with enormous potential to ensure the
future success of our society but we should always keep in mind
the aphorism ``if you're in the business of shining shoes, your
shoes had better shine''. Our programs need constant upkeep,
tender loving care and appreciation by the people in the House
and the people in the country.
(1520)
We must not undervalue the civilizing influence of our
multicultural policies. They may be more lasting than many of
our great monuments. These policies are about the quality of
life, about the power of humanizing nations, about people living
together with hope and a sense of understanding, respect and
appreciation for the future with a sense of belonging.
Canadians must be ever more vigilant. While those who
promote hatred and bigotry use even more sophisticated
technology and high tech, we must redouble our efforts in
promoting a truly just, inclusive and representative society. We
cannot afford to do less. Giving us this right in the Department
of Canadian Heritage under Bill C-53 is a status that I believe is
important. Canadians will learn to treasure the great resource we
have in all our cultural diversity and give it respect and
understanding.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's
statements. I have a couple of comments and questions I would
like to ask.
In this great country one of the real freedoms we have for
people who immigrate to Canada from other countries is the
freedom to preserve their cultural heritage and cultural
traditions. One of the questions we are asked by Canadians as we
talk to them about multiculturalism is: Why does the federal
government feel it is necessary to provide taxpayers' money to
these groups in order for them to pursue their cultural heritage?
Some comment that if a particular ethnic group felt so
strongly about preserving their cultural heritage they do not
need federal taxpayers' money to do so. It is provided in the
freedoms that they enjoy in this country.
6448
I would like to ask the member what specifically is the
government's justification for providing taxpayers' money to
these cultural groups in order for them to preserve their cultural
heritage?
I have another question or perhaps a comment. I am sure I
heard the member earlier say that when she was in Quebec she
was a Quebecer and when she was in Canada she was a
Canadian.
Mrs. Finestone: I did not say that.
Mr. Harris: I would like to ask the hon. member if in fact she
did say that and if she did not would she refer back to that
portion of her speech because I thought I had a question for her?
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the end result of whatever it
was that I said-I would have to look at the ``blues'' because I do
not have everything written down-is the fact that I said I am a
proud Canadian everywhere and anywhere and that is what I am.
With respect to the freedoms that the member spoke about,
with respect to the importance of the federal government
lending a hand to groups across this land, particularly new
Canadians, Canadians who have arrived from countries where
they have suffered terror, trauma, torture and lack of
understanding of the role of the police when they arrive here
because they have lived in a police state, I would say to the
member that as a government, as a people and as human beings it
is important for us to help them understand the structure of our
society to enable them to integrate into this society.
I have not noticed that without some help major groups have
volunteered so quickly to go in and help them. I would also like
to point out that if the member is from an immigrant group-and
I know from his riding he has had requests and received and
given grants for immigrant and visible minority women-I
wonder if he would believe that those visible minority women
have triple discriminations, have a difficult time adapting to our
society and have some skill re-learning to do while at the same
time helping their children get settled.
As the member well knows, this country is not famous and
businesses have not been famous and are just learning to hire
people who are of colour as one of the equality measures as well
as on their competence and ability to do the job. We have not
recognized skills that are learned outside of this country. We
have accredited to them the equivalences of what they have
learned elsewhere. Now you do not want to give money to those
kinds of groups, the visible minority groups who have come to
him, the Abbotsford youth commission that has come to you, the
native friendship centres that need money, the anti-racist and
anti-hate education councils. These are the groups you would
like to deprive of doing work both at the public, the volunteer,
and at the institutional level. Well I do not agree with your
perspective.
(1525)
The Deputy Speaker: Before I continue the period of
questions and comments I would like to remind everyone to
direct their comments through the Chair.
There are occasions, and maybe in most instances, when you
could exchange comments very cordially. I know you all debate
very well and are very respectful of one another but there are
times when it is awfully critical to go through the Chair. I think
it is a good practice for all of us when intervening to direct our
comments through the Chair.
With the few moments left in questions and comments, the
hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I listened with real
interest to the speech. I am very interested in the direction the
government is taking Canada with respect to equality of our
citizens.
Over and over when I have been speaking to groups I ring a
chord of agreement when I say we need in government policy to
remove totally any reference to gender, colour, race, or to
culture because only then can we treat people equally.
I have an example of racial and gender discrimination in my
riding in the person of a young man who in applying for an
RCMP position for which he was qualified in every way was
disqualified because he happened to be white and he was male.
That is sexual discrimination. That is racial discrimination. I do
not care how you cut it.
The direction we are taking where we name certain races,
certain colours, and female gender as having special privileges
is perpetuating the kind of apartheid that brought South Africa
down. We need to remove that. That will be the healthy
direction.
I would really be interested in the minister's comments on
that.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, you were in this House when
we spent a great deal of time studying section 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was such an important
section that we delayed the application of section 15 for three
years. It came into effect April 15, 1985.
We do not have time to undertake an extensive examination of
why section 15, the non-discrimination section of the charter
and the right to affirmative action given equal competence and
equal skills is of fundamental value in this country because it is
equal to the question of fairness, access, respect and
appreciation for differences.
I would suggest, if I may, that the ``Equality for All'' report be
given to my hon. colleague. I am sure he would like to read it and
understand why it is not discrimination and is only in the sense
of the best action, not only in pay equity but employment equity,
that one would want to move forward anyone who has compe-
6449
tence regardless of colour, regardless of language, and it is
antithetical to what South Africa did.
It is too bad that this member and the member sitting in front
of him did not have the opportunity to read the report that could
have enlightened some very biased disinformation that was
given this morning.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-53. This
legislation, described as a mere technicality, provides an ideal
opportunity to explain Quebec's perspective to our fellow
Canadians.
As you know, the Bloc Quebecois has the mandate to protect
Quebec's interests at the federal level. Those interests are
largely dependent on the development of Quebec's own cultural
life as well as on its exclusive control over it. This is what Mr.
René Arpin, chairman of the advisory group on Quebec's
cultural policy, said at the hearings of the standing commission
on culture, in June 1992.
(1530)
He said that ``Quebec's distinct character and sound
management of priorities require that the province have
complete control over its cultural choices''. Mr. Arpin added
that ``the federal government must completely withdraw from
the cultural sector, regardless of Quebec's constitutional
future''.
Around the same time, the then Quebec minister of Cultural
Affairs, Mrs. Frulla-Hébert, who can certainly not be labelled a
sovereignist, said: ``When it comes to programs, the federal
government does little or no consultating''. Genuine
consultation is practically non-existent, and, when it does
occur, it is often at Quebec's request. When, as often happens, it
is faced with a fait accompli, Quebec has to state its real needs
after the fact''.
Since Bill C-53 mainly concerns federal activities in the
cultural sphere, I will discuss certain aspects of federal
encroachment in this area and, more specifically, the causes of
this intrusion, how it is expressed in the bill, and its harmful
impact on Quebec's development as an autonomous State.
Federalism or the invasion of Quebec: the origin of Quebec's
problems lies in the very nature of the federal system. In fact,
Quebec is considered to be just another province, one of ten,
which is a denial of reality. Federalism means a central
government that must reconcile the usually divergent interests
of various regions and cultures.
Because the Canadian government, in its infinite wisdom,
decided that some day we should have a Canadian identity, it
blithely ignored the situation in Quebec. Now this situation is
quite different from Canada's. Quebecers are not concerned
about their identity. Studies keep reminding us that Quebec's
identity is alive and well, thank you very much. Canada's
existential problems do not concern Quebecers.
Quebecers worry more about their economic and cultural
development. However, since English Canada is seeking its
elusive identity, Quebecers will have to contribute financially to
this quest for the Holy Grail. This, without any decision-making
power, since the power is shared among representatives of the
ten provinces. That is one of the ways in which the federal
system has an impact on Quebec.
Another side of federalism we cannot ignore is the negative
consequences of the federal government's tremendous spending
powers. These spending powers were gradually granted to the
Canadian government by the courts which were, and still are,
dominated by the legal profession from English Canada.
However, as constitutional expert Gérald Beaudoin has pointed
out, the courts are uneasy about with this power.
After analysing the jurisprudence in this area, Beaudoin noted
that judges often issue formal warnings to the effect that
spending powers should not be legislated in an area under
provincial jurisdiction. He wrote that it was clear that abuse of
spending powers confused the issue of government
responsibilities in a federation and could upset a sometimes
fragile balance.
The message is clear. Spending powers which initially were to
be exercised only in exceptional circumstances are now used, at
the drop of a hat to intrude in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Professor Beaudoin also quoted Professor Jean Beetz, former
Justice of the Supreme Court, and we found his comments very
revealing. The former Justice wondered about the financial
power of federal institutions. Despite ineffectual warnings in
the jurisprudence, a new kind of legislation had been created
that allowed the federal government to influence provincial
jurisdiction by dispensing its largesse as it saw fit.
The minister's powers, duties and functions under this
legislation mostly concern matters of provincial jurisdiction. I
am referring to the arts; the status of the artist; cultural heritage
and industries; the conservation, exportation and importation of
cultural property; and, to a lesser extent, amateur sport.
(1535)
The federal government will be investing more than a billion
dollars a year in Quebec on culture only, and we contend that
this legislation is a form of back door intervention and an
6450
encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. We strongly denounce
such federal schemes in Quebec.
As I said earlier, Quebec officials have been asking for years
for the exclusion of the federal government in the area of culture
and the transfer of all powers to Quebec. Yet, section 4 of Bill
C-53 would give Heritage Canada full power in the area of
Canadian cultural development. Subsection (2) lists the areas of
jurisdiction, and I will give you some which worry us: the arts,
including cultural aspects of the status of the artist; cultural
heritage and industries, including performing arts, visual and
audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film, video and
literature; the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to
foreign investment; the conservation, exportation and
importation of cultural property. This is not just encroachment,
this is a full-scale invasion.
The predatory attitude of the federal government illustrates
very well the impossible Canadian duality. On one side, English
Canada is seeking a national cultural umbrella, hoping it will
bring about a Canadian identity-a national obsession-and
hence a Canadian culture. On the other side is Quebec, where
identity and culture are alive, dynamic and strictly our own.
Quebec does not need federal intervention. On the contrary, to
ensure that Quebec culture continues to blossom, we must be
free from federal intrusion. We must be given the money spent
in Quebec by the central government to use as we choose and
according to priorities that we would set ourselves to meet our
needs.
There are at the present time an astounding number of
overlaps and duplications between the cultural institutions and
programs of Quebec and Canada. Here are some: the arts
councils, the state television networks, the archives, the
national libraries. Why not save millions for the taxpayers by
eliminating these duplications and giving Quebec sole
responsibility in an area so vital for its future as a nation?
Culture is what drives society. In a publication entitled Le
Québec dans un monde nouveau, the present Quebec Premier
said it in these words: ``Our culture is the blend of our common
history and heritage, of our common values and institutions. Our
life as a community, our solidarity and collective vision are
based on our culture''. He then added: ``Culture is the
expression of a feeling of belonging to a community, it is the
very fibre of our people. It is incarnated in our way of life, our
way of thinking and creating. Within the particular North
American context, Quebec culture must continually assert
itself, promote creation expressing its originality, and seek
enrichment by assimilating contributions from outside its
borders. These are the requirements necessary to our vitality and
survival''.
Within such a context, it is easy to see how different the
Quebec culture is from the Canadian experience. We must
promote the development of our culture, but not within a
framework imposed by a government representing the other
group.
This was the conclusion reached by two well-known
Quebecers who followed one another as Quebec Minister for
Communications and Cultural Affairs. In 1992, Mr. Jean-Paul
L'Allier and Mr. Denis Vaugeois wrote: ``Political
subordination and economic inferiority can only breed an
atrophied and diminished cultural life. It can be artificially
sustained for a certain period of time as is the case in Canada and
Quebec. But money is not enough. Inspiration is needed. We
must be able to rely on our own resources. True development
cannot come from outside''.
It is imperative for the federal government to withdraw from
Quebec culture and to compensate the Quebec government
accordingly.
Multiculturalism is another area under the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. Here again, Quebec's specificity
is not being respected.
(1540)
There is in Quebec a consensus on how to deal with our fellow
citizens from outside Quebec. The position adopted 20 years ago
and systematically maintained since then is based on integration
and respect. Quebec society favours the full involvement of all
its members, whether they were born here or elsewhere.
However, in order to meet this goal, integration into Quebec
society is emphasized. We expect new immigrants to learn the
national language, French, and to familiarize themselves with
our traditions. This position does not imply in any way that
racism or discrimination in any form is tolerated. On the
contrary, Quebec society makes it a point to respect differences
and individual rights.
Yet, respecting differences is not the same as officially
promoting and institutionalizing these differences, as the
Canadian multiculturalism policy calls for. Quebec has chosen
to integrate its new members into Quebec society rather than the
opposite. There is a major and, in my opinion, irreconcilable
difference.
This is another area in which the central government flouts
Quebec policy. The federal government legislates, creates
programs and spends considerable amounts to promote the
opposite approach. While, in our opinion, respect for individual
rights clearly comes under provincial jurisdiction, the federal
government continues to encroach on Quebec jurisdiction. We
denounce and will always denounce this situation. That is
another fine example of federalism's benefits.
Before closing, I will point out another insidious aspect of
this bill, namely the Canadian heritage minister's duty to
promote and develop English-speaking minorities. No one
needs a history lesson to know that only Quebec has an
English-speaking minority.
6451
Quebec anglophones are the best-treated linguistic minority
in Canada, a fact that some of them even recognize.
Representatives of French-speaking groups from outside
Quebec would be easily satisfied with the status enjoyed by
English-speaking Quebecers. Of course, I am not saying that
there is no room for improvement. However, Quebec treats its
minority with a very open mind.
It is in that context that we question the federal government's
intentions in this area. In pursuing the objective of promoting
the development of that so-called minority, does the
government intend to legislate against Quebec's policies, even
though these policies are very generous? Since federal
legislation takes precedence over provincial legislation,
Quebec's language policy could thus be subverted.
Does the government intend to spend large amounts to
promote English in Quebec? Does it intend to give anglophones
social and cultural facilities that are out of proportion to this
linguistic minority's share of the population?
Let me reassure you that neither I nor my colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois nor the government in power in Quebec have
any intention of reducing in any way the advantages that our
English-speaking fellow citizens enjoy. On the contrary, the
Constitution of a sovereign Quebec would confirm the rights
and advantages that the English community enjoys now. That is
public knowledge.
However, I am concerned about what the federal government
actually intends to do in Quebec. The government has no
obligation to consult the provincial government and would
probably feel no obligation to do so, as history shows. These
issues are too important to give the central government
complete power in this area in Quebec without saying a word.
Another issue raised by the bill is equal treatment for French-
and English-speaking minorities. How can we ensure that
francophone minorities will benefit fairly from federal
largesse? How can we ensure that they will be able to catch up
with Quebec's anglophone minority to some extent? Bill C-53
remains silent on this fundamental aspect of the treatment of
minorities in Canada.
Quebec knows what to do; it knows what to do for its culture
and for its minority. The central government should restrict
itself to its own field of jurisdiction. Perhaps that is what good
government means!
(1545)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I wish first to inveigh against such a
lampoonist speech! What it described is very far from the reality
of the federal contribution, which is extremely generous in
Quebec, to the promotion of the French Canadian culture across
the country and around the world.
Tell me something: how is it that Telefilm Canada, which
comes under this department, subsidized Mr. Falardeau's latest
film, Octobre, with the participation of the NFB as well?
I wonder if there is another country in the Western hemisphere
that would subsidize a film produced, written and directed by a
separatist, a fellow who is bent on breaking up his country. Do
you know of any other country that would do the same thing, a
country with the will to finance such a project? Name one.
Tell me something else: did the hon. member know that over
40 per cent of the National Film Board's budget goes to Quebec
productions, to productions in French?
I would also like to know this: on the subject of the federal
contribution, we could also mention the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. I learned recently that the CBC produces more
hours of original programming than France does for its own
programming, its own culture. In a country with 6 million
francophones and a total population that is half that of France,
the Canadian government spends more than France on this. And
then, some say this is a ploy on the part of the federal
government. Some people have the nerve to talk about
interference. When you look at the figures though, they speak
for themselves: the federal government is the one promoting the
Quebec culture and I think that many creative artists recognize
this.
Finally, I understand what the Bloc Quebecois is driving at,
but let us not forget that opinions are divided in Quebec. You
have producers, directors and people who would readily admit
it. As a matter of fact, we saw in certain documents last year that
the involvement of the federal government should be
maintained because it is generally more responsive to the
aspirations and legitimate financial needs of our producers in
Quebec.
I am prepared to take questions from the opposition, Mr.
Speaker.
Mrs. Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, given the questions
asked by the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, it seems like he did not
understand the points I was making.
Earlier this afternoon, in my speech, I talked about the federal
government's involvement in what should be provincial
jurisdictions. What we want in Quebec is to manage our own
money and to decide what we want to do with regard to
promotion in Quebec, outside Quebec and throughout the world.
For the federal government to implement institutions is one
thing, but to decide what to do in the province of Quebec is quite
another thing.
As a matter of fact, I sit on the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage where many questions will be raised. We
have met with artists' associations which are complaining about
the decisions made by the government and the federal
institutions, because these decisions do not completely allow
the
6452
government of Quebec to maintain its own institutions and
jurisdictions.
I can see that the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine did not understand a thing
I said. We do not want to hear about how many millions were
invested; we want to decide, by ourselves, how to spend that
money.
I think I have answered the questions put by the hon. member
for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, I was just saying that 40 per cent of the National Film
Board's productions in Montreal are French productions. So, if I
understand the opposition's logic, if Quebec were to separate
tomorrow, funding would fall to 22 to 25 per cent. Quebec would
be the loser in this situation and that is what the opposition does
not seem to understand.
(1550 )
Where will the people on the other side get the money to
organize trips and trade shows? Let us not forget that a lot of
money comes from federal grants. I was just talking about the
Monument national, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens,
Radio-Canada and Telefilm Canada. The Canadian government
has never questioned the work of our artists from Quebec.
As I was saying earlier, the hon. member does not want to
admit to this 40 per cent, to the fact that Quebec receives more
than its share of funding for its cultural institutions. She cannot
give me an example of a film like Mr. Falardeau's Octobre, a
film about the FLQ that was funded by Telefilm Canada and by
the National Film Board. I challenge you to give me an example
from another country. Do you know of any film about the
Corsicans or the Bretons that was funded by the government of
France?
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): I can see that the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine still has not understood
the meaning of my intervention. The federal government
invested in the movie Octobre because that is where the money
is. If Quebec had had the money, then Quebec would have been
asked to fund this type of production.
I am sorry, but I have to say that this bill will just aggravate
the problems related to Quebec's cultural identity.
I am also aware that these funds come from the money we give
the federal government to manage our country, which means
that Quebec pays for these federal grants. We would like to see
how we could manage our own programs. Of course, it would
look bad if the federal government did not give anything to our
producers and artists from Quebec. Nevertheless, it is an
historic event. We could have a debate about the October Crisis
here in this House, show you the movie, show you how some
Quebecers were treated and how Mr. Trudeau sent in the army.
This crisis-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This debate generates a
lot of passion, which is good, but the Chair would appreciate it if
hon. members showed more respect to those who express their
views.
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the purpose of
this bill is to promote, with our own money, a single vision
which melts Quebec's culture into a multiculturalism program
which presents problems for Quebec and which will also present
problems for English Canada.
In fact, there is no consensus regarding this multiculturalism
program. We should have a debate on the objectives of such a
program. We want newcomers to adopt Quebec's culture, to
learn French and to respect our institutions and customs. Indeed,
it is one thing to know these institutions and customs but quite
another to respect them.
This is what we mean when we say that we want to manage our
own programs. We want to have control over the programs and
the money used to promote the distinct character of our society.
We speak French and we want to promote our own culture.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak
on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the Department of Canadian
Heritage. I believe the best way to use the time at our disposal is
to review the programs and responsibilities which fall under the
jurisdiction of this new department.
First, I want to point out that the Department of Canadian
Heritage has actually been in existence for over a year. Since its
inception, which goes back to the general government
reorganization of June 1993, officials of that department have
discreetly but confidently succeeded in strengthening the links
between the various and excellent programs which fall under its
scope. This ``growth stage'' has been exciting and enriching.
The fact is that it is not over yet.
(1555)
There is still a lot of interesting work and progress to
accomplish before the Department of Canadian Heritage is fully
recognized and plays its important role among other federal
departments. Obviously, the tabling of this bill was a major step
in that direction, as will its second reading.
[English]
I have just alluded to the range of programs within Canadian
Heritage. I want to elaborate upon the department's composition
and the scope of its activities. Before I begin let me add a caveat.
Because of time constraints, my review of Canadian Heritage
program areas cannot be all-inclusive. Nonetheless I am
confident that the members present will find this description
illuminating.
6453
Undoubtedly, one of the most visible programs administered
by Canadian Heritage is Parks Canada, one of the department's
three principal sectors. Many Canadians, and for that matter
many visitors to Canada, have been fortunate enough to
experience the splendour and richness of the country's system of
national parks, national historic sites and historic canals.
A steward of these unmatched examples of our national and
cultural heritage, Parks Canada is charged with the protection
and interpretation on behalf of all Canadians. Given the nature
of its mandate, Parks Canada is primarily a regional
organization. It has strong and respected presence in every
region of this country, including the Gaspé Peninsula,
contributing significantly to the local economies of
communities all across Canada directly through expenditures on
its own operations and indirectly through the tourism and
economic benefits generated as a result of those activities.
[Translation]
The second major departmental component is centered around
the Canadian identity and the contribution of all citizens.
Without question, it represents one of the largest series of
responsibilities and incentives throughout the government. It
includes programs promoting the official languages, excellence
in amateur sports, human rights, the welfare of aboriginal
communities living in large urban areas, the development of our
cultural diversity, and finally, the full contribution of all
citizens, including recent immigrants, to our society. In brief,
these programs are of interest to each and every one of us, since
they deal with what it means to ``be Canadian''.
We live in an era marked by major social and economic
change. No one can deny that. In this context, initiatives
undertaken by this departmental component are considered even
more important. In fact, by promoting and increasing our sense
of community and identity, these programs can truly help us to
understand today's goals and to prepare for tomorrow's
challenges.
[English]
The purview of the third major departmental component can
broadly be described as encompassing cultural development and
heritage. The responsibility of this sector extends to the arts,
broadcasting and heritage conservation programs as well as the
cultural industries pertaining to film, video, sound recording
and book publishing.
In an age of unparalleled technological advancement where
adaptability to change has become a prerequisite for success and
where globalization of markets presents both potential for
growth and new competitive challenges, Canada's creators,
artists and producers are looking to government to provide
leadership in formulating the legislation and policies that will
allow them to compete and thrive.
To cite but two examples it means taking action to ensure that
creators are justly compensated for the use of their works. It
means fashioning a policy framework that will ensure a place for
Canadian content and cultural products on the information
highway of the future.
In general, it means ensuring that Canadians continue to see
themselves reflected in a strong and vibrant culture.
[Translation]
I have briefly described the department, the activities of
which are far-reaching and of significant importance to all
Canadians. Although these programs may seem disparate at
first, a slightly deeper examination would dispel these doubts. I
hope I have managed to demonstrate, to some extent, that the
various components of this new department have much in
common, that, given their purposes, they complete each other
and generate a kind of synergy that truly makes it more than the
sum of its parts.
(1600)
[English]
I look forward to the enactment of the Department of
Canadian Heritage Act. That step cannot fail to have beneficial
and enduring effects in enhancing our sense of Canadian identity
and participation in society, in furthering our cultural
development and ensuring the continue appreciation and
protection of our priceless array of natural and cultural heritage
resources.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the hon. member to explain a couple of things emanating
from his speech.
He talked about the department being ``successful in
cementing relationships in this reorganization''. If that was
exemplified by the previous exchange between the hon. member
and the member for Quebec Est then I would have to question the
validity of that comment. He might wish to expand on that point.
The member also went on to give a lengthy list of all of the
departments and all of the responsibilities of Canadian heritage,
but he glossed over one point: the well-being of native peoples.
I would like him to explain how and why he believes that
Canadian heritage is indeed addressing this point. Our
aboriginal people really do constitute involuntary citizens of
Canada. They were never asked their opinions on the French or
British regimes nor on Confederation and what really
constituted their disenfranchisement.
I would like the hon. member to please give some thoughtful
reasoned debate to the question of the well-being of native
peoples. I would also like an explanation on the first comment
he made regarding the successful cementing of relationships in
the reorganization of his department.
6454
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.
member that we also have a department for Indian and northern
affairs. We have a most capable minister with a budget who tries
to address the varying issues that touch upon aboriginal
communities.
I can speak for my area where the Ministry of Indian and
Northern Affairs promotes various school programs for
youngsters trying to lead very interesting lives as full partners in
Canadian society. We may have to make a distinction however
because when it comes to cultural affairs there is probably more
that can be done in trying to enhance aboriginal culture.
In my speech I was speaking in terms of aboriginals in urban
areas such as Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere. There is much to
be done in trying to give them the opportunity to express who
they are and their culture to fellow Canadians.
On the second point the hon. member quite correctly pointed
out there are various views and opinions in terms of the role of
the federal government in Quebec. As members know the Bloc
Quebecois may have the majority of seats on the opposition side
but it does not have the majority of votes in the province of
Quebec. We are talking of only between 44 and 48 per cent.
We should also take these things into account. We do not
speak for all Quebecers. I have tried to inform the hon. member
that the federal government has been a most productive and
viable force in my home province of Quebec in terms of
encouraging cultural development.
An hon. member: And everywhere else.
Mr. Gagnon: And everywhere else. It is important to note
that the federal government has invested heavily in French
culture to a point that our investments in CBC productions are
far superior to what the French government invests in its own
TV broadcasts. That is astonishing.
Forty per cent of the productions by the National Film Board
are French Canadian. Regrettably, the hon. Bloc member is
saying that Quebec wants it all for itself. However it would have
to settle for 25 per cent if it opted for independence and right
now it is getting 40 per cent.
(1605)
What I am trying to tell the two hon. ladies is that the federal
government is doing its part in promoting arts and culture in
Quebec and across Canada and it is doing a fantastic job.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I rise on a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. This is a small point but it has occurred time and
time again that we are not referred to in this House all of the time
as hon. members and that is what we are. We are not hon. ladies,
girls or anything else. We are hon. members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While it is not a point of
order, I think it is a point that has been made and should be taken
as such and rightfully so. In the most respectful parliamentary
fashion we refer to one another as hon. members.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I think my colleague likes very much to listen to
himself talk. He talks and talks and talks. I also like to talk, but
at least I do not deny it. What is important here is that as much as
I recognize the member's expertise in some of these areas, I
have to say that he is talking through his hat with regard to
Canadian heritage. The CBC costs us a fortune. It costs us 65 per
cent of the $1.5 billion spent, and it is watched by only 13 per
cent of English Canadians. This is not a good price-quality
ratio. There is too much money paid to too many people for
nothing. It is simply too expensive.
I would like to know what information the hon. member has
on that. I am a bit tired, and so are Canadians, of hearing that we
are the greatest country in the world. That is all very nice, but 20
per cent of our children live in poverty, the unemployment rate
is at 25 per cent and we have a debt that grows larger by the
second. When will the government stop saying that we are such a
great country and start doing something to really make Canada a
great place to live? Do you not think that our country is going
bankrupt?
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, if I had been asked to comment on the country's
economic situation, I would say that the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata is right. Much remains to be done. I
think that together, united and strong, we stand the best chance
of putting this country on the road to economic recovery.
However, and I am nevertheless mindful of what was said by
the hon. member and by my department, and I am referring to
the department I represent here today. The Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation has done a lot for culture in Quebec
and for the culture of the francophone minorities outside
Quebec. Thanks to the CBC, people know what this country is
about. I do not know the exact ratings, but I do not think anyone
can deny that Canadian productions are worthwhile. I think we
have made some very good films with producers from Quebec
and from English Canada. We have promoted the expression of
Quebec culture, and I think this is largely thanks to the federal
government, which gave Quebecers a chance to express
themselves and say who they are, to Canada and to the whole
world.
I think the Government of Canada is to be commended for
having invested so much in Quebec, and what probably bothers
the opposition is the fact that more and more performing artists
and producers are aware of the positive role played by this
department, and especially by the Government of Canada, in
6455
promoting French Canadian and Quebec culture throughout the
world.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate
on Bill C-53.
The debate we just listened to reminds me very much of the
failure of federal spending. It is no different on job creation
from what it is on cultural matters. If federal spending created
jobs, every Canadian would have two. If federal spending
helped on some of these cultural matters, people would not be
voting by turning off their television sets when it comes to a lot
of the programming on CBC.
(1610 )
Bill C-53 is one multifaceted attempt to right every perceived
wrong in the government's quest for political correctness. It is a
continuation of hyphenated Canadians and funding of special
interest groups which in the final analysis has hardly promoted
unity and has only been a drain on the public purse.
Nowhere in Bill C-53 can I detect any change in this litany of
throwing money at something we are desperately trying to
understand. It seems that government thinks it can buy peace
and unity by entrenching more rights and latitude for special
interest groups. When are we going to become Canadians rather
than a mishmash of individuals with a particular axe to grind?
While I am on that topic of special interest groups, it might
not be as bad if more members of the special interest groups
were beneficiaries. Too often a few greedy, self-serving
individuals who head up the leadership of these groups are the
main recipients.
I am told that one individual who is paid a $60,000 a year
salary to head one of these groups, a person in their thirties is
nearly a millionaire. Is this where the funding for some of these
groups is going: membership at the Rideau Club, first class air
travel, cottages in the Gatineau?
Bill C-53 will not correct this injustice but will only entrench
it further. One has to simply take a cursory look at the 1994-95
estimates for Canadian heritage. Every conceivable special
interest group is on the payroll. What is the effectiveness of
these programs? Is there demonstrable success to parallel their
mandates? Are they accountable or merely sinkholes of
largesse? My Reform colleagues will chronicle the
misplacement of funding in this debate.
I would now like to turn to an element of responsibility of the
Department of Canadian Heritage as contained in Bill C-53,
specifically Canada's Metis. The department mandate states
that the programs for Metis are designed to help the Metis define
and participate in the resolution of the social, cultural, political
and economic issues affecting their lives in Canadian society. A
common feature of the program is that projects are community
based and are initiated and managed by aboriginal people.
I can count some $40 million directed at those programs. Is it
being used on what is intended? Is it accountable? One does not
have to do much research before one's antennae beam on
specific examples where accountability is questionable. I refer
to the Metis nation of Saskatchewan.
Last March and April headlines in regional Saskatchewan and
national newspapers screamed out headlines of mismanagement
of funds, accounting anomalies and refusal by Metis leaders to
co-operate with audits. At one point over $1 million was
unaccountable. No one questioned the legality of the Metis in
this circumstance; they did question accountability and proper
management of funds.
It seems in government quests to keep everyone happy, we
make the cheques and never ask another question. When
someone stumbles over some anomaly regarding procedures, we
get the whitewash. The bureaucrats and some antsy national
Metis council officials get on the damage control mode. This is
not good enough. Bill C-53 does not improve on it. What the
cloud of uncertainty over the Metis Society of Saskatchewan did
was create a splinter group of concerned Metis citizens. It seems
they too felt that those Metis leaders handling the funds at the
local level did not have the capacity to do it and it reflected
badly on the members. Bill C-53 does not address this; it
entrenches further mismanagement.
(1615)
In preparation for this debate, my office called a few
departmental people, research officers appointed to and in these
debates, and naturally talked to others interested in this subject
matter. Is it not interesting that I still do not have a bottom line
on funding through Heritage Canada to the Metis. I really do not
think Bill C-53 will contribute to enlightening the House any
further on this issue.
Other newspaper headlines suggest that Metis leaders are
ignorant of public trust, that funding provided through Heritage
Canada for programs and activities of Metis groups, often for
worthy undertakings, may not be trickling down from the Metis
leaders in charge of disbursing funds. It is simply not good
enough to concentrate control of funds with the leadership. It
would be better to have these funds administered by a council or
committee made up of all strata within the Metis society.
6456
The very thing I speak of is what prompted the RCMP
investigation of the handling of funds by the Metis Nation of
Saskatchewan. I ask how window dressing the plethora of
multiculturalism undertakings into the department of heritage
will solve this disbursal and accountability of funding for Metis
societies.
Bill C-53 merely complies with political correctness and
assures a supply of government funds to be doled out by
sometimes incompetent individuals.
I would be remiss if I did not touch on one other aspect of
funding that should trouble us greatly. What Bill C-53 manages
to accomplish is to again ensure continued funding for the
industry that has been created around the Metis societies. Make
no mistake about it, this is an industry unto itself, secret,
paranoid and accountable to no one.
There was an instance this last spring in the midst of
investigation into the Metis nation of Saskatchewan that
funding cheques were still being issued to the same individuals
under investigation, so-called representing a specific Metis
society. What kind of power and control do these individuals in
this industry have on this government? Instead of codifying
more programs, which in the Saskatchewan Metis experience
have caused disunity, not harmony, we should be drafting
accountability guidelines for these bureaucrats handing out the
largesse and establishing disbursal guidelines for these Metis
bodies.
I am not breaking any new trails here. I have asked a series of
questions of the minister of heritage, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding
the Metis and aboriginal funding. I have attempted to enlighten
this administration about who is really getting rich. With the
current method, rank and file Metis are not the recipients. Bill
C-53 will ensure it is business as usual.
Mr. Jim Sinclair, president of the Native Council of Canada,
in testimony before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs stated in April of this year that he would welcome his
books being audited by the Auditor General, not the Secretary of
State now Heritage Canada. There has to be an arm's length
relationship when it comes to the auditing function. Again Bill
C-53 ensures that Heritage Canada will continue to audit itself.
I call it vertically integrated bureaucratic control. It should be
eliminated by the government.
(1620)
The federal interlocutor for Canada's Metis, the Minister of
Natural Resources, is another participant in the process. She
indicated that the federal government is prepared to assume 50
per cent of the cost of establishing and maintaining a registry of
the people of the Metis nation.
We had a census in 1991. Why would the federal government
want to encourage further racial divisiveness by committing to a
racially based census? Surely such an undertaking is another
instance of the potential for more misunderstanding of the
government's uncontrollable urge to create special rights for
various groups within our society. Does anyone know how to say
no?
At the same time that the federal interlocutor is committing to
this census, the Metis leadership is proposing a national
legislative assembly, a capital in Batoche, a flag, an anthem, an
emblem, Metis and Canadian citizenship and Metis law making
authority. Does the minister want to encourage all this by
providing funding for an as yet undefined census based on racial
characteristics where the proponent has a vested interest in
inflating the membership qualifications as much as possible?
What is the federal interlocutor of the Metis doing by
committing funding to create another group on which to confer
special rights?
Either the Minister of Canadian Heritage through Bill C-53 is
the minister responsible for Metis or he is not. Clearly
responsibility for Metis is outside the purview of the minister of
Indian affairs. It should also be outside the purview of the
Minister of Natural Resources. Why do we need two ministers
responsible for the same issue?
We have a litany of funding and accounting problems in not
only the Metis society in Saskatchewan, but there are problems
in other jurisdictions as well. This is what Bill C-53 should be
addressing.
[Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I address this
House on Bill C-53, which confirms the structure of the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Canadian government has used this bill to bring together
under one roof several elements of our Canadian identity. Of
course, when we speak of heritage, there are those who think of
the past, of historic sites and buildings, of monuments and
museums.
But there is much more than that. Our heritage is also the
present and especially the future. That is why the new
department includes: the development and promotion of our
unique culture; communications and the development of the
information highway; the cultural industries, which are taking
their place, with much success, on the world scene; official
languages, multiculturalism and heritage languages, essential
elements of our national affirmation; amateur sports, which give
expression to our search for excellence.
All these elements play a role in making us what we are, proud
Canadians who are respected and envied the world over.
6457
I came to Canada at the age of 16. I chose this country for its
promise of a future, social stability and a tradition of welcoming
new citizens. And I must say that I was not disappointed.
(1625)
Yes, Canada's doors are open. Yes, Canada is full of
opportunities. Yes, Canada is a land of justice and sharing. Yes,
it is the best country in the world!
And even if the Canadian Heritage critic for the Official
Opposition does not agree, I would like to tell him that there are
millions and millions of human beings in the world who would
give everything they have to be admitted into Canada and to live
here with us. Despite our difficulties, our differences, our
economic and financial problems, this country is still the best in
the world. And in Quebec, it is a minority that wants to separate
Quebec from the rest of Canada and destroy this country.
Let us not be misled, this country is still the best in the world.
This fact has been recognized twice by the United Nations and
most importantly it is acknowledged by all of us who, day after
day, live in peace and prosperity on this vast North American
territory.
I am a Canadian proud and aware of the considerable benefits
that this country provides. I am also a full-fledged Quebecer
who realizes how beneficial it is for us to be part of the Canadian
entity.
There are few places in the world where two great cultures can
blossom out in such harmony and with such autonomy as in
Canada. And this is where the role of the Department of Heritage
becomes so important. Our government recognizes that culture
is not an abstraction detached from reality but a vital link that
binds us all together.
As a matter of fact, in our red book, we say that ``culture is the
very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national
sovereignty and national pride''.
Several of our major cultural institutions, namely the CBC,
the Canada Council, the National Film Board and Telefilm
Canada contribute year after year to bring to the fore artistic
talents from Quebec.
Heritage Canada supports, finances, develops markets for
francophone cultural products that are essential to our artists in
Quebec. The Canadian Museum of Civilizations in Hull, as well
as the Quebec Citadel, trace the history of the first inhabitants
and the first settlers that came here. Our parks and historic sites
give the millions of tourists who visit our country an idea of the
richness of our natural heritage.
The works of Michel Tremblay, Alice Parizeau, Antonine
Maillet and many others have reached far beyond the boundaries
of Quebec and of Canada. Those works are translated in several
languages and have become the delight of readers all around the
world.
The Cirque du soleil, a unique cultural product, conceived and
realized by Quebecers, fills with wonder the young and not so
young on several continents.
Quebec films, songs and plays have extensions on all
continents. In television, the TV5 channel opens a window on
the French-speaking world. This international cooperation
allows also the francophonie to learn what goes on in our
country. Programs produced in this country are broadcasted in
Rome, Warsaw or Cairo.
The Canadian government plays a leading role in the
expression and promotion of French culture in Canada and in the
world.
We support creation. We support production. We encourage
young artists. We negotiate agreements regarding export of our
cultural products.
In the day-to-day life of French-speaking creators, the
federal contribution is irreplaceable. Without the contribution
of the Canadian government, many of our famous writers, our
established actors and actresses, our renowned movie producers
would have never taken off. We know it and this is why, despite
our limited resources, we give particular attention to cultural
development. This is part of our mandate, part of our
responsibilities.
We should not underestimate the economic value of our
cultural sector. Today, cultural enterprises rank ninth among our
national industries. They generate direct revenues amounting to
$22 billion a year.
(1630)
About 600,000 Canadians work in this field. This clearly
demonstrates that our cultural industries are closely linked to
the economic development of our country and actively
contribute to our prosperity. In addition to preserving and
promoting native, French and English cultures, Canada
officially recognizes its multiculturalism.
Moreover, the building of this country has largely been
influenced by several waves of immigrants who made their
homes here. Thousands of immigrants have developed Canada's
natural resources. They have settled vast territories. They have
helped build our cities.
Most regions of Canada have developed their own
characteristics inherited from different cultural groups. This
diversity is the hallmark of the Canadian identity and culture.
Canadian multiculturalism is two-pronged. It encourages all
Canadians to take an active part in society, in either official
language. It also urges society to get rid of all obstacles
impeding full and equal participation.
Cultural harmony is being promoted through initiatives such
as teaching heritage languages, assisting ethnic artists and
encouraging cross-cultural activities. While recognizing that
6458
our roots are an important part of our identity, Canadian
multiculturalism urges us to make a commitment to Canada. It
respects everyone's cultural identity. It encourages creativity
and cultural exchanges. It helps us to realize not only what our
rights are as a member of society, but also what are our
responsibilities.
In Canada, we do not ask newcomers to leave their culture at
the door to be welcome. As the Prime Minister would say, you
can be proud of being a Canadian as well as a Quebecer. That is
what makes us Canadians so unique.
The role of the Heritage Department is precisely to support
the development of our national identity. Having grouped all the
means of expression of this identity under one department, the
government is being consistent. In so doing it is ensuring sound
management of our investments and greater efficiency. It proves
that federalism can be adapted to our society's changing needs.
It proves that several cultures, living in harmony and sharing,
can flourish on the same territory. It proves that, together, we
can create and share a reality which is unique in the world, and
that is the Canadian identity.
[English]
This is a time when we have to pull together. Yes, we have
some financial difficulties. Yes, we have some serious problems
that we have to solve. However, we should look at the number of
people outside Canada who are waiting in line in different parts
of the world in different Canadian embassies. Think of the
millions of human beings who would give everything they have
to be here in Canada, to be a Canadian resident, to be a Canadian
citizen. Yes, we have problems. Yes, we have a lot of
differences. I think that as in the past we can work together, pool
our resources and continue to ensure that this is a country of
generosity, a country of understanding.
(1635 )
It is only by working together in this globalization that we are
going through that we can survive and maintain this unique
Canadian way of doing things. We have the Canadian way of
welcoming new Canadians in this country and a Canadian way
of making sure that our seniors are protected. We have a way of
protecting our health system. This is unique if I may be allowed
to say that.
That in a way represents Canadians' generosity. Look at me. I
came to Canada when I was 16 years old. Today I am a member
of Parliament, the highest tribunal in the land. I speak the two
official languages. I am of Italian origin. I raised a family. We
worked together and we are proud of our achievements.
I was able to achieve because our country and our system
allows me to achieve. Therefore I will work hard in future
months to make sure that the federal system that we have
ensures equality and protection for everyone. We have
prosperity and hope that our children will have it.
I am sure there is a solution to all the differences and all the
problems that we have. The only way we can solve this is
working together. We look forward to solving these problems. A
lot of countries look at us and at the way we have been solving
and will continue to solve our differences. This is the future of
the world. This is where the rest of the world is going.
It would be a shame to depart from this tradition, the way we
have been doing things for 125 years.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Léonard. It is
the first time I have had the honour to listen to him in this House
and I did so attentively. Other duties prevented me from hearing
him before. I do not want that to be taken in a negative way.
I listened to his speech attentively. What struck me the most is
that to define himself as a Canadian, the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard only spoke about Quebec francophones, which is
rather surprising. So I went to see my colleague from Calgary
Southeast to ask her the name of an English philosopher, which
she could not remember either. There is an English
Canadian-whose name you probably know-now living in
Vancouver who has asked out loud what many people quietly
think: Is there a Canadian identity? The answer is no. There is no
Canadian identity. What is a Canadian? Who is a Canadian? Is it
someone who lives in Canada? I myself live in Canada because I
do not have a choice but I am a Quebecer and not a Canadian.
The Premier of Quebec made a mistake; he did not know any
more if he could be a Canadian or a Quebecer, a Quebecer or a
Canadian.
A Canadian is defined as someone who lives in Canada, in a
country with two languages, multiculturalism and everything.
Come on! That is not what defines a Canadian. So he spoke only
of Quebec's French-speaking writers. We never denied
Radio-Canada's part in Quebec's francophone culture. We
never denied this or any other roles. But what is the heritage
department doing now? It is cutting off all funding to the
National Film Board. They are strangling the NFB. Telefilm
Canada was ordered to cut from 5 per cent to 8 per cent. They
will no longer be able to produce films.
It is the same everywhere. Let us stop deluding ourselves. It
may be the most beautiful country in the world, but I have seen
the Rockies and they are nothing compared to Charlevoix.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her
initial remarks. She is trying to define what it is to be a
Canadian. I have always defined myself as a Canadian, a
Quebecer of Italian descent. That is the beauty of it. I tried to
explain it earlier. I started to in English, and I will now continue
in French.
6459
(1640)
That is the difference. I think that I am a product of what we
could call a Canadian. I came to Canada when I was 16 years old.
I have no problem with this country that may mean nothing to
you because you do not care much about the Rockies, but
Charlevoix is quite beautiful. As far as I am concerned, the
Rockies are beautiful and so is Charlevoix. I have no problem
because I feel like a Canadian, like a Canadian and a Quebecer,
and it is this country, this country's federal system that the
Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, criticizes day in and
day out and are trying to destroy.
An hon. member: You are talking about a single culture.
Mr. Gagliano: I am not talking about a single culture, but
rather two official languages, the French culture-as I indicated
in previous speeches-the English culture, and a multicultural
culture. That is the Canadian reality, its cultural identity, with
both the French and English cultures and the multiculturalism
that make Canada a tolerant country, as I said in my speech, if
only the hon. member had listened.
When you come to Canada, you must not leave your culture at
the door; you must bring it along, protect and nurture it, and
together with other cultures continue to build this great country.
Globalization is a world-wide phenomenon. We must not fence
ourselves in as the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are
trying to do in Quebec.
We have faith in this huge country stretching from the
Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker,
point of order. The member cannot say that the Bloc Quebecois
wants to keep Quebec inside a small culture. I ask him to
withdraw his remarks right away.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am listening carefully to
the speeches on both sides of the House, and with all due respect
to all hon. members, I do not believe that this is a point of order.
I again give the floor to the Hon. Secretary of State.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member
understood me or if I expressed myself poorly; I was talking
about fencing oneself in and said ``clôture''; I did not wish to
imply that it is a small culture, and did not say ``culture''.
Perhaps my colleague was not wearing an earphone; I said
fencing, because I have great respect for the French culture. In
the ten years that I have been here, I have always defended the
French language and culture and Quebecers' rights and the
interests of the Canadian Confederation. She needs only refer to
the Hansards which report everything that is said in the House
and even what is said outside the House. So she thinks I said
small culture, but I was talking about fencing. Either I
mispronounced the word or she misunderstood.
Personally, I respect the hon. member's option. I believe in
this Canada. I feel comfortable defining myself as a Canadian. I
am Canadian. I feel confident. I believe that in spite of all our
differences, Canada will continue to exist and will continue to
develop. Canada will become a model in the world because it is
the only way, with a strong Quebec inside Canada. That is the
difference! A strong Quebec inside Canada; that is the
difference and that is how Canada will be a model for the rest of
the world. When we see what is happening in the rest of the
world, people will look to Canada, and the Canadian federal
system will still be the best. In the future, you will see that
Canada's federal system will continue to progress and succeed
despite our differences; the whole world envies us and will
continue to envy us.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I too
appreciated the comments of the hon. member.
I am going to phrase the context of my remarks within the
history of my family. My grandfather came from Croatia as a
very young man. He was thinly clothed, he had very little money
and he certainly did not have any government waiting to give
him a handout when he came here. He came alone, without his
young wife and without his baby daughter, my mother. They
stayed behind in Croatia. He worked his heart out for three years
and he paid their way over here. In all of the years I knew my
grandfather until he died at 68 years old he worked and paid his
own way. Our family learned that tradition of paying your own
way. You do not go to government for handouts. If you have a
problem you go to your family, you go to your friends and you go
to your community support and that does not mean a federal
handout.
(1645)
I am also quite concerned that this debate is grinding down
into a Quebecer and English Canadian issue. This is not the issue
today. The issue is the legislation of Bill C-53 which
means-and let me say it again-we are looking at entrenching
multiculturalism funding and we cannot afford it. We are
looking at national enforced bilingualism and we cannot afford
it. We also cannot afford the funding of special interest groups.
When the hon. member speaks about the economic impact of
some of our cultural industries bringing $22 billion into our
coffers that is a drop in the bucket against a $532 billion deficit
whereby this government will only bring in revenue of $110
million per day. It spends more every day than it brings in. It
does not take very long to eat up $22 billion. I would like the
6460
hon. member to perhaps refer to a cross benefit analysis that he
has done to substantiate his remarks.
Finally, the hon. member has not addressed the real issue
here. In this legislation there is no downsizing, no streamlining
and no financial savings. That quite frankly is what Canadian
taxpayers are looking for from this government. Those are the
things they are looking for because those are the promises of that
infamous Liberal red book.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I
would like to tell my hon. colleague that when I came to Canada
I did not receive anything. Everything I did I paid for. I went to
night school and I paid for the lessons. I shovelled snow in the
winter and delivered groceries. I did these things and I am proud
of it. However, that does not mean that because some years ago
we were in a certain situation people in need should be
forgotten.
I agree with the hon. member that there is abuse in the system
and we are trying to correct it. I believe the hon. member does
not draw a line of what the legislation is and what she would like
the legislation to do.
This is a bill to organize a department. This bill is to legalize,
to put in perspective of the law the departmental reorganization
that the Prime Minister announced in November 1993 when we
took office. She mentioned the red book. We had a promise that
would cut expenses right away from the top, from the Prime
Minister's office down to all the ministers of $10 million a year.
I think so far we have accounted for $13 million. This part of the
reorganization.
In terms of funding that the member is talking about, the
member should take note, probably next week when the Minister
of Finance goes before the finance committee and presents his
budgetary vision on the next budget and consults with
Canadians, of the estimates. That is where funding is provided
for every program and for every department.
What we are talking about here is the legal frame of a
department. We see here 40 departments that we had in 1984
reduced down to 22. These are the savings and the promise that
we kept in the red book.
I invite the hon. member to wait until Wednesday when the
minister of human resources will table his discussion paper on
social programs. I am sure she has a lot of things to say there and
I am sure she will contribute to the debate, not only in this House
but also across the country. I am sure she is waiting patiently for
the Minister of Finance to come to this House and go to the
finance committee to give reference of his consultation for the
next budget. There hopefully altogether we will continue to
reduce expenses and look at ways we can serve our citizens more
with less.
(1650)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before continuing debate
on Bill C-53 it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to
inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for
Mercier-unemployment; the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake-low level flights.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
express my views on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal
certain other acts. The Department of Communications, the
Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of
Multiculturalism and Citizenship were abolished following the
government reorganization announced on June 25 and
November 4, 1993. This exercise resulted in the creation of a
new portfolio, the Department of Canadian Heritage.
For the first time, all federal agencies in the cultural sector,
including the Canada Council, CBC, the National Film Board,
Telefilm Canada, the national museums and parks of Canada,
the National Archives and many others, are part of a single
superdepartment.
I want to quote an important provision regarding a field which
comes under the minister's jurisdiction. Clause 4(g), on page 2,
states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage must promote ``the
advancement of the equality of status and use of English and
French and the enhancement and development of the English
and French linguistic minority communities in Canada''.
That clause provides a good description of the federal
government's objective to promote a Canadian cultural identity
primarily based on the main features of a bilingual and
multicultural Canada. However, no reference is made to Quebec
as a society, nor to its cultural and linguistic specificity.
Once again, Ottawa denies the distinct cultural reality of
Quebec by attempting to dilute its French status and culture in a
supposedly bilingual and multicultural Canadian cultural
identity. The creation of that department is in compliance with
the defunct Charlottetown Accord, which proposed an artificial
and false recognition of the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction
over culture.
Never in the past, much less now, did the federal government
consider withdrawing from the cultural sector despite Quebec's
demands for the transfer of cultural jurisdiction and related
budgets from Ottawa. The establishment of this new department
is proof positive of this: the federal government is turning a deaf
ear to Quebec's demands concerning language, education and,
most of all, culture.
The federal government will continue to use its spending
power to play a role in Quebec without any regard to the
priorities and demands of the Quebec government in matters of
language, education, and culture. How many more times will we
6461
have to fight for Quebec's interests and demands? Why is the
federal government ignoring Quebec's jurisdiction over culture
and language?
My colleagues on this side of the House received a clear
mandate to stand for the interests of Quebecers. Quebec's
demands concerning cultural and linguistic jurisdiction are part
of that mandate, and I will fight for them with conviction and
determination.
I would like to quote what the late member for
Brome-Missisquoi, Gaston Péloquin, was forever repeating to
us and trying to convey to his constituents. It is a true depiction
of the Canadian situation.
(1655)
``The fundamental difference between the two solitudes is
that Canada is a country looking for a people, and Quebec is a
people looking for a country''. The fact that my federalist
friends refuse to talk about sovereignty does not mean it will not
happen. Quebecers will be deciding for themselves, and the
other nine provinces will have to accept that decision out of
respect for justice and democracy.
The federal government keeps encroaching on exclusive
Quebec jurisdictions. It can offer no guarantee about language,
education and culture.
The Canadian Heritage Department is a typical example of
this kind of interference in an area of jurisdiction claimed by
Quebec. Essentially, the policies and priorities of the
department, which were designed without consulting Quebec,
are more in line with the prospect of an hypothetical
country-wide cultural identity which seeks the outright
assimilation, sooner or later, of the French language and the
Quebec culture. I believe that is the real objective of the federal
government.
[English]
The notion of cultural identity is what brings people together
in a society. This notion helps to build and establish on a
permanent basis the institutions that constitute a given society.
What this government must understand is that the notion of
cultural identity cannot be commanded or imposed in a
democratic system or regime.
Thus the federal government cannot make an abstraction of
the French culture and language that give distinct identity to
Quebec society. The fact is that Canada is constituted by two
nation states. Canada is not composed of a unique culture as the
federal government would like us to believe.
These are the facts and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will
have to deal with them.
[Translation]
History clearly demonstrates this. The federal government
has always been trying to ignore the cultural identity of
francophones, and its bilingualism policy is the proof.
Bilingualism in Canada is a myth, a beautiful dream, a policy
that has never really worked. We must say it: the bilingualism
policy has proven to be a real failure.
The fact is that francophones cannot live and get an education
in French everywhere in Canada. We have the example of
Franco-Ontarians. Their history is marked by struggles, by
legal battles and, indeed, a resistance to assimilation. And we
have the most recent example of Longlac, in northern Ontario,
where the francophone community is unable to get services.
A second example are the francophone and Acadian
communities in the rest of Canada. In a submission to the
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages in the House of
Commons in May, the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadiennes sounded the alarm, sending out a cry
of distress and demanding that the federal government emerge
from its indifference.
I quote the federation: ``The emergency situation in which
members of our communities are living is unacceptable. The
assimilation rate, which is increasing from one census to
another, and the social and economic situation, which is
deteriorating, do not seem to worry the government overly-''
On a five-year period, the assimilation rate has increased by
4.5 per cent in the overall francophone regions outside Quebec.
That is a fact. If we do not act immediately, assimilation will
continue on its irreversible course, whatever people think and
say here.
(1700)
A third example: the closure of the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean. This decision is, I believe, the worst the federal
government has taken in a decade.
How can the federal government justify the closure of the
only French-speaking military college in the country and
continue to promote its bilingualism policy? How will the
federal government be able to ensure progress towards equality
of status and use of the French language in the armed forces
without a single French-speaking institution in this country?
According to reports the Kingston military college is not at all
ready to accommodate French-speaking servicemen and to offer
them the necessary training.
Those are the facts. This is the reality. The federal
government denies francophones an equal status.
To continue on the same subject, I would like to give the
House some statistics. Out of 13,000 so-called bilingual
positions in the armed forces, only 6,000 are held by individuals
sufficiently fluent in French and in English. The other 7,000
so-called bilingual positions are held by individuals who speak
only English.
This again shows that the bilingualism policy has failed in
Canada.
6462
Here is another figure. The great majority, 85 per cent, of the
63,870 designated bilingual positions across the country are
along the Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec axis.
As a consequence, the budget cuts that would lead to the
elimination of the annual bilingualism bonus advocated by the
Commissioner of Official Languages would affect mainly
francophones working in the federal public service. It would
mean approximately $43 million in lost wages for francophone
bilingual employees working in the federal public office.
Such is the initiative to promote a cultural identity based on
bilingualism as a main characteristic of Canada from coast to
coast.
Ottawa's lack of global vision considerably hinders the
development and prosperity of francophone communities
throughout the country.
When answering a question from the opposition about this
claim, the Minister of Canadian Heritage admitted that
presently, his government had no global policy for the
promotion of the development and prosperity of the French fact.
The attacks the current Liberal government carries out in
reaction to the Bloc Quebecois's demands simply seek to blind
us to the failures of its policies to promote French in the
English-speaking provinces.
Those who suggest the status quo should know that, for a lot
of francophones outside Quebec, in the long term, that means
assimilation.
How can we deny that the fundamental difference between
Quebec and Canada is precisely rooted in the fact that English
Canada is unable to recognize the existence of French-speaking
Quebecers as a nation?
Quebec's aspirations to develop as both a distinct nation and a
full member of the Canadian federation were always repressed.
Today, Quebec has chosen to develop within its own political
infrastructures, as would a truly sovereign country.
Quebec's sovereignty is not a goal per se, it is rather the
means to achieve the coherent development of our potential. It is
the most appropriate means we have to make efficient use of our
resources.
As long as it is in Ottawa the Bloc Quebecois will keep on
denouncing the federal institutions' indifference regarding
Quebec and French language, education and culture.
I was sent here to shake up the political inertia of the federal
government and to bring to the attention of the House of
Commons the concerns of francophone communities wherever
they may be in Canada.
The federal government must correct all its deficiencies in
order to better answer the aspirations of francophone
communities.
Quebecers have used most of their political energy over the
last three decades to build a political structure that will allow
them to develop as a people. It must be understood that if
something binds Quebecers together it is their refusal of the
status quo.
(1705)
Quebec's political and economic context has changed
radically over the last fifteen years. Those changes explain the
strong comeback of the sovereignist movement in Quebec after
the referendum defeat in 1980, the Meech Lake Accord and the
Charlottetown Accord.
Since the days of Jean Lesage, all the federalist premiers have
struggled hard to provide the Quebec State with the
decision-making powers which it needed to exercise a real
control over our collective destiny.
The vast majority of Quebec federalists refuse the system in
its present form. What made them different from sovereignists
for a long time is that they hoped that the system could be
modified, especially by transferring powers from Ottawa to
Quebec and recognizing the distinct nature of the Quebec
people.
For their part, sovereignists had come to the conclusion that
Quebecers could never fully develop as a nation within the
federal framework the structures of which were frozen in time.
After 30 years of fruitless efforts and countless attempts to
change the federal system, even federalists in Quebec have to
face reality: the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
accords have put an end to any hope for a renewed federalism.
Today, Quebecers, both federalists and sovereignists alike,
can be sure of one thing regarding the status quo: they can either
take it or leave it. Everyone will have to make this choice.
Nevertheless, when it comes to the mandate of the Department
of Canadian Heritage, we cannot have just one cultural policy
since we have two distinct cultures.
As such, the policy of the Department of Canadian Heritage
cannot be developed and applied uniformly across the country.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois will make sure that the
various measures taken by the federal government are in tune
with the general direction of Quebec's cultural policy.
The Bloc Quebecois will demand that Quebec get its fair share
of federal funding through the main cultural institutions such as
museums, the National Film Board and the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation.
The Bloc Quebecois will also make sure that cuts in the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's budget will not be made
6463
at the expense of its French network and, therefore, of Quebec
artists.
The Bloc Quebecois will also ensure that the Quebec cultural
community receives its fair share of grants from federal
agencies such as the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada and
from the resource envelopes of the program.
Such is the mandate I received from Shefford constituents and
I intend to be worthy of their trust.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am always interested to hear members of the Bloc Quebecois
talk about their culture and about other French Canadians,
especially Franco-Ontarians, and how they are going to be
assimilated, saying that the federal government has no role to
play.
I must tell you that I am a French Canadian, born in northern
Ontario in a family which has been living there for generations. I
was raised and educated in French.
Let me tell you that my roots are the same as theirs, even
though for economic reasons, my ancestors chose to go and
build a country, Canada. Some stopped in Ontario, others
continued further west. We now have our schools, several of
them in fact. There are programs to teach English to
francophones and French to anglophones.
(1710)
It is certainly not perfect, but it is a lot better than it was 30
years ago. Do you think for one moment that without a federal
government we, francophones from outside Quebec, would have
had anything from people like the members opposite who
choose to deny our very existence, and claim they are the only
francophones in Canada? May I ask them what role they intend
to play in the life of my children or my grand-children with their
activities? To resort to such trickery is a disgrace.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my
colleague for her comments. I simply quoted figures in my
speech. When you hear about the assimilation process taking
place in Canada and see figures, real figures, like the ones I
quoted, I think there can be no doubt. We are all entitled to our
opinions and to think that things are actually better around us,
but in the light of objective figures-those I quoted were from
Statistics Canada if I am not mistaken-I would say it is
undeniable.
As the minister said, she is, of course, bilingual. As far as I am
concerned, I used to teach English as a second language before I
was elected to this House. I must tell you that I have a great deal
of respect for the English language, and the English culture in
general. My thinking regarding Quebec changed progressively;
it was not a choice made overnight.
When I was younger, I did not belong to a sovereignist
political party; I was a federalist. Then, in 1980, I voted yes in
the referendum, and this was the proudest day of my life. I am
very proud of having voted yes. Since then, I have matured. I
think that is the right thing to do. I would like francophones
outside Quebec to be provided better protection. I would like
them to have rights.
During Statements by members under Standing Order 31
today, I rose to point out that, in Northern Ontario today,
francophones are having problems getting recognized. I do not
know where the hon. minister is from or what newspapers she
reads, but this is a fact and I think it is important to point it out.
Canada as a country will continue to exist; I have no doubt about
that.
I remember reading a book that said that birds migrate to the
south and that Canada was a fictitious country because it
stretched from East to West while the normal axis was
North-South. I think it must be true.
When Canada was an English colony, the English had lost the
whole southern part and they wanted to protect the North; that is
how a fictitious country with two founding peoples was born. Of
course, many other cultures came and joined them and they must
be respected.
People tend to think that minorities are poorly protected in
Quebec. I would like to tell you that the English courses given in
our schools in Quebec are improving. Our English-speaking
fellow citizens have good facilities, like hospitals in Montreal,
schools, three universities in Quebec territory. No other
province does as much for its minority, except possibly the
national capital, with the University of Ottawa and Saint Paul
University. Except for that, there is nothing. I think that it is
important to say so.
I want to tell you that I want Quebec to be a sovereign country.
Yes, Quebec and Canada should have good relations; we should
learn to live together side by side in harmony and trade with
each other. As you know, one side cannot do it alone. We in the
Bloc Quebecois are in this debate and we will win.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to
follow the line of questioning of my colleague, the Minister of
Health. I am sure I heard the hon. member talk about his
commitment, his responsibility and his party's responsibility
for francophones outside Quebec.
(1715 )
If they are successful in creating a country called Quebec,
how do they expect to honour those commitments to
francophones outside of Quebec? Instead of focusing on
francophones and their needs in this great country, are they
focusing instead on the creation of a country for the self-serving
politicians who in fact want to lead a nation?
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for her question.
6464
In the same way that Quebecers treat their minorities well, I
believe that in a separate Canada Canadians will treat their
minorities well. It will be both sides treating their minorities
well. That is important for the future of our maybe two
countries. I do not think there is a problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to
the hon. member's comments and I find it strange that he did not
mention that, while there are 1 million francophones outside
Quebec, 250 anglophones are now enroled in French immersion
classes. We were even told that young Chinese are enroling in
large numbers in Vancouver's French-language schools, a fact
that should not be forgotten. I still think that they forgot to tell us
about Canadian realities. Despite what they say, this is not a
fictitious country. This is a wealthy country that belongs to the
Group of Seven and that has achieved a great deal. We helped
liberate France, Belgium and the rest of Europe in World War II.
I think that Canadians have demonstrated their maturity, their
know-how. They got involved when other countries did not heed
the call. I think that we were able to accommodate Quebecers'
needs and desires, because the federal government has invested
heavily in Quebec to enable it to express its identity.
Our Quebec includes Natives and anglophones. The Quebec
forest that their PQ friends in Quebec City talk about is not only
French-speaking; it also includes several cultural communities.
Yet, I hear the hon. member speak as though only those people
descended from the 60,000 settlers identified by Lionel Groulx
were real Quebecers.
I would like to know if, in his opinion, today's Quebec
includes other cultures. We often hear about a Quebec open to
the world but the hon. member would have us forget this 15 or 20
per cent of the population that is an important part of Quebec as
we know it today.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my
hon. colleague simply by quoting figures to show him that the
tree always falls on the same side here in Canada. Of the 13,000
so-called bilingual positions in the armed forces, 6,000 are held
mainly by bilingual francophones, while the other 7,000 are held
by anglophones for lack of bilingual candidates. Yet they
decided to close the military college in Saint-Jean where
anglophones could have been trained in French, where they
could have taken immersion classes and gone outside the
military community to experience a little Quebec culture and
practice their French. But no, they will be taught French in
Kingston where there is no immersion, where they will stay in an
English-speaking environment and try to learn French as best
they can.
That is an example of this government's bad decisions. The
tree always falls on the side of the majority. If we look at what is
happening in Canada, it is very difficult for a majority to
understand a minority. However, since Quebecers are a
minority in Canada, we understand well the problems of the
anglophone minority in Quebec and we have given anglophones
their own institutions. I challenge anyone in this House to find
better anywhere else in Canada.
(1720 )
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
on this legislation. I begin by saying that as I sit and listen to the
Bloc Quebecois I continue to wonder whether we have lost our
minds.
We are looking back over the last 25 years. I had the great
privilege and opportunity to work for the greatest Prime
Minister this country ever had, Pierre Trudeau. I think of what
this one Quebecer did to make sure that the presence of the
francophone culture permeated every region of this country. I
think of the fights and the battles and the commitment that he led
to move and expand opportunities for Quebecers right across
this country, not just in the public service.
By his example and by his presence, he created an
environment where Quebec business leaders are now running
companies in every part of our country. I think of the Public
Service of Canada right across this country. Maybe it is not a
majority but a very high percentage, very close to 50 per cent of
the public service positions right now are managed by
francophones. In fact most of these senior positions are
bilingual imperative.
I know that the system is not perfect, but there are signs
regarding the great experiment, the great drive to respect so
much of what the members in the Bloc are fighting for, respect
for their culture and respect for their language. I cannot believe
that they do not really believe in their heart of hearts that it has
moved forward tremendously.
Could one imagine 10 or 15 years ago that in the province of
Alberta today, as we now have, there are lineups to get into
French immersion schools? If 15 years ago someone stood up in
Alberta and predicted that in 1990 there would be lineups to get
into French immersion schools, the person making that
statement would have been thought out of his or her mind. But
that is the reality of Canada today. There are lineups to get into
French immersion schools in nearly every part of this country,
including my own community.
I do not want to suggest that the system is perfect, but we have
moved a long way. I will tell this House what bothers my
constituents. We are trying to build this country, trying to
develop national programs and a national spirit. We have tried to
move the French language into radio, television and into senior
positions in the public service. Now, all of a sudden, we have a
small group here from the province of Quebec who would say to
all of Canada: ``Well, it was a nice try''. In spite of the billions
and billions of dollars that all Canadians have paid to make this
great experiment work, we now have a small group of people
6465
here who want to say: ``We quit. We quit this great experiment''.
It is more than an experiment; it is working.
I am very excited about this bill because I have always
believed in the Government of Canada presence being promoted
right across this country. One of the reasons why I ran to be a
member of Parliament in downtown Toronto was because I
opposed the Meech Lake accord.
(1725 )
I opposed the Meech Lake accord because I do not believe in
dismantling national programs and national institutions. I do not
believe in giving any group preferential status in this country. I
believe in a multicultural society. A multicultural society means
to me that no culture is less than or greater than another culture.
When one wants to talk about a distinct society that has
special status, do not count on me to support that kind of thrust
where one gives a special status to any particular culture in this
country. Respect for bilingualism? It is the law of the land. I
support that fully. However, to give special status to one culture
over another, no way. That is not on.
One of the reasons the Bloc Quebecois does not like this
legislation is that it will once again reinvigorate the department
that is so important in our rebuilding the Government of Canada
presence in the province of Quebec.
We talk in this bill about making sure that our parks and all of
our Canadian symbols, our broadcasting and our cultural policy
reflect the fact that we are a country from coast to coast. We do
not just go from the west coast and jump over Quebec to Atlantic
Canada. This is a country from coast to coast.
Nothing should please Canadians more than making sure that
the federal presence is reinvigorated in the province of Quebec.
I believe, and this is where I come apart from my friends in the
Reform Party, that if we want to keep this country together, we
have to spend some money.
An hon. member: Your grandchildren's money.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The member is
absolutely right. The Reform Party says that it will be my
grandchildren's money. I don't have any yet, but hopefully.
There will not be anything for our grandchildren if we do not
rebuild the national presence, the Government of Canada
presence, and the symbols of Canada in the province of Quebec.
This is what I cannot understand from the Reform Party. For
10 years we had a Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, who basically
retreated from building, exposing or showing what the
Government of Canada did in Quebec. He was quite happy to
shovel off and devolve responsibility to the operating province
of Quebec.
One of the reasons we have such a strong separatist feeling in
Quebec right now is that the Government of Canada presence,
the services, the programs, the symbols and the things that all
Canadians pay for, is not realized by Quebecers. It is in the
billions. In no other province in Canada do we have a situation
like that.
When government programs, government services and
government activities happen in all the other provinces and in
the Northwest Territories, they are plainly and clearly
identified. However, in the province of Quebec we basically
dismantle the federal presence. That of course is the reason as I
said earlier why the Bloc Quebecois does not like this
legislation. With this legislation we are going to once again try
to rebuild that presence.
If we go to Quebecers and ask: ``Do you want to continue to be
a part of Canada?'', let us at least let Quebecers know what we
are doing.
(1730 )
It has nothing to do with the heritage department. It has to do
with all those symbols, services and programs that right now are
not known as Government of Canada services and projects.
Once again I stand here and say we in this Chamber are trying to
rebuild the spirit of this country. We are trying to make sure
there is a national feeling shared by all Canadians right across
the country. I hope that one day a large majority of Quebecers
will see that the best opportunity for their language and culture
is by being a part of the whole nation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I feel my temper rising, but I will try to stay calm.
Really, that is the absolute limit! That is dreadful! Where does
the parliamentary secretary come from? Toronto, surely. He
apparently visits Ottawa, but he never goes anywhere else
because what he says is totally false.
For nine years, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney did everything
in his power to bring Quebec back into Canada. Take Meech
Lake, for example, who blocked it? Who stood in the way? The
Grits did, the hon. member in particular. He just admitted it.
There was a lady whom we cannot name, who is now
somewhere, but we cannot say where, and who has just been
rewarded for doing the good deeds requested today by the lady
whom we cannot name. I refer to Sharon Carstairs. We will not
name her. That was one.
Two, the sorry tale of Charlottetown. What a farce. What a
pity there was no Mr. Lisée in 1867 to tell us how Canada was
built. What about a railway system right across Canada? And a
ferry to Prince Edward Island in perpetuity; so we amended the
Constitution for the ferry. The deed was done in a business-like
fashion by a bunch of businessmen with no long-term vision
6466
about the chaos they were sending this country into. We no
longer have a railway system. That was the only cross-country
link we had, and it does not exist any more.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Thanks to the electronic highway,
we have made progress, in our part of the country.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): We will see
what happens in New Brunswick. He says that Canada is not
visible in Quebec. This is why they want to implement their
social reform. They want to give students a cheque with a red
flag on it. They want to bring together the young and the old.
They scare old people when they give them a cheque with a red
flag. But seniors in Quebec are no dummies. They know what is
going on. They realize that whether the cheque is blue or red, the
money comes from our pockets. There is no pot from which to
hand out money to Quebec seniors every month. There is no such
thing and seniors have figured that out a long time ago.
Actually, Canada is visible in Quebec. There are big signs
now. But they never thought of putting up such signs before Mr.
Lévesque's government decided to do just that. Such an idea had
never occurred to them. Only when Mr. Lévesque got his blue
signs out did we start to see nice red signs go up. Now, those
signs are black and white; they are as bleak as can be. Like the
future of Canada. Completely shut out in total darkness. Such is
Canada's visibility. Canada never gave us our fair share. This is
what we said; this is what Quebecers know; this is what we will
show and demonstrate to them. Canada has no future in Quebec
and Quebecers will remember that on referendum day.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I did not
mean to get the member upset.
The member stated that Canada has no place in Quebec. If I
understood the member correctly, she implied that the rest of
Canadians have not done that much to contribute to the
development of Quebec within the context of Canada. It is sad
the member believes that because we are all doing our best to
make this work. Today several members on this side of the
House have stated that the system is not perfect but it has been
getting better. By refusing to work at building the country the
member will only make the situation worse because the facts
will eventually be communicated to Quebecers.
(1735)
We are entering a very tough period where not only Quebecers
are doing the substantial in depth analysis of government
programs and services and fiscal transfers. We are talking about
programs and transfers of all the things related to our heritage
not only in the province of Quebec but right across the country.
When all of those analyses are done, as the Bloc so often likes
to do line by line, Quebecers will see that Canada is a much
better deal than most of them ever realized. Certainly when
every member in the Bloc goes through the line by line exercise
in relation to the whole, they are going to see that Canada is the
place to be.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am a
westerner and I am from Alberta and I heard-
Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Remarks such as those are out of
order. I have an opportunity to speak on this floor.
In my view the hon. member who just spoke did not speak of a
long term vision that addressed all of us in Canada. Is his view
that what is required now is to continue to increase program
spending to pacify Quebec? Quebecers appear to have made a
decision here. The hon. member is suggesting that indeed we
have not yet spent enough to facilitate and support Quebec to
keep it in this federation, which quite frankly is falling apart.
This bill is about legislating and entrenching
multiculturalism which we cannot afford, national bilingualism
which we cannot afford, and special interest group funding
which we cannot afford. As an Albertan and a westerner I take
great exception to the fact that this debate keeps wallowing in
the issue of Quebec separation.
I would like the hon. member to address these points and to
remember that Canada does extend beyond the Ontario border.
There is a whole other part of this country called Canada and it is
the west. The west is getting really fed up with all of this talk as
well because it is all just talk. I am equally as disgusted and fed
up as the hon. member from Quebec who just spoke. I am fed up
with this whole debate as well, because it is going nowhere. It is
grinding down into a ridiculous discussion about more spending
and Canadian taxpayers will not tolerate any more spending.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure whether the member was suggesting that more resources
were needed in Alberta to augment the bilingualism line-ups. Is
that what she meant?
(1740 )
One of the greatest issues in western Canada which the
western members especially those in the Reform Party talk
about is eliminating the grants, program funding and all of those
other things that help us develop as a nation. But very rarely do
we hear members, especially those from Alberta telling us to cut
the oil tax grants that are buried in the tax act of Canada. I cannot
wait for the day when the hon. member says: ``Cut those oil and
tax grants''. That is the day I am waiting for.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, for the
benefit of people reading Hansard I will tell them that I am
wearing a tartan tie which I purchased in Scotland this summer.
It is my family tartan and I am very proud of it.
6467
I just want to make a couple of comments about this whole
business. The Liberals have permitted this debate to fall off the
tracks. It has ended up in a squabble match between them and the
Bloc over whether the Bloc is right or they are right or whatever.
As I said, my wife and I visited Scotland this summer. I was
very impressed that the people of Scotland, who have much
blood on the ground over various things which have happened in
their history, are very, very proud of their Scottish heritage. I
can only hope after we are successful in defeating the separatists
in their referendum whenever they want to bring it, that the
Quebecois in exactly the same way that the Acadians have, will
say: ``I am proud to be a Quebecer,'' in the same way that the
people in Scotland say: ``I am proud to be Scottish, but boy am I
happy to be a part of the United Kingdom''. I can only hope we
will see a move in that direction.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood finally mentioned
the word parks in this debate. Surprisingly in the grab bag that is
Canadian Heritage, national parks are actually included. I
suggest that parks possibly have more in common with the
Department of the Environment. I have a couple of thoughts
along that line in terms of the reorganization of the Department
of Canadian Heritage.
The Canadian Parks Service objective for national parks as
enunciated in 1991 is to protect for all time representative
natural areas of Canadian significance in a system of national
parks and to encourage public understanding, appreciation and
enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired
for future generations. It is for this reason that I suggest because
of the very obvious close connection to the Department of the
Environment that perhaps parks would be better served in a
different department.
Let me also read from the 1990 publication ``State of the
Parks''. The introduction says in part: ``The national park
profiles and national historic site profiles are designed to
identify basic data for each park and site in the system. As such
they will provide a context for the first state of the parks report.
They represent a first attempt to provide a comprehensive
reference list of the values, conditions and threats which occur
throughout the system''.
At another point it says: ``At this stage the data for the profiles
are preliminary and reports of conditions are generally based on
professional judgments rather than definitive criteria. This
report fills an important function in that it identifies quite
specifically gaps in the information systems which need to be
addressed''. And this is the specific connection: ``Canada's
green plan will provide resources to take an ecosystem approach
to the management of national parks. In co-operation with other
services of the Department of the Environment, the parks
service will be developing indicators to measure the condition
of the natural resources and the stability of the cultural
resources''.
(1745 )
It is important to note that the introduction to this
presentation in 1990 was done at a time when parks were
actually a part of the Ministry of the Environment. Under Kim
Campbell's regime she made this grab bag of Canadian heritage
that now happens to include parks.
For reference let me also read from the news release from the
current minister dated March 24, 1994. In its background,
national heritage considerations, ecological integrity: ``In the
establishment and management of national parks, Parks Canada
strives to maintain the ecological integrity of those protected
areas. Ecological integrity is defined as a condition whereby the
structure and function of an ecosystem are unimpaired by the
stress of human activity and are likely to remain so.
The 1994 Parks Canada guiding principles and operational
policies provide the framework for achieving this condition
within national parks in conjunction with their sustainable use
and enjoyment by visitors''.
Parks are of great interest to me because I have three parks in
my constituency; Kootenay National Park, Yoho National Park
and Glacier National Park. Therefore I am quite interested in
them. I have also taken time to read the current and most recent
study from the Glacier-Mount Revelstoke National Park
management plan.
In summary this very good document tells me the direction
the park wants to go. Basically it is leave it alone, do not touch
it. Leave it in its natural state. It also talks about the fact that if
certain flora or fauna or smaller animals or birds have been
removed through the mismanagement of the parks, the parks
would like to add them back.
Interestingly though, they say that they will only let wild fires
burn if they are in very remote areas and would simply go
straight up the mountain. I can appreciate that where we have the
Northlander Lodge and other buildings of that type, even parks
buildings and camp sites with washroom facilities and so on and
so forth that you would want to protect that area. However the
difficulty is because we do not have a really clear definition of
what we want to do in our parks. Because we have a Disneyland,
Bambi kind of an idea about what a forest looks like, we are
saying: ``Leave it alone, except we will suppress fire''.
The difficulty is that even in Glacier National Park there is an
area of the park that has a campground in it that has root rot.
Root rot is something perfectly normal that is going to happen to
trees. Therefore, due to lack of understanding, people from
6468
Canada, the United States and Europe travelling through will
say: ``Oh my, how awful, this part of the forest has died''.
Forests live and die in the same way that populations or
people within populations live and die. We have a situation right
now in Kootenay National Park-and I would suggest that this
would be applicable to parks on the east coast and on the west
coast-where we have a bug or a blight. We have in quite a
number of trees an infestation where the trees are all turning red.
How terrible. No, it is not terrible. That is part of nature's plan,
of regeneration.
As a matter of fact the reason why we have dominantly
lodgepole pines up through Banff, Kootenay Park, Yoho Park
and on up through Jasper is because around 1885 for a
three-year period fire actually started as far south as Mexico
and slowly worked its way up so that we have this monoculture
of lodgepole pine. The trees have now reached a point where
they are attracting disease or bugs.
(1750)
If we as human beings have not learned anything from what
was in many cases an explosion in Yellowstone National Park
where the place turned into an absolute inferno with no
conceivable way of being able to control that inferno, then we
have not learned very much. Particularly in Banff National Park
they have tried burning some of the undergrowth and
underbrush, to try to maintain this Disneyland kind of Bambi,
Smoky the Bear, approach to what a forest is supposed to look
like.
I also read in the same report under sustainable use that
throughout the consultative process leading to a revision of
Parks Canada policies, discussions surrounding national parks
underwent the most scrutiny. There was concern about which
activities and facilities are appropriate within the confines of
national parks.
In response a revised policy reflects the role of national parks
as part of larger ecosystems. Therefore decision making must be
based on an understanding of surrounding environments leading
to partnerships for the protection and sustainable use of the
whole ecosystem. In the national parks context this means that
people gain direct and indirect benefits from heritage resources
over the long term without destroying them.
Herein lies the conundrum. Herein lies the problem. In fact, in
my judgment in many situations in our national parks-again I
direct this to whether we are talking about the east coast, the far
north, central Canada, because of our Disneyland approach to
parks-we are actually letting the parks act as an incubator for
bugs and disease where the trees are being killed. As a
consequence we are loading the fuel and when it takes off there
is going to be no stopping it. Commercial forests outside of
parks are going to be negatively impacted either by disease,
bugs or fire.
Glacier National Park has a budget of $7.3 million and 99 full
time people. Yoho National Park has a budget of $5.8 million
with 81 full time people. In the case of Glacier National Park the
vast majority, 75 to 80 per cent, of the budget is for road
clearing. I would like to know what in the world Heritage
Canada is doing in the road clearing business when we have
perfectly competent, capable, equipped departments,
subcontractors or contractors to the provincial government?
To give an idea of where this is going, I have a press release in
my hand of September 12 from Doug Martin, regional
vice-president, Public Service Alliance of Canada and it reads:
``Parks Canada is contemplating centralizing Yoho National
Park highway crew to Banff and Lake Louise. Also being
considered for transfer are the finance and store operations.
Yoho employs approximately 60 full time and seasonal
employees. The proposed transfer affects upwards of 40
employees who will be required to move to Alberta''. It goes on
and raises some very legitimate concerns.
I was speaking about an hour ago with the mayor of the town
of Golden which is in my constituency. The mayor was asking
me: ``What is going on, what is happening''. He is going into a
council meeting tonight. They want to know. They need to know.
I lay at the door of the Liberal government the fact that this
area of parks management is completely up in the air, is rolling
over, is appearing to be completely out of control. We are into a
process of redirection and there is no direction from the top; the
top level being the minister of parks.
(1755 )
Furthermore, in taking a look at the whole issue of highways
and asking why Parks Canada is in the highway business, I read
in a note from the Northlander Lodge, which is up in Rogers
Pass: ``The Alberta Truckers Association lobbied long and hard
and advanced the position that they should not have to pay to
transport commercial goods across Canada on the Trans-Canada
Highway just because the highway happened to go through the
federal park''. Parks Canada made a policy decision and in a
speech in Calgary the minister announced that through
commercial traffic would no longer have to pay a toll to go
through the parks. He is asking if there is going to be a
reimposition of the toll in the parks because it very directly
impacts on his business.
If there is a reimposition of the toll for the vehicles going
through the parks, then people coming through are going to be in
a position of saying: I am not going to stop at the Northlander
Lodge because I did not pay my permit; I am not going to stop
for a cup of coffee, I am not going to stop for that extra gas that I
think I need, I am going to bypass it. This directly affects him.
The reason why I am asking if it makes sense for parks to be in
the highway business is that the last time I looked commercial
vehicles, for that matter passenger vehicles, are presently
paying to all the provinces diesel and fuel taxes that should be
6469
going to the capital cost of maintaining roads as well as the day
to day maintenance of roads.
I believe in user pay. The Reform Party believes that those
who are using a service should be paying for it. I understand that
and I support that. However if it works to the detriment of the
businesses that are located in the parks, then that is just plain
wrong-headed thinking.
Right at the moment we have a situation in Kootenay National
Park-again let me put in parenthesis that I am referring to some
specific situations I am personally familiar with. I have every
reason to believe that the same kind of situation is in place in
virtually every park across Canada. We are talking about a
management situation, what should we be doing. With the
greatest respect to my friends across the way, the people are not
getting direction from the top.
For example we are looking at enterprise units in parks. What
is an enterprise unit in a park? If you have hot pools in Radium,
in Banff and in Jasper and the revenue from the visitors to those
pools is just going into consolidated revenue, that does not
generate efficient management of those pools. As an example,
that is the first of the enterprise units. They have hired an
individual and the revenue coming in from the pools is going to
be segregated so that they can use it to manage the park facilities
related to the pools.
Here again, we have an issue of hiring practices. Should we
not be making sure that the parks are in a position to be able to
hire people with pool management backgrounds rather than
being forced to hire from within the civil service, still with the
civil service mind, to be able to get the job done?
In conclusion, I believe for dollar efficiency that the heritage
department should turn over parks back to the environment
department. I also believe in the concept of enterprise units,
where you would have user pay so that you get the dollars to
provide the service.
Finally, may I suggest that Canada sell the parks building in
the very high rent district in Calgary, get out of Calgary, move
the people into a town like Golden which is right in the centre,
and manage the parks from a low rent district and a district that
more reflects the area than the area the bureaucrats in Calgary
are presently in.
(1800 )
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue, Mr.
Speaker. These are a few ideas that I have with respect to parks.
In summary I say I believe parks should be moved from heritage
back to environment.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great interest to the hon. member's comments. I was studying
today's material about our national park system because my
riding of Algoma is one of the most beautiful areas in the
country and should have been looked at seriously for a national
park, parts of it anyway.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on my concern
and impression that he would like to see parks totally
self-sufficient in a fiscal sense. Truly there are parks in this
country that must be preserved for the good of our children that
will never be sustainable on a purely fee for service basis.
Does he believe that the heritage of our country in its natural
areas can only be preserved on a fee for service basis? Does he
not believe that we cannot look at these resources only from that
point of view?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question
because it is very valid. If we were just talking about a fee for
service basis and we were losing sight of the fact that the parts of
the parks that people most frequently want to go to, like the
Burgess Shale in Yoho Park, and I am sure there are some other
specific areas that people want to go to, there must be a control.
There must be a park warden. There must be people who are
actually going through the process to make sure that the
integrity of that area is under proper control.
I would suggest that for those areas in particular that where
we have to be spending dollars using resources to give special
protection to those areas, those areas should be not only
preserved for the good of our children which would happen, not
only totally self-sufficient but I believe they could actually be
profit-making so that some of the cost of doing the general work
that the member refers to would be able to come out of that
revenue and thereby be less draining on our bankrupt treasury at
this point.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member. I listened very intently to his concept of parks. I have
been to a number of parks in his riding.
I guess the concern I have which follows along with the
previous comment is whether our parks are ones that we want to
prevent people from using based on their income. In other
words, I think most people look at our parks in Canada as part of
our national heritage. I suppose that is what we are debating
today.
To the extent that a poor person possibly cannot access some
of these areas, I think of the sulphur pools and so forth that the
member is talking about, because the maintenance cost is such
that they become prohibitive to do so, only wealthy people or
middle class people, however you want to define that, will have
access to our national parks. I wonder if that is not somewhat of
an abuse of the concept of user pay.
I noted one other point. The hon. member talked about the
roads that would not be user pay but that some of the facilities in
the part should be. I wonder how he gets around that
contradiction.
6470
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, handling the last point first, the
roads currently are user pay and that is currently going into
provincial coffers by way of fuel taxes.
What I am attempting to find out is the relationship between
the amount of fuel tax that goes into the coffers of the province
of B.C. and the fact that basically the province of British
Columbia at this point appears to get off scott free from the very
excessive costs of trying to keep Rogers Pass open which is a
real chore. It is the same thing in Yoho Park.
The member's point is well taken and I have given a lot of
thought to his question.
(1805 )
In the area of the pools I do not think there would have to be an
excessive charge. If they are handled on an entrepreneurial basis
as their own enterprise unit, which is the experiment currently
being tried, we would find that the prices probably would not
have to go up. If there were an entrepreneurial spirit on the part
of management it would end up taking care of itself.
It is just that previously when the dollars were coming in and
then going into consolidated revenue, there was no connection
between the dollars coming in and the maintenance required
because the maintenance required did not have anything to do
with the dollars coming in. That is why I support the concept of
the enterprise unit.
I would suggest that the member and others consider the
Tatshenshini which is an area as far north and west in British
Columbia as one can go. It is a large triangle shape that fits into
the top corner of the province, right behind the Alaska
panhandle. This is an area that the province of B.C. has now
turned into a class A provincial park.
I cannot afford to go there. I literally cannot afford to go there.
I do not happen to have $5,000 for a helicopter. I do not have
another $1,500 for the rafting. It is there if I have the resources
and I want to go there. If I have the $5,000 or $6,500 I can get
there, but I do not have those dollars.
I suggest that the member consider that what we have done in
the case of Tatshenshini in the province of B.C., recognizing that
it is not a national park but still in concept, is to take an area, set
it aside, take it out of the mining grid and turn it over to people
who happen to have $6,500 so that they can raft down the river.
This concept of user pay for specific areas I do not think
anybody is going to find too difficult when they put it against the
cost of actually providing the service on a park by park basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, as critic
for the Industry, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the
Department of Canadian Heritage Act, particularly since last
Monday, exactly a week ago, I also raised, as critic for my Party,
to speak on the Department of Industry Act, a piece of
legislation aiming at combining former departments which was
drafted by the Campbell government and copied by the current
government.
At the time, we said that the Department of Industry had so
many responsibilities and such a scope that the Parliamentary
Secretary, who unfortunately has left, called his minister
``superman''. We said that we will leave it to the voters to decide
whether or not the Prime Minister has made a wise decision.
During the debate, we recognized that the mandate of the
Department of Industry was wide-ranging and that there was a
lot of duplication with Quebec's regional development
programs as well as with other federal institutions dealing with
regional development, particularly the NRC.
But the reason I wanted to speak on this bill is that there is also
a lot of duplication and overlap, and very little progress, where
Canadian heritage and this bill are concerned. Indeed, when it
comes to jurisdictions and the powers, duties and functions of
the Minister of Industry, clause 4(1)(h) of Bill C-46 provides
that the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to
and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction,
not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of
the government of Canada, relating to
(h) patents, copyrights, trade-marks, industrial designs and integrated circuit
topographies;
And pursuant to clause 4(1)(k), the powers of the Minister
also extend to
(k) telecommunications, except in relation to (i) the planning and
coordination of telecommunication services for departments, boards and
agencies of the Government of Canada, and (ii) broadcasting, other than in
relation to spectrum management and the technical aspects of broadcasting;
Thus, we see two important areas where there is duplication
and a little overlapping concerning copyrights and
telecommunications.
As for copyrights, it has to be either a chance mishap that
should be corrected without delay or a deliberate decision. If it
is a deliberate decision, it is very tendentious and significative
to entrust the Department of Industry with the whole issue of
copyrights.
(1810)
Everybody knows, since they have their own personal culture,
that when you delegate a question like copyrights to the
Department of Industry, you are going against a whole culture.
Just as a business has a culture, a department has one, and in this
case it is a business culture.
Writers were familiar with the Department of
Communications which was the organization previously
responsible for everything pertaining to ``Canadian'' culture.
These people, in Canada and Quebec, were in the habit-a good
habit-of dealing with people who understood their problems
and with whom they had probably established relationships.
6471
Now, the government supports the Conservative Party's
approach of treating copyrights like any other commercial
product; this approach was condemned in English Canada as
well as in Quebec. We have information on the subject. The
whole situation gives rise to so much unease, discomfort and
unfairness that it strains the relationship between the artistic
community and the Canadian government, as represented by the
Department of Industry.
But even worse, we must know that Industry Canada is
beholden to American interests, and this is part of the
international problem. That was the case with the Conservative
Party and the Liberal Party, in spite of all its pretensions, is no
better. It seems that the arts community feels very affected by
the situation. For reasons of efficiency and respect for
individuals and organizations in the field, bringing the whole
issue of copyrights back under the responsibility of the
Department of Canadian Heritage has been suggested.
The other aspect concerns communications and
telecommunications. There is a lot of duplication and it is very
tendentious and revealing. And again, form is favoured over
substance. The tools used in the world of telecommunications
today are very sophisticated, whether we are talking about
optical fibres or coaxial cables, and it is the tools that are the
government's main concern.
The Department of Canadian Heritage deals with
communications and telecommunications, but it has to take into
account the business concerns of Industry Canada. When we say
that Industry Canada is beholden to American interests, it is
important to know that, according to the information we have,
the situation has completely changed in the United States, which
means that the cultural sovereignty of both Canada and Quebec
is at stake.
There was a time when the Americans' own market was
enough to meet their financial needs. They just had to export
part of their output to cover their costs and make profits. Today,
they have to export a lot more because production costs have
become excessively high, as we can see in the world of sports for
example.
That is why the cultural pressures from the United States that
we have always felt since the Second World War have become
even greater over the past few years. Today, the Americans have
no choice. This is very serious for us in Quebec, and maybe even
more serious for English Canada.
In Quebec, as far as cultural sovereignty is concerned, we, the
sovereignists, are in the process of settling the matter. We are
taking steps so that the issue of Quebec cultural sovereignty, as
well as its full sovereignty, could be settled in a matter of eight
to ten months.
But the situation is not the same as far as the cultural
sovereignty of Canada is concerned. Instead of putting
sovereignists on trial here in this House, if members opposite do
not realize that the cultural sovereignty of Canada itself is
threatened because of the overpowering influence of
telecommunications, they will soon have to deal with problems
of great magnitude.
(1815)
On the week end-as luck would have it-I was listening to a
public affairs program of an economic nature, dealing precisely
with cultural development. They were saying that Toronto,
which had fallen on hard times because of problems in real
estate and because of the recession, seems to be recovering
much strength, thanks mostly to the cultural sector. Toronto is
indeed regaining its demographic and economic weight because
of billion-dollar developments in that area. So much so that
Toronto has become the third largest cultural city in North
America, after Los Angeles and New York, but it is Toronto,
American style.
That is a problem people across the way should be concerned
about because they face a giant that will smother whatever is left
of the distinct personality Canada claims it has. I hate to think
what would happen if Quebec decided to go its own way. We are
playing our role as the Official Opposition when we tell
Canadians that they should shape their own future the same way
Quebecers will, shortly.
Since we are talking about broadcasting, telecommunications
and communications, I would be remiss in my duty as the
member for Trois-Rivières if I did not mention the recent
decision broadcasters in Quebec made, almost arbitrarily, it
would appear, or at least without notice or with very little
consultation, to close down six AM radio stations overnight. I
am dismayed to see this happen, and I want my constituents in
Trois-Rivières to know it. I already had an opportunity to
comment on those radio station closures.
Such a decision raises two concerns. One is the media
concentration in Quebec and the attendant curtailing of freedom
of expression through various channels. As a result of that
concentration, those who work in the media will have to abide
by their code of ethics even more strictly in order to do their
work properly.
At noontime, the Minister of Canadian Heritage rejected all
responsibility. We could very well blame the CRTC or question
its decision to grant too many new FM licences, because those
new stations slowly but surely eroded the advertising revenues
the AM stations depended on. We now see the results of this
laxism.
Lastly, in the communications sector, there is also the
electronic highway which, likewise, has a commercial aspect.
The vehicle is given much more importance than the content and
Quebec is completely excluded. This responsibility is assigned
6472
to Industry Canada. In Quebec, however, Mr. Parizeau recently
assigned it to his Minister of Culture. I believe that is the right
way to go about it and Canada takes a different approch to
government, which is not necessarily sound.
I would like to conclude on the fundamental question of what
pertains to Heritage Canada. We can argue that one activity
should come under this jurisdiction or that another activity
should under that jurisdiction, but for us, as sovereignists,
Heritage Canada is a major tool of a supposedly profitable
federalism, a major tool for the assimilating Quebecers or
attempting to assimilate them and intrude in a field which
clearly is in provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec, where
it should come under the sole jurisdiction of the Quebec
government. All the money for Quebec administered by
Heritage Canada should be given to the Government of Quebec,
as soon as possible.
Therefore, I support the amendment presented by my
colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata.
(1820)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member's comments
were most interesting. There was some discussion of the
technical aspects, since according to him, copyright should be
patriated from Industry Canada to Culture Canada, and I thought
that was very interesting.
However, according to his last comments, the role played by
federalism, Culture Canada, the CBC, Telefilm Canada, the
National Film Board and all agencies concerned with promoting
French Canadian culture in Montreal and Quebec is an attempt
at assimilation. I think that is strong language that does not
reflect the real situation at all, because I explained in the
House-and I got no reaction-that 40 per cent of the films
produced by the National Film Board were French. I think that is
a very real aspect of our Confederation.
Again, I got no reaction when I said that the National Film
Board and Telefilm Canada largely subsidized Falardeau's last
film about the October crisis. I asked them if they could find an
instance in which France provided funding for a Corsican or
Breton nationalist to produce a similar film. I believe that the
role played by the government reflects a wide-ranging,
generous and comprehensive approach, and the maturity and
confidence to consider the views of the opposition, as we are
doing today.
We are still discussing the pervasiveness of American culture
in our cultural industries. Sure. It is a fact of life that we, a
nation of 6 million francophones, are like an island in a sea of
anglophones. Incidentally, I was interested in the references to
France, a country which I know fairly well. In 1984, when
people went to the cinema in France, more than 70 per cent of the
films they saw were French productions. Unfortunately, today,
only 30 per cent of the films seen by French movie goers are
French productions. It is clear that France has lost control of its
national production, while we in Quebec, thanks to the generous
participation of the federal government, have been able to
produce quality films and support French Canadian songwriters
and composers.
I am thinking of Canadian productions like Roch Voisine and
Céline Dion, good singers all of them. The Canadian
government has also helped small producers who were not a big
international success and who were not a big success in the
United States. I do not think these small producers really have to
go and produce in the United States. We are here to encourage
them to develop French culture in Quebec and Canada and to
provide them with a market, not only in this country but also
internationally.
Today, unfortunately, the opposition failed to take this
opportunity to recognize that the federal government, thanks to
its grant system and participation, has been a major factor in the
growth and development of Quebec culture.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is adopting
that point of view on the issue because if, in their longing for
sovereignty, there is one area where Quebecers can be proud and
sure of themselves, surely it is the arts. The very existence of
Telefilm Canada means there is great talent in Quebec.
(1825)
We saw it again, yesterday evening, during the Gala des
Gémeaux: we had the opportunity to celebrate dozens of people
who make us sincerely and spontaneously proud and who are
part of our own. I think this is an element on which Quebecers
will have to base their judgment; the ability in arts and sports of
this small group perched in the northern part of North America.
Recently at the Olympic Games, we showed the world how good
we were. And we showed it also in the economic sector with
Québec Inc. We can be sovereign in all areas; we can take our
fate into our own hands and take the necessary steps to reach full
development.
I think we owe nothing to the Canadian government because
the help we received from Telefilm Canada and other agencies
was due to the presence of talented francophones who were
appointed there and had the insight to see talent and promote it
with taxes paid by Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue a little
further the member's expressed concerns about the invasion of
American
6473
culture which might overwhelm all of Canada including his
province, according to his thesis.
I really wonder if he believes that in an independent Quebec in
the English cultural sea which the hon. member opposite
mentioned they could hope to resist these forces without the
protection, care and nurturing that French Canadian culture gets
outside of Quebec? This is the buffer zone and we pay for it. We
westerners pay for it at enormous cost.
I do not say I like it, but it is happening. I think the hon.
member should be duly grateful.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I just want to go over the things
that could threaten the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture,
if it exists, because I really think there remains some doubts
about that in some circles. In Quebec, in part for historical
reasons, we are in a process of taking over our own destiny and
making sure that our culture, which is unique in the world, will
survive and develop.
It seems that the same cannot be said of the Canadian culture
and that the Canadian stakeholders have not yet understood how
critical the situation is. It is high time, given the
communications systems in place today and the American
domination over this small country which is Canada, north of
the United States, and what will be left of it after Quebec
separation, that these people take their future in hand and
understand how critical the situation is. For us, as far as the
francophones outside Quebec are concerned, we are going to
take care of them like people of the diaspora and perhaps we will
demand more than provincial and federal governments do today.
We could cite the example of the anglophone minority and the
other minorities in a sovereign Quebec and legitimately demand
that the rest of Canada be as generous as we are.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated a lot the comments of my colleague from
the Reform Party. It is a bit disappointing to see that the debate
is getting out of hand. We have clearly stated our positions, we
have said that we are against that bill for very fundamental
reasons and all day long, members of the government kept on
rising to tell us again and again how wonderful our country was,
how beautiful and how great it was. Both Telefilm and the
National Film Board make lots of films.
The National Film Board no longer has the money to make
films and this is no secret. It makes films like Léolo. When
Telefilm Canada makes a film like Octobre, it is not investing in
the culture of Quebec, but an historical event that took place in
Canada, in October 1970. Who is the one who introduced the
War Measures Act? It is Trudeau. Who caused us to make that
movie? Who sent the army to Montreal? The army, that is
Canadian for sure. Thus, even if the event took place in
Montreal, it is Canadian. We must never forget that. It is not
because Telefilm Canada gives money to Quebec to make films,
it also gives money to Toronto. We have never denied that
cultural aspect. However, we are sick and tired of hearing
people talk all day long about how beautiful Canada is while
those same people will not admit that this department is going to
divide our country instead of unifying it.
_____________________________________________
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
(1830)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, last week I raised the question of the federal
environmental assessment panel investigating a proposal to
expand low level military flight training in Labrador,
specifically flying over the territorial land of the Innu.
In asking the question I noted that all the public interest
groups, including the Innu and the Sierra Club, have withdrawn
from the hearings, rendering the process nothing short of a
farce. The public has demonstrated by withdrawing from the
process a lack of confidence in that process.
I asked the minister what the federal government would do to
fix this so that the public and the most disadvantaged group in
the area, the Innu, could participate.
Since the question, the Minister of the Environment has met
with representatives of the Innu people and with Mr. Paul
Wilkinson, a former and recently resigned member of the
assessment panel in question. At that meeting and in a letter, Mr.
Wilkinson said: ``I was forced to conclude that I had outlived my
usefulness on the panel when the chairman was effectively
telling me that my opinion as a member of the panel carried less
weight than that of the Department of National Defence''.
The issue of the panel's bias is only one reason why the Innu
and others are justifiably not participating in the hearings.
According to the Innu, the panel seriously compromised the
integrity and independence of the process when it failed to
require the Department of National Defence to table critical
information before the start of the public hearings so that it
could be reviewed by the interveners.
The panel also prejudiced the hearing process by not requiring
DND to provide an analysis of the impact of low level flight
training on aboriginal rights, including the negotiation and
settlement of land rights in Quebec and Labrador.
6474
The Innu requested the right to cross examine DND technical
experts but they were denied by the panel. They are therefore
saying that they cannot participate in a hearing process in which
their land, their lives, the environment around them and their
rights are at stake but in which the proponent is not required to
put information on the table or stand accountable for other
information that is in question.
The Minister of the Environment has heard the arguments and
has indicated that mediation may be needed to make the
hearings more fair and visibly impartial.
I once again ask that the federal government suspend the
flights and suspend the hearings until the Innu rights and
concerns are addressed and that after addressing those rights
with or without mediation the federal government put in place
an independent environmental review process that is fair both to
the Innu and the land in question.
The minister has indicated in other places that Canada's new
environmental assessment legislation may be proclaimed within
two weeks. That new legislation sets out a process that may be
fairer. Perhaps the minister would suspend the present hearings
until what we know as Bill C-13 is proclaimed and then
establish a new panel under the auspices of the new agency and
do things right for a change.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
intervention on the low level military flying activities in
Labrador and Quebec.
The Minister of the Environment met recently with
representatives of the three native groups who have decided not
to participate to hear firsthand their concerns with the panel's
review procedures.
The minister listened very carefully to their views. She
respects their perspective but considers that the panel is
conducting its proceedings fairly and in accordance with its
mandate and the long tradition of independent federal
environmental assessment hearings.
The minister has stated in this very Chamber that if she is
presented with any evidence of bias on the part of any panel
member she would not hesitate to remove that member.
However, to date there is no evidence of any bias among the
panel membership. The panel will hear from those who are
interested in participating in a process that is important to the
government's decision making on this issue.
The participation of the First Nations and Inuit among others
is an important aspect of the public review process. The member
will be happy to know that the panel has indicated its
willingness to be flexible in its procedures and in responding to
the interests of key stakeholders.
Thus far there has been valuable participation of
stakeholders, including First Nations and Inuit representatives,
in the review process. It would be unfortunate if important
groups continued to choose not to participate but no group or
individual can be forced to be part of this open process.
The panel has received substantial written information from
the groups that will not be participating in the hearings and will
be using that information to the extent possible. The government
encourages all affected groups and individuals to participate in
the public hearings and I hope I can count upon my colleagues to
also urge all affected groups to participate rather than to abstain.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)