CONTENTS
Monday, February 17, 1997
Bill C-296. Motion for second reading 8165
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8173
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8181
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8184
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8186
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8189
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 8190
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8191
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8191
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8192
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8193
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8193
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8193
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8193
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8194
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8194
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8194
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8195
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8195
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8195
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8196
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8196
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8197
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8197
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8197
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8197
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8197
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8198
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8199
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8199
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8199
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 8200
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 8203
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8206
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8209
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8225
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8227
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8228
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8229
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8230
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8230
8165
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 17, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-296, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act (rehabilitation programs), be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on my private
member's bill, Bill C-296, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (rehabilitation programs).
(1105 )
The purpose of this bill is to require federal inmates to complete
programs that will assist in their rehabilitation and make their
release on parole contingent, and I emphasize the word contingent,
upon their successful completion of such programs.
I hope that I will also be able to shed some light on the problems
that exist in Canada's correctional system. I might point out it is a
problem that not only I believe exists but the recent report by the
auditor general seems also to support my fears.
The mission statement of Correctional Service of Canada is to
actively encourage and assist offenders to become law-abiding
citizens. Its mission therefore is not only to punish but to
rehabilitate at the same time. Good corrections is in effect the
successful reduction of the risk of reoffending.
To begin I would like to explain just what process is followed
when an offender is remanded into custody at a federal
penitentiary. An offender first undergoes an intake assessment to
determine their level of risk and their programming needs. Upon
returning to the institution, the offender is put through standardized
tests which ask questions dealing with their education, intelligence,
employment, psychology and lifestyle. Although an offender is
allowed to contribute suggestions regarding the correctional
planning process, it is rare that their suggestions are actually
followed up on.
The recently released report from the auditor general has shown
that the assessment process is indeed weak. He questioned just how
qualified are the individuals who assess these offenders upon their
entrance into custody. He also stated that the length of time
offenders have to wait before receiving counselling is far too long,
which is another problem.
Systemic inefficiencies, time constraints, scheduling difficulties
and program evaluation and availability tend to undermine the
effectiveness and benefits achieved during the programming
process. An offender may have to wait as long as three years before
being put into any kind of program. What good is a program if it is
too little too late? An offender is most vulnerable to help and
counselling upon first arriving at the institution. After being left on
his or her own for a number months, maybe years, the impact of
programming to an offender is of little or no use.
In the Correctional Service of Canada's own literature it is stated
that programming must be directly linked to meeting offenders'
needs an particularly those who need them almost immediately. If
addressed it will result in a pro social behaviour. It should be
directed at changing lifestyle patterns to make the individual
change their habits and hopefully when they are returned to society
they can be contributing members. The literature goes on to state
that institutions must ensure that a process is in place so that
recommendations developed by case managers and program
officers concerning program and work assignments are indeed
implemented.
There are many questions that need to be answered. There are
obvious weaknesses in the system as it is now. My bill may not be
the complete answer but hopefully it will help focus attention on
problems which threaten society and our homes as a whole.
The auditor general brought forth a suggestion that Correctional
Service of Canada could be doing a much better job overall. In his
report he stated that the service's range of programs is impressive
but there is always room for improvement. He also went on to state
that he found serious problems with federal efforts of rehabilitating
offenders and returning them to society.
The auditor general also found that there are a number of cost
discrepancies which exist within the system. One program may
cost $2,000 to treat an offender in one institution and a similar
program may cost upward of $7,000 per offender in another
8166
institution. Let me state for myself and I know I speak on behalf of
my constituents that this is unacceptable. I believe there should be
unanimity right across the board in these programs.
The auditor general also reported that a disproportionate amount
of resources is being spent on only very few offenders. For example
in the 1994-95 budget only 70 per cent of the budget dollars were
devoted to rehabilitating sex offenders which of course accounted
for only about 20 prisoners in Quebec. That works out to
approximately $85,000 per offender. This is unbelievable and of
course unacceptable.
(1110 )
All this is without any proof whatsoever that these individuals
had indeed successfully completed the program. Meanwhile
approximately 35 per cent of all sex offenders who have been
released from federal prisons did not receive any prevention
treatment at all. On behalf of my constituents, and I believe on
behalf of most Canadians, I say that this is unacceptable.
From the studies I have received from Correctional Service of
Canada it seems that the problem does not lie in the programs
themselves. On the contrary the programs being developed by
researchers of the service are among the best in the world. The
problem lies in the way these programs are administered and
managed.
Not all programs are accessible in all federal institutions. One
reason may be the shortage of trained professionals to deliver these
programs. For example, it was recently reported at the Warkworth
penitentiary that there are only four therapists to look after 680
inmates. How can four people possibly do an effective job with a
population of 680 inmates? I believe they cannot accomplish very
much. I offer to the House as a result the tragic examples of two
young individuals at the same penitentiary.
The first is a 25-year old by the name of Jamie Taylor who is
serving time for killing his best friend when he was 17. When he
was first incarcerated he was still considered a young offender and
began serving his sentence in the youth detention centres. While
there, Jamie began receiving treatment for his anger and violent
behaviour on a day to day basis. He worked one on one with case
managers and it was reported that he was improving along the way
and his attitude was beginning to change.
Upon becoming an adult he was transferred to Warkworth
federal penitentiary to complete his life sentence for second degree
murder. He is eligible for parole in the year 2000 which if I may
remind the House is only just a short three years away. Until that
time Jamie Taylor is biding his time. With only four therapists for
the entire inmate population, his treatment and therapy sessions
have literally stopped.
Mark Williams is the other example. He is a 24-year old inmate
at the same institution who is serving a life sentence for killing a
Toronto woman during a robbery when he was 17 years old. Mark
refers to jail as ``a business with him being the inventory sitting on
the shelf''. He says he has had virtually no treatment since
beginning the sentence. He has only seen his case management
team four times in six years. He feels he has had no way to
rehabilitate himself and no guidance whatsoever. Basically he has
felt nothing but anger since he has been in the institution and
behind bars and he has had no help in dealing with it.
Mark Williams comes up for parole in 1998, just one year from
now. Without any assistance to deal with his problems and feeling
anger the way he does, Mark Williams will probably be denied
parole. I sincerely I hope he is denied parole because he is not
ready to re-enter society. When an individual like Mark Williams is
returned, we can see the threat that it might pose on our community
and our country as a whole.
The legislation that has been brought forth by the Minister of
Justice is intended to punish and rehabilitate at the same time.
Therefore we have a responsibility to ensure that programs are
available to people like Jamie Taylor and Mark Williams on a day
to day basis, but four therapists for 680 inmates simply will not do
the job.
These offenders are going to get out one day after they serve
their full term. If we do not pay attention to them today, we can
well imagine we are going to have problems in the future within
our communities as a whole.
My bill today is really nothing historic. More so it is saying that
if an offender who is behind bars is asking to be paroled we must
make that parole request contingent upon their successfully
completing a rehabilitation program. We should use their time in
prison to give them the skills they need so that when they
eventually become released they can be contributing members to
society. It only follows that if a person is given the skills to acquire
a job and possibly be a contributing member to society, the chances
or opportunities for them reoffending certainly will be diminished
greatly. We could help break this cycle which leads to career
criminals by offering them these programs.
(1115)
Correctional Service Canada spends only 7 per cent of its
services total budget on rehabilitation programs. If the problem is a
lack of funds for making these programs work properly, then
perhaps the board could allocate more of its budget dollars toward
rehabilitation programs.
I am not saying for more money to be put into the system. On the
contrary, the last thing we need to do is ask the Canadian taxpayer
to take from their hard earned dollar to put more money into these
programs. I am simply saying that perhaps the money that is
8167
already allocated for these programs could be spent more wisely
and more efficiently.
It is not only the auditor general who is calling for changes in the
systems. Victims rights groups are also questioning the safety of
releasing the offenders before they have a chance for rehabilitation.
In a recent news story, the Canadian Resources Centre for
Victims of Crimes has called for an inquiry into the National Parole
Board's decision to release George Harvey Milne, a convicted sex
offender. Milne is currently facing new charges for sexually
assaulting young boys. Even though the parole board's own report
raised concerns about his potential danger to the community, it
approved his release.
The report went on to say that Milne demonstrated no real desire
to change and only when all other options were exhausted did he
become involved in treatment. When Milne came up for parole on
October 30, 1991, the board again noted that he had not benefited
to his full potential from treatment and denied parole.
Only one month later the board stated that the risk presented to
the community was not unmanageable and granted Milne parole.
Shame, I say.
Call me crazy, if you will, but I do not believe that this man
could have been rehabilitated in less than one month. Due to the
new charges pending against him, obviously he was not.
This is just another example of how the safety of the public is at
risk. If the parole board felt that Milne was not fully rehabilitated
and still posed a risk, even if it is a small one, it should not have
granted him full parole. Because of its decision, more young boys
were caused terrible suffering, along with the families and
communities as a whole at the hands of this-I do not even know
what to call him.
My bill has also received the attention of representatives, for
example, from long term offenders in Saskatchewan. A gentleman
by the name of Darrell McPhedran is currently the representative of
long term offenders in this penitentiary and he has provided me
with some insight regarding how our correctional system works
from the perspective of an offender.
McPhedran has informed me that he has been exposed to a wide
variety of both positive and negative feedback with regard to the
usefulness of rehabilitation programs and the delivery of such
programs at his institution.
He stated that the general consensus is that programs delivered
under the auspices of the psychology department do appear to serve
a purpose and are helpful indeed. However, the core group of
programs such as educational, vocational and substance abuse
tends to be very basic and watered down.
He states that programs are very limited in their scope and that
those who are delivering the programs are also under qualified. He
has expressed great concern with the way Correctional Service
Canada runs its institutions, but in the end his main concern is in
the area of programs or lack of available space, especially for long
term offenders.
One would say why worry about long term offenders. After all,
they are serving lifetime sentences. I would remind people and
everybody in this House that today we do not have capital
punishment and at some point in time these individuals will serve
their full time and re-enter our communities.
If an offender is given a life sentence, they are still eligible for
parole after 14 or 15 years. Therefore, do we just forget about the
offender for those 14 or 15 years? I do not think we should. We
simply cannot just warehouse these people and throw the key away
because after 14 or so years, there is that possibility that they might
be released.
We feel secure that if we put them in these programs, possibly
when they do return to the communities the chances of their
reoffending will be greatly diminished. They will become,
eventually, individuals who will be eligible for parole.
(1120 )
If I may point out again, my bill proposes that for individuals
who are serving long or short term sentences who are asking for
early parole, it should be contingent on their successfully
completing a rehabilitation program before their request is
accepted.
This brings me to another weakness, the lack of proper support
being in place to help the offenders in their transition from an
institution to the community. There must be in place community
support groups for offenders to provide a bridge for individuals
once they re-enter the community.
The auditor general has stated that the service has not established
a continuing program in that area to support these individuals in
their transition back into the community. Studies show that it is
critical that offenders have access to such treatment programs so
that their bridging back into the community is made easier and, of
course, much more safe.
This is a time when they are confronted with the factors that
originally led them to offend. The auditor general has stated that
approximately 65 per cent of the demand for community based sex
offenders relapse programs is being met. However, I am concerned
about the other 35 per cent. This is why we have to address the
concern in that area.
8168
One criticism I was surprised to hear about my bill is that it
is unconstitutional, that it would infringe on the constitutional
rights of individuals if they are asked to participate in these
programs against their will.
I hear comments from across the way. It is unfortunate that the
criticism comes from members the Reform Party. If we want to talk
about hypocrisy, I believe the use of that word has reached an all
time high. In public they say ``hang them high, throw away the
key''. They are the lone rangers with the white hats fighting crime.
But behind the scenes they say something else.
I am disappointed that not one Reform Party individual would
come forward to speak on the bill and give it some support and at
the same time provide constructive criticism or input as to how we
can possibly correct the system that unfortunately today is not
working. Instead of calling them the lone rangers, I will just call
them the lone.
In answer to the question whether my bill is unconstitutional, let
me state that I am not asking anyone to do anything against their
will. I am just interested in seeing that offenders are given the
option of assistance that will help them rehabilitate themselves and
prove that they can return to society without risk of reoffending. If
they are not prepared to enter the program to rehabilitate
themselves, their parole requests should not be considered.
The Minister of Justice has brought forward amendments that
will increase sentences for individuals who are considered
dangerous offenders. He has introduced measures to keep track of
high risk offenders after they are released. I applaud the minister
for those initiatives. But we also need to fine tune the system
because nobody and nothing is perfect.
I do not believe my bill is the only or the perfect solution. I do
believe it might be just one step to help our society become safer
and maybe will help those people who have served their full
sentence to re-enter society as contributing members. I hope my
bill will receive the support of the House.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to my hon.
colleague across the way speaking about his private member's bill
which will solve all the problems in the prisons.
For the life of me I cannot appreciate why this bill is even being
put before the House. The assessment of inmates is done before
they are placed in an institution on a permanent basis. Six weeks to
two months is taken to do an assessment before they are placed in
an institution.
A case management team already recommends the treatment
which is appropriate for the inmate. Maybe it does not happen as
much for the prisoners that he talks about.
(1125 )
We need to go into the prison system to find out what really
happens instead of just talking to a couple of inmates who are
unhappy with the treatment they receive or the lack of treatment.
There are problems with funding for these programs. There are
not enough spaces for the number of inmates. However, there are
problems with inmates who show no remorse for the offence they
have committed and feel nothing for their victims but they are
taking these treatment programs because it as an out for them. They
are unlikely to get parole unless they participate in these programs.
The hon. member across the way should talk to some of the
people who give these treatment programs and listen to their stories
about the inmates who think it is joke. These inmates think they can
go into these treatment programs simply to get parole. No, it does
not work because these inmates are not in the right frame of mind
to make it work.
The hon. member should have been at the justice and legal
affairs committee the other day when we had experts talking about
treatment programs. They said that treatment programs for some
violent offenders do not work because those violent offenders are
psychopaths and all psychopaths get from treatment programs is a
better understanding of how to manipulate the system to make it
work for them.
Treatment programs are the end all, be all. Yes, early
intervention with young people is and yes, some treatment
programs for alcohol and drug abuse would be far more effective
than anything else in our prisons.
What do we do? We allow drugs into our prisons in such
numbers that it is uncontrollable. What do we do? We give them
bleach kits so they can bleach the needles. How is that helping
these inmates with drug problems? It does not. What do we do for
the prisoners with alcohol problems? Do we provide treatment? To
a little degree I suppose. However, we have inmates who are so
convinced that they need treatment that they make their own booze
behind bars.
I do not think we should be wasting our dollars on any inmate
who does not show the initiative, the want or the desire for
treatment. I do not think this bill identifies or recognizes the
problem. I repeat that I have no idea why this House is even dealing
with this bill.
We are going to force people to take treatment programs against
their will just so they can get parole. We are already doing that. One
of the things with parole is that prisoners have to show that they
have made some effort to be remorseful, accept that some harm has
been done by their behaviour and that they have done something to
8169
rectify that. They are already unlikely to get parole if they do not
take these treatment programs that are made available to them.
I see absolutely no point in passing another piece of legislation.
The law is there and the programs are there. Yes, we could be
putting more resources into those programs, I do not deny that, but
we do not need more legislation to provide more facilities for
inmates. What we have to do is make sure that the right inmates are
getting the treatment. If somebody has a violent personality, does
not show any remorse, does not want the treatment and does not
feel he needs the treatment, forcing treatment down his throat is not
going to work. That has been proven in the past.
This hon. member should talk to some of the treatment people
who deal with sex offenders, in particular. It is an absolute joke
unless that person identifies that they do have a problem and wants
to deal with it.
To this hon. member who is trying to change the system, to make
the system work better, to help out these poor individuals who need
treatment, I find it repulsive that this member voted against a
private member's bill that was about having assessments done on
dangerous offenders who committed serious sexual offences
against an adult or any sexual offence against a child. Looking at
the voting record, this member was one of the Liberals who voted
against it. It confuses me. If he is so interested in seeing that
treatment is given to protect society, why would he vote against
something like that?
When the member talks about a Reformer telling him it was
unconstitutional, I find that very hard to believe because I have a
private member's bill before the justice committee and it is the
Liberal members who are telling me it is unconstitutional to try to
do something to make it possible to keep dangerous offenders off
the street. It is the Liberal members and it is the Liberal Minister of
Justice who is telling me it is unconstitutional.
(1130 )
I do not believe for a moment that any Reform Party member or
Reform MP would feel that a question of constitutionality is a
reason to walk away from doing what is right. It is the Liberals that
are constantly using the charter of rights as an excuse to pass bad
legislation which allows the government to sit on its duff and not
deal with the real issues out there in society.
I am terribly confused. This Liberal member is putting forward a
bill that is unnecessary. It will not accomplish anything. He claims
it is the be all and end all on the issue. It seems to me that this
member is looking for public support in the next few months. He is
probably looking for a few votes. He feels that if he can parade this
private member's bill, which will not do anything but looks good,
maybe he can convince Canadians that he is serious about getting
tough on crime.
I do not think Canadian voters are that stupid. They will see
through this. All they have to do is go to the voting record, not only
of this member but of all the members on the Liberal side, to see
the true picture.
The true picture is that Liberal MPs are not that interested in
getting tough on criminals. They are not that interested on
changing the justice system to make it work. They are not
interested in supporting bills that will actually deal with, address
and solve a problem. They are not going to support a private
member's bill which will actually keep dangerous offenders off the
streets. Instead they look for some namby-pamby way of dealing
with people who do not like the way things are behind bars.
Maybe the people who are offending, the people who are killing
their best friends, should be thinking about what it is like behind
bars before they kill. Maybe they should be looking for counselling
to help them with anger management and drug abuse before they
end up in prison, instead of waiting until they are in prison. Maybe
they should be worrying about getting a better education before
they end up in prison. It would make a whole lot of sense to me if
our money was spent on alcohol and drug treatment programs
before young people end up in prison. Our money should be spent
on improving education facilities for young people who have
dropped out of high school before they end up in prison.
Why does the government feel that all of those resources should
be spent on these individuals after they break the law, after they
murder somebody, after they are in prison? I would find it far easier
to support a private member's bill that dealt with those issues
rather than one that is a waste of my time and a waste of the time of
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to really understand Bill C-296 introduced by the hon.
member, we must remember what it says in the mission statement
of the Correctional Service of Canada.
To be able to analyse and understand the hon. member's bill, we
must know what this mission is. The mission, and I will read it to
you from a very official document of the Correctional Service of
Canada, says the following: ``The Correctional Service of Canada,
as part of the criminal justice system, contributes to the protection
of society by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to
become law abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe,
secure and humane control''.
And we in the Bloc Quebecois want to say right away that the
system may not be perfect, but it certainly is not the disaster
implied by Reform members. In Canada, the correctional system
works. However, there are some shortcomings. There are a number
of questions, and perhaps I could get back to this later on.
8170
(1135)
When we look at the mission of the correctional service and the
purpose of this bill, we see that the summary of the hon. member's
bill reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to require federal inmates to complete programs that
will assist in their rehabilitation and make their release on parole contingent upon
their successful completion of such programs.
Immediately, I see something that is pretty obvious as regards
the mission of the correctional service and the hon. member's bill.
It is pretty obvious to me that the hon. member-and I am
astonished that this should come from the government benches-is
introducing a bill which is an admission of failure. That is what the
bill says, because it will be necessary to require inmates to do such
and such, while if we know how the Correctional Service Canada
works, this is being done.
The correctional service proposes such and such, it does follow
up, it assists inmates with psychological problems, problems with
social reintegration, sexual problems or whatever. They will be
helped in such a way that when an inmate leaves the institution, he
again becomes part of the community and no one will notice the
difference. That is the mission the correctional service has with
respect to parole, but the bill seems to say the system has failed and
that inmates will be required to do such and such that will assist in
their release, to be contingent on the inmates completing the
programs already available to them.
This is all very well, but I think it is dangerous to proceed this
way because the government member seems to be saying there is a
problem. Now, either the statistics we get from the department on
repeat offenders are correct or they are not. I assume they are
correct, unless the parole figures and the whole question of repeat
offenders, unless the figures the Solicitor General gives us every
year are not correct. However, if they are, this means the failure
rate is minimal and the system works. It means that inmates are
making good use of the programs available to them.
However, the hon. member's bill implies the statistics are not
correct, because the hon. member has looked into this. He wants to
oblige inmates to start and follow through with this process.
So the bill is not bad in itself, but I wonder whether it is
worthwhile adopting this bill.
I know there are two versions with respect to recidivism.
Apparently the police seem to be saying that the department's
figures may not be accurate. As far as early parole is
concerned-and I was very surprised to read this in L'Express, a
magazine dealing with the judiciary system-we are told there is a
failure rate of about 80 per cent for early parole. If this is true, there
is a problem. The problem concerns early rehabilitation, or maybe
there is a problem with the figures the Solicitor General gives us
annually.
One thing is sure. From sitting on the Standing Committee on
Justice, from considering legal issues and from questioning
witnesses who have come before the committee, I know that one
thing is sure. While things have not yet reached catastrophic
proportions, if the cuts of the past continue, and schooling,
computer training or other programs for the purposes of
rehabilitation or reintegration into society are eliminated, because
the prison system is obliged to cut certain programs for lack of
funding, we will have a problem, whatever bill the member
opposite proposes, because we will have no money to implement it.
One thing is sure, the more the cuts, the fewer programs there are
for inmates, the greater the chance inmates will find themselves
really unprepared on their release and back within the prison
system in no time.
(1140)
The bill is indeed praiseworthy, however, it is quite distressing
that it comes from a member opposite and that it is conditional,
because I think that, in the long run, the outcome may be affected.
It is not true that the result is better in the end if we legislate
someone to do something. I think that, even inside, even having
prisoners do time, we could encourage them from within and not
force them.
People who are in prison are not law abiding people like the
general public. Sometimes they have a bit of a revolt inside. You
just have to tell them they have to do it for them to not want to. I
think we have to continue, focus more on existing programs and
ask them to take the programs, not spontaneously, but encourage
them and not force them. I think we would be asking for real
trouble if we made it mandatory.
I will conclude by saying that, in the past few weeks, months and
years, there have been all sorts of issues concerning the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, and so forth. Recent events have
shown us that there are great gaps in the system. They have also
shown us that a lot of things work well.
The government opposite does not seem to have a global view of
the problem society faces with inmates and their release. There are
members, here and there, who introduce private bills to change the
law. Even the government, which occasionally makes changes to
the law, will do so piecemeal, in an effort to find a band-aid
solution. That is not how to solve the problem once and for all.
We have seen really human cases of late, in which even the
father of a young girl killed by someone on parole took part in the
debate, saying: ``There are gaps in the correctional system. It is
good in some respects, but perhaps society ought to be involved
8171
more''. Far from condemning the system, he said it needed
improving. I am referring to the Bolduc case.
Instead of changing things bit by bit, instead of making minor
changes to please voters, instead of tilting totally right, like the
Reformers, why will the government opposite not act on the
request of the official opposition? In recent weeks and months, we
have been calling for a thorough examination of the entire problem
by a commission of inquiry or a parliamentary commission, which
would report to us. Then we would really see what works, what
does not work and what needs to be changed or not. We would not
be doing it bit by bit.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
pay tribute to my colleague from Scarborough Centre for his
interest in urban safety and community issues. This is not the first
time the member has brought forward issues of great concern on
behalf of his constituents. He is a tireless individual who has done
that many times before.
It is important to relate what is the objective of this private
member's initiative. The purpose of it, as stated, is to require
federal inmates to complete programs that will assist in their
rehabilitation and make their release on parole contingent on their
successful completion of programs.
Corrections Canada must invest further in programming, provide
incentives for offenders to participate in programs aimed at
changing their criminal behaviour.
(1145 )
My colleague introduced this bill based on comments made by
the auditor general. Probably what motivated him at the same time
is the fact that in 1996, of the 7,481 offenders released on parole
almost half, 3,163, were returned to prison, 32 per cent for
committing new crimes and 68 per cent for parole violations.
Certainly it is a cause for alarm.
My colleague has tried in his initiative to bring to the attention of
the House and to the public that there is a problem and this is one
way to try to address it. I am sure that my colleague's intentions are
not to have more money thrown at the problem. I am sure he is 100
per cent in agreement that the over $300 million spent annually to
reintegrate offenders into society in order to deal with the more
than 14,400 inmates in prison, is a substantial amount of money.
The issue here is a question of how do we spend that money?
Programs are in place now through initiatives the government
has taken. However, still more can be done. There has to be
co-operation between the provincial levels of government in areas
of information sharing, standardization and access to information.
One of my colleagues in the Reform Party has tried to make it
look as if the government is not doing anything. The fact is the
government has done a tremendous amount. A truckload of
prevention is better than a whole train of cure. What I am trying to
say is that most of the legislation the government has introduced
over the past three years has dealt with the issue of prevention in
the community.
For example, members of the opposition and the Reform Party
have unfortunately voted against the gun control legislation which
dealt with taking weapons away from those who, if the weapon is
left in their hands, may commit a crime.
Another initiative that the government has undertaken is
amendments to the Young Offenders Act. It is to be commended. It
dealt with young offenders in our society. Another initiative taken
by the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice established a
crime prevention council has been a very successful.
The whole issue has to focus mainly on prevention. I would like
to give an a example of how and where prevention is working in my
community of Ottawa Centre. I want to pay tribute to the Ottawa
Police that have worked tirelessly with community groups in my
area and have proved over and over again that they are capable of
changing the trend and ensuring that the community is safe and
good to live in. However, it can be made even better.
I want to mention the name of one member of the police force.
Inspector Susan O'Sullivan is a committed, dedicated, energetic
and outstanding member of the Ottawa Police. She and her
colleagues in the Ottawa police department have embarked on a
number of major initiatives in the community to establish outreach
centres throughout the riding and the Ottawa area. The police force
man those centres in conjunction with volunteers in the
community. That initiative and many other initiatives that were
undertaken by the police force in my constituency have paid great
dividends.
All anyone has to do is speak to people in the community such as
Cheryl Parrot, who along with other volunteers in the community,
has tackled the problem of prostitution. They worked very hard and
with the assistance of the Ottawa police were able to literally
eradicate this problem from the neighbourhood. That is a joint
partnership between the police force which is the public sector and
the community, the non-profit sector and a voluntary sector.
(1150 )
Other people in the community have worked with the Ottawa
police and have proved that, collectively, crime can be fought and
safety assured. Angelo Filoso, along with his people, have
established another group in the community to work with the police
and they have been successful.
8172
There is no way the problem can be tackled by just looking at
it and hoping it will go away. More resources have to be put into
it for the people who are on the street, in particular for the police.
We need community policing not only in one community but
throughout the whole country. The provinces have to provide the
police forces in their cities and municipalities with the tools they
need. They have to ensure they have proper outreach programs.
They have to ensure they have the proper resources in order to
work with the community.
Only through working collectively and in co-operation with
these groups and organizations can the problem be tackled. To turn
around and dismiss what the hon. member has introduced before
the House as being nothing but an initiative that is unwarranted is
unfair. One would say that the government has taken a
longstanding position that the root of the problem has to be dealt
with by taking proper measures. We need proper prevention
programs. We need to work with community policing. We need to
work with the provinces.
The government has been doing that. Is it enough? It is not
enough. What we have to do is continue working until there is not
one single crime committed in any one part of the community in
any one part of the country.
I have had the great honour and privilege of working with
community groups and with the Ottawa police in my constituency.
The experiment we have undertaken has been a great one. What is
important, perhaps, is to share with other communities elsewhere
across the country and across the provinces what we have done.
However, we in the public can create an awareness and a need in
our communities to the fact that our police forces need more tools
with which to work.
Policing is a provincial responsibility, a municipal
responsibility. However, the federal government can provide the
experience and the expertise that exists in the different departments
to work with the provincial governments to facilitate the
co-operation between the different governments. In that way we
will have a national standard when it comes not only to sharing
information but also to sharing policing.
Once again, I want to congratulate my colleague on bringing
before the House an initiative that will create awareness. I know he
is not expecting this bill to become law. As many have indicated
before, many parts of this proposal have already been undertaken
by the department.
The fact that he wanted to bring awareness to it is fair. To that
extent, I congratulate him and say that I appreciate the opportunity
to bring to members' attention what is happening in my
community.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following my
colleague's positive words, I want to support my colleague from
Scarborough Centre because this bill, although not votable, puts a
positive bent on what we are talking about.
My colleague from Ottawa Centre pointed out that a lot of the
initiatives of the government in the justice area are aimed at
prevention and have been successful.
I would say to my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley that this is a positive bill. Her remarks seem to suggest that
there is only one way to deal with transgressors in society and that
is to put them in prison and throw away the key. I do not think that
is really what she intends, but that is the way her remarks appear to
me. It is very important that we judge not so harshly lest we be
judged. My colleague's bill puts the other side to the question.
(1155 )
In the course of this Parliament about a dozen changes have been
made through a number of bills to the Criminal Code. Most of them
have dealt with increasing the penalties, making them tougher,
increasing mandatory punishment for crimes of long term
offenders and serious offenders. For example, although the gun bill
is preventive, it increased the mandatory sentence to four years for
a crime involving a gun. I have no objection to that. In fact I am
working on a private member's bill that would increase the
penalties for the sexual abuse of children.
However, this bill adds the other dimension. To go on from the
mission statement concerning the job of the parole board which
was mentioned by my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm, the
purpose of federal correctional systems is to contribute to the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by assisting the
rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the
community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of
programs in penitentiaries and in the community.
Some of those programs have been and are now very forward
looking. Not only do they deal with substance abuse and anger
management but also with native spirituality, elder counselling,
educational upgrading and other programs appropriate to these
individuals' needs. Since a preponderant percentage of the people
in our prisons come from the aboriginal population, a couple of
those programs need a lot more work and support, native
spirituality and elder counselling.
This bill does not make it mandatory for prisoners to take part in
these programs but it does hold out a carrot. It improves the chance
for parole. It suggests that if inmates do not show any obvious
interest in improving themselves and in living better lives when
they are paroled, they will be denied it for a further period of time.
The other purpose of the bill is not to spend more money but to
spend it more wisely, as my colleague said in reference to the
auditor general's report in which one can read that while some
programs of moderate intensity cost $2,000 per offender, other
similar programs cost $7,000 per offender. This suggests there
8173
needs to be some hard work done and the discrepancies between
those kinds of costs for the same benefit need to be addressed.
A similar situation exists with programs for vocational and
educational training which are much less expensive per inmate than
the institutional employment programs. This means that instead of
having prisoners stamp out licence plates it would be better to do it
in the private sector where it can be done more cheaply. It would be
better to spend the money at $7,000 a year instead of $13,000 a
year to provide the same inmates with further vocational training
that could be useful on parole.
I support my friend's initiative which speaks to what should be
the overall aim and our reason for being. We want all our citizens to
be free. We want all our citizens to be useful. We want all our
citizens to contribute to society, and we have to go the extra mile to
try to ensure that.
(1200 )
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on this very important
piece of legislation, Bill C-296, even if it is with tongue in cheek.
Let me begin by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre, for the innovative intestinal fortitude to
table the bill. This bill could be seen as being somewhat
controversial. However, the facts tell the truth. One out of three
offenders released from correctional institutions goes on to commit
another offence. This is simply unacceptable. What is the point of
having prisons if the offenders just keep coming back? It is
expensive, unnecessary and does not solve the problem of crime in
this country. This bill offers a reasonable solution to the revolving
doors of our prison systems.
Canada does boast one of the best correctional services in the
world and it is indeed internationally recognized. My cousins in
Michigan always point to our prison system in Canada and how
their murders escape to Canada and we fight to keep them here so
that they will not be hanged. The prison system effectively serves
the purpose of deterring crime, punishing offenders as well as
rehabilitating them.
According to section 3(b) of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, the purpose of the federal correctional system is to
contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by
assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into
the community as law-abiding citizens through the provisions of
programs in the penitentiaries and in the community. I worry about
the victims when these prisoners are release, though.
More specifically, section 76 obliges the correctional service to
provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of
offenders and contribute to their successful integration into the
community.
The mandate is already in place to offer these programs to
offenders. This piece of legislation ensures that offenders take
advantage of these programs before they go back into society. It is
astounding that in the last decade we have released 70,000 federal
offenders back into the community. Most of these were released
with early parole. However, as I said earlier, one in three of these
offenders is returning to commit more crimes. This begs the
question what can we do.
Twenty-five years ago when an offender participated in
rehabilitative programs they focused on job training or schooling
that would help the offender readjust into the working world. Today
these programs focus on social issues such as alcoholism or sexual
violence, which attempts to solve the underlying problem behind
many of the crimes committed.
Not only are these programs better suited to target the problems
of the offenders and an attempt to solve them, they are cost
effective as well. Years ago we would group all offenders into one
category. Rehabilitative programs only work for a select group.
Now we are more aware of the criminal mind and we can tailor our
programs to work effectively.
John Gillis, the Atlantic regional special advisor to correctional
services says: ``Offender correctional treatment plans can also now
be used to zero on the program needed by individual offenders, as
well and when and where they are needed. This allows more
effective and selective management of specific cases and precious
resources''. In times of fiscal restraint these programs can reduce
the number of return offenders to our jail cells.
(1205 )
I hope in the future I will be able to finish my speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member will not be
able to finish his speech as the matter is dropped from the Order
Paper. It is not a votable item.
[Translation]
The hour provided for the consideration of private members'
business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
8173
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ) moved:
That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda
activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and
8174
the One Million Flags Operation, at a time when cuts unprecedented in the history of
Canada have been imposed on cultural institutions in Canada and Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an official opposition day. As
indicated in the motion, we once again condemn the federal
government's policy, which basically consists in denying the
existence of Quebec as a nation as well as the Quebec culture and
using propaganda-we will clearly demonstrate today how
extensive this propaganda is-in its relentless fight against the
nationalist vitality of Quebecers and their desire to have their own
country.
The purpose of this motion is to denounce the use of public funds
squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by Heritage
Canada, such as the Canada Information office and the One Million
Flags operation, and other operations we will detail later, at a time
when cuts unprecedented in the history of Canada have been
imposed on all cultural institutions in Canada and Quebec.
Today, February 17, is Flag Day. This may be a proud day, a day
that may mean something to Canadians in general, but I must add
in the same breath that February 17, a day set aside for celebrating
the Canadian flag, is a sad day for Quebec.
I would like to remind the House of the origins of the federal
government's determination to use public funds to fight openly and
specifically Quebec's legitimate and democratic aspiration to
statehood. You will recall that, in one of his books, Pierre Elliott
Trudeau stated that an effective way of defeating Quebec
nationalists was to fight them with Canadian nationalism,
regardless of the cost.
Today, we will demonstrate not only to this House but also to
Quebecers and Canadians that, ever since this policy was
established by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberals, this government
has been obsessed with spending as much energy, resources and
money as necessary to fight Quebec.
May I remind you that this institution is publicly funded. Part of
these public funds, the $30 billion collected in taxes every year in
this country, comes from Quebec and is used to fight Quebec's
democratic aspiration to statehood.
Today, February 17, Canadian Flag Day, we must recognize that
the heritage minister's One Million Flags operation, which will
cost taxpayers in Canada and Quebec in excess of $15 million, is
the continuation of Trudeau's idea of spending endless money on
fighting Quebec and its march toward sovereignty.
(1210)
Today, February 17, is Flag Day in Canada, but it is a sad day in
Quebec. Remember what happened a year ago in Hull, during the
Flag Day celebration. The event was tarnished by an incident
during which the Prime Minister grabbed a protester by the throat.
It became uglier when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage immediately reacted by saying the protester was
obviously a separatist, when in fact everyone realized in the hours
that followed that the man was simply protesting against poverty in
this country, against poverty generated by this government.
But the Deputy Prime Minister, this champion of propaganda,
immediately said during a scrum that it was a separatist who had
been protesting and who was grabbed by the throat by the Prime
Minister.
These were unfunded accusations by the Deputy Prime Minister,
who was guided by her state of mind, which is to constantly try to
incriminate Quebec sovereignists, when everyone in this country
knows that Quebec's evolution and march toward sovereignty is
taking place through a democratic process and with respect for the
rules of democracy.
Today, February 17, is also a sad day for Quebec because of the
patriation of the Constitution, in 1982, which took place in spite of
a motion passed by the National Assembly, asking that the
Constitution not be patriated unilaterally.
The Liberals of the time, led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, ignored
the Quebec institution called the National Assembly and
unilaterally patriated the Constitution, thus confirming, much to
the pleasure of the federal Liberals, that, for once in Canada's
history, they had bumped Quebecers out of the picture, no longer
recognizing them as a founding people. The Quebec culture no
longer existed, a culture which represents the essence of the people
of Quebec, through its creators, artists, writers and film producers.
Indeed, with that decision, the federal Liberals denied the existence
of the people of Quebec and their culture.
From now on, according to this government, the people of
Quebec will simply be a big cultural community within an English
Canada. The government wants to turn the people of Quebec into a
big cultural community within an English Canada.
Quebec's culture is sad today because artistic and creative
criteria have taken a back seat to the political criteria of this
government. Today, this policy of propaganda, which is designed to
stamp out Quebec's culture and its aspirations to sovereignty, is
now solidly entrenched in all departments, including the
Department of Foreign Affairs, which just last week approved a
policy for international cultural distribution that requires artistic
works to be demonstrably in favour of Canada's national unity.
The heritage minister has obviously been instructed to
concentrate on the Canadian national identity, and to stamp out
Quebec's national identity. This is the mission of Heritage Canada,
and we are going to show today how public funds are being used for
8175
propaganda purposes. All departments, the entire machinery of
government is taking part in this propaganda exercise.
(1215)
The result is a sad day for cultural industries and for creators and
artists who must work for Canadian unity if they want their projects
to reach a larger audience. If they want to reach an audience in
Canada, in Quebec as well as abroad, they must first now meet the
essential criterion set by this government, by the federal Liberals,
the political criterion of promoting Canadian unity, to the detriment
of their own creations, of their own works.
We have denounced this government for interfering in Quebec's
areas of jurisdiction, particularly manpower training, but also
culture and communications. There was the very recent example
where this government, specifically the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister, actually told journalists that they were not
doing a good job in their coverage of the referendum.
This government actually told journalists that they were not
promoting Canadian unity in their coverage of the referendum.
This is a government that is becoming increasingly totalitarian,
calling to mind the Trudeau era with its emphasis on controlling
content, controlling those who work in the field of artistic creation,
those who shape our identity. Those who work in the print and
communications media are being criticized for not working to
build Canadian identity.
In this connection, I will refer to a quote from La Presse of
November 14, 1995: ``The accusations against the CBC arise out of
the convictions of a number of the Liberal leading lights, federal
Liberal leading lights, including the Prime Minister himself, if we
are to believe this weekend's statements, that the public
broadcaster did not fulfil its duty during the referendum campaign
and has actively harmed the federalist cause''.
This government has reached the stage of wanting to control the
media, of wanting to tell the media what it must say on Canadian
unity. We are not going to follow suit, for all Quebecers have built
their democracy on clear rules of the game, under which all parties
have a right to express themselves regardless of their position or
their option.
This government is accusing the CBC, which it claims was
mandated to promote conviction and national unity. The Prime
Minister went on to say: ``Obviously this is not one of its concerns;
I saw something else this evening when I was watching
television''. The Prime Minister is concerned that his option be
reflected by ``his'' Radio-Canada and ``his'' CBC, for his
government had just stated that it was the owner.
Following along with that argument, creators, artists and cultural
industries are called upon to serve Canadian unity. They are called
to serve the government's political ideology, convictions and
political objectives, and not their own creations, which are
essential to our society.
Mr. Chrétien stated that evening of November 14, in the context
of the Commonwealth Summit being held in Auckland, New
Zealand, that ``the CBC, whose mandate it is to promote national
unity, has not fulfilled its role''.
When the Prime Minister of a country accuses the press of not
supporting his political option, no more need be said. In this, we
must acknowledge that the government is consistent with itself,
and is continuing the legacy of Trudeau.
(1220)
The government is pushing the political criteria that from now
on are supposed to guide the whole government apparatus, all those
useless investments. In future, its support for culture, its domestic
and foreign policies will be based essentially on political criteria.
We just saw this with the policy announced by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Today, I found it very depressing to read an article by Stéphane
Baillargeon in Le Devoir. This journalist wrote: ``Today, political
and not artistic criteria are applied to the support given by the
federal Department of Foreign Affairs to Canadian artists on tour
abroad. Requests for grants will from now on be examined on the
basis of the ability to promote respect for Canadian sovereignty and
Canadian unity and to present Canada as a bilingual country
consisting of various cultures''.
That is this government's new policy: to promote, both outside
and inside the country, a Canadian cultural policy in an
English-speaking country where there is room for other cultural
communities. What this government is trying to do is make Quebec
and its culture one of the many cultural communities in this
English Canada.
The Minister of Human Resources Development suggests in his
statement that only Canada can own and preserve French and
Quebec culture. May I remind the minister that the situation of
francophones across Canada is such that year after year, the
Commissioner of Official Languages has found there is ongoing
assimilation? Francophones in Canada are constantly being
assimilated, and the government would have us believe, in the kind
of statements made by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, that Canada is saving the French fact and French
culture in Quebec. Not so: Quebec creators and artists are the ones
who are doing that in Quebec.
I would like to first show you how much this government has
been spending on propaganda activities alone since 1994 and then
tell you about the cuts it has made in our cultural industries.
8176
During this period, the government spent as much as $98
million on programs to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the
Canadian flag. There was $1.1 million for advertising billboards.
Remember those billboards, all 600 of them? Coincidentally, 300
were put up in Quebec and the remaining 300 across the rest of
Canada. That is how this government targets its propaganda.
UN 50th anniversary celebrations: $1.8 million; Heritage
Minutes: $2.2 million; tourism promotion: $15 million; the One
Million Voices campaign, Fédération des communautés
francophones: $500,000; National Capital Commission: $3
million; Canadian unity: $4 million; Canadian passports: $25,000;
federal government services, television advertising: $5 million;
Operation Unity: $11 million; Council for Canadian Unity: $8.4
million; Canada Information Office: $19.5 million; Operation One
Million Flags: more than $15 million; Operation Unity: $5 million;
Word given, Word kept: $600,000; Services included: $400,000;
Take it to Heart: $550,000, that is more than half a million; and the
latest addition Attractions Canada: $1.5 million, for a grand total of
$98 million.
Nearly $100 million was spent on propaganda. Meanwhile, what
is this government doing? It is literally putting the axe to cultural
industries, including major industries and institutions in Canada
and Quebec, namely the CBC, Telefilm Canada and the National
Film Board.
(1225)
This government, which is investing close to $100 million for
propaganda purposes, made drastic cuts affecting the broadcasters
themselves, those who promote our culture and help build our
national identity, and also the artists and creators who reflect our
own identity.
This government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. In its
red book, it claims that these are important institutions, that a
stable financial process must be established, and that the
Conservatives were wrong to target this industry. However, once
they took office, the Liberals changed their tune. What did they do?
They systematically cut. The CBC lost 4,000 jobs and $14 million
in an unprecedented series of cuts, while the National Film Board
suffered a cut of $20 million.
In conclusion, the official opposition declares that February 17,
1997, Canada Flag Day, is a sad day for Quebecers. It is a sad day
because Canada is represented by a Liberal government that speaks
out of both sides of its mouth, first promising to support and to
develop the very essence of our identity, namely our culture, and
then, once in office, cutting and systematically eliminating all the
tools for these cultural institutions, by reducing budgets.
During the next election, the Bloc Quebecois will fight this
government in Quebec, this government that speaks out of both
sides of its mouth. The election will allow all Bloc Quebecois
members to come back here to protect Quebec's interests.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a
very happy day for myself and for all Canadians in this country. As
you know, the majority of Canadians, including those living in
Quebec and those living outside the country, are aware that we live
in the best country in the world. We are not the only ones to feel
this way. The United Nations has determined, on several occasions,
that Canada was the best country in the world in which to live,
work and raise a family.
I am still prouder to be an elected member of this Parliament on
the government side under the direction of a Prime Minister who
comes from the very fine province of Quebec. This Prime Minister
is working, not only with his colleagues on this side of the House,
but also with all Canadians, to ensure that we have a flexible,
dynamic federation which responds to the needs of the Canadian
public today and in the future.
I do not see why my colleague is attacking the government and
its approach to Canadian federation, attempting to drive a wedge
between Canadians in Quebec and Canadians in other provinces
and in the entire country, when in Europe, France, Italy, Spain,
England and Germany have joined together in a confederation to
establish a system of European unity in order to address the
economic and political problems, not only of Europe, but of the
world as a whole.
My colleague ought to keep in mind that today, the whole world
over, peoples are joining with one another, approaching one
another, and that there is now a unity which makes it possible for
the problems of poverty, unemployment and uncertainty which
exist in certain countries to be addressed.
As my colleague is well aware, the time has come for us to all
join forces to work at addressing the needs and problems of the
Canadian people.
(1230)
My colleague is doing nothing toward progress in this area when
he attempts to create division and when he attempts to divert
attention, to get things changed, to deprive us of the time required
to attack unemployment. He knows that the priority of Quebecers is
a government which will address the problem of unemployment, a
government which will foster economic development, one that is
truly interested in their needs.
This government, up to and including the Prime Minister, has
adopted resolutions here in this House of Commons to protect
Quebec's needs, which include culture, the division of power, and
manpower. We know that culture is a provincial matter. This
includes Quebec. It has the right to decide what kind of educational
system it wants to have.
8177
The same thing goes for manpower, immigration, health, the
environment and transportation. If we look at all the things a
province needs to truly decide what is best for its people, the
provinces, including Quebec, have that authority. They are capable
of determining what is best.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of my colleague. Does he
not agree with the fact that the French culture in Quebec, in North
America and everywhere in the world, will be better protected
within a confederation which encompasses all of Canada than
outside that confederation?
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, first I would
like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I sense a deeply
held conviction in what he said. I think the hon. member defends
his point of view very well and is a skilful defender of the Liberal
government's policy. However, we are miles apart.
I would like to remind him of a number of positions taken by his
own government. First of all, there is the matter of the European
model, the unity of international trade, free trade within a
geographical area. May I remind the hon. member that Quebec has
been a determined proponent of free trade? It supported free trade.
And who was against free trade? The Prime Minister and the
Liberal Party, the hon. member's party.
The hon. member need not hold up the European market and the
common market as examples. In Quebec we know all about
opening up markets. North-south trade with the United States is
worth more than $34 billion, while trade with the other Canadian
provinces is worth about the same. I may remind the hon. member
that it was his party that opposed free trade.
Second, I may remind him that the European Union is a union of
countries and that this is what Quebec wants, to be a country and
enrich the continent with a francophone country.
In the Americas there are important, flourishing cultures:
English Canadian, American, Spanish and Portuguese cultures. We
simply want to add a French speaking country to the Americas, and
thus add to these riches. Furthermore, we are offering an economic
partnership to a partner and friend we have known for a long time,
Canada.
This is an example of our open attitude to English Canada: we
ask it to be a partner, once Quebecers have voted in favour of
becoming a country and a nation, and this union will come in the
form of agreements.
(1235)
On the other hand, I would like to remind the member of his own
ministerial responsibilities. When this government was elected,
there were over one million unemployed in this country, which he
calls the finest country in the world, in the G-7. When the Liberals
were elected, there were one million unemployed. They said they
were going to fight unemployment. There were also more than one
million children living in poverty. The Liberals said this situation
was untenable. They said they were going to fight poverty.
And, today, what do we see? We are heading toward elections.
We have over one million unemployed. We now have a million and
a half children living in poverty in this country. Through you, Mr.
Speaker, I remind the member who has just said that Canada is the
finest country in the world that his government has created the
situation we are in today through its budget choices.
I would point out that, instead of investing in jobs and fighting
poverty, this government has decided to siphon off $5 billion a year
from the unemployment insurance fund. This money belongs to
employees and employers and not the government. Year after year,
the government dipped into people's pockets.
Tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will probably brag that he
achieved his objectives in the fight against the deficit. He reached
them by dipping into people's pockets rather than by giving money
back to them, as they were entitled to expect, for job creation. He is
responsible for the poverty related tragedies in Canadian and
Quebec society. That is how things stand and you are going to have
to swallow that, because we will be reminding you of it throughout
the election campaign. We will not let you forget your track record
and your fine promises in the red book, which you dropped as soon
as you got elected.
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House
today to address the opposition motion concerning the many
activities of this government, activities which my colleague across
the way has just called propaganda. In his impassioned speech he
talked about the money that should have been spent on child
poverty and money that should be spent on so many things
Canadians need but is being spent on what our hon. colleague
considers to be propaganda.
Propaganda? The cost to the Quebec taxpayers for the
referendum as quoted by Quebec's chief electoral officer was $63.5
million. Let us talk about where that money could have gone. Let
us talk about propaganda. Let us talk about spending about $5
million to promote pre-referendum votes. I do not want to continue
in this vein but it is absolutely clear to me that when we talk about
propaganda, what we are talking about here is hypocrisy.
When this government took office in 1993 our focus was
twofold. At the forefront was our resolve to move ahead on a jobs
8178
and growth agenda. Inextricably connected to that goal was our
commitment to strengthen Canadian identity and Canadian unity.
Today we remain committed to those things. The difference
between then and now is the remarkable progress we have made in
meeting those commitments. The proof of that progress is found in
Canada's strengthened economy, in all of Canada working together,
in the number of jobs created and in the strong sense of Canadian
identity.
In this important work we will continue a longstanding Canadian
tradition, a tradition of creating links across this vast land, a
tradition of creating links between the diverse and scattered
communities of Canadians, people of all backgrounds who share
one thing, that they are proud to call themselves Canadians.
Canada's unique characteristics have shaped our destiny and
interests. For example, Canada's huge land mass, our relatively
small and scattered population with its bilingual and multicultural
composition and our close proximity to the United States are forces
that have combined to make us who we are.
Over the years these forces have created in us a strong need to
connect with one another across vast distances and challenging
landscapes, across diverse cultures and different languages.
Canadians have responded to that need and in responding, we have
created the ability to become the world's great communicators.
(1240 )
Early on, this need to connect was expressed through physical
transportation links such as the sea to sea to sea water routes of
Canada's First Nations peoples and the voyageurs, or connecting
the east and west coasts with the railway and much later, the
cross-country link of the TransCanada Highway. More recently
came the communications links such as Canada's sophisticated
telephone, cable and broadcasting systems, and most recently as
the first country in the world to connect itself through the
information highway and the Internet.
For Canadians this need to connect with one another has its
pinnacle in the connections we have among ourselves as a people;
in our hearts, in our spirits as Canadians and our shared sense of
common values that have made us a great nation. As a government
we recognize ultimately that is what will keep Canada united,
strong and growing: our shared sense of Canadian identity and our
sense of pride in belonging to what is still for the fourth year
running, the best country in the world in which to live.
We recognize that culture occupies a unique place in that sense
of Canadian identity. Canadian culture underpins both our identity
and our economy. We know that a healthy and growing Canadian
cultural sector is one of the most powerful tools and ways we can
promote unity and jobs. We recognize that Canadian cultural
identity is at the core of our destiny and our strength as a country
and as a united but diverse people.
Consider the economic impact alone of Canada's cultural sector.
In 1993-94 the total cultural sector contributed directly and
indirectly $42.8 billion to the Canadian economy. That amounts to
6.9 per cent of the gross domestic product, 1.2 million jobs and 9.3
per cent of the workforce, more than the construction industry,
more than the transportation or agricultural sectors. This is why the
Government of Canada has taken measures to strengthen both
Canadian identity and Canadian culture. These initiatives include
but are not limited to the Canadian Information Office and the one
in a million flag challenge.
The fact that hon. members in this House chose to see such
important Canada strengthening activities as propaganda activities
says more about their weak sense of commitment to Canada than it
does about this government's work. Nevertheless I will respond to
the motion of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe by
highlighting the accomplishments of this government in creating
initiatives that bolster Canadian identity and strengthen Canadian
unity while improving the economy and creating more jobs and
opportunities for Canadians. They are inseparable.
Only two days ago on February 15 Canadians celebrated the
32nd anniversary of our flag. The red and white flag with the maple
leaf is known throughout the world in every country as signifying
the greatest country in the world. On Friday in my city of
Vancouver we walked with the largest Canadian flag in the world.
There were hundreds of people holding on to the edges of the flag
as we walked down the street in the glorious Vancouver rain to
show our pride in our country. This government is committed to
enhancing pride in Canada and promoting a sense of belonging and
shared values.
It is one symbol that wherever they go in the world Canadians
wear on their sleeves, their hearts, their backpacks. In fact, I have it
on good information that a young person travelling in Europe can
pay as much as $200 on the black market to buy a small Canadian
flag. It is being bought by people who are not Canadians but by
young people who want to sew it on to their sleeves and their
backpacks so people will believe that they are Canadians. That
wonderful red and white flag with the maple leaf.
As a government we recognize our responsibility to enhance a
sense of pride and belonging among Canadians through a
heightened awareness of our symbols, our traditions, our
achievements. That flag is recognized around the world and it is not
just that other people want to wear it. The question is: Why do
people want to wear our flag? They want to wear our flag because
of the values it represents, values of freedom, democracy, respect,
tolerance, compassion and understanding. It represents people who
have learned to find peaceful resolution to conflict, the
peacekeepers of the world.
8179
(1245 )
That is why people want to wear our flag. The flag also also
represents the pride and citizenship of Canada as well as the
qualities that make us such a great country in which to live.
The one in a million flag challenge is helping Canadians to wave
the flag higher and stronger not only around the world but within
our country. It is important that we take our flag when we leave
Canada and within Canada celebrate it. It has been a great success.
There are now more flags flying across Canada than in the history
of this country. That is testimony to the depth of the pride that
Canadians feel for this country. It is moving to see Canadians
everywhere hoisting the flag higher and waving it with pride. As
Canadians there is no better time than now to open our hearts and
express the pride and love we feel and share for this great country
and the glorious red and white maple leaf.
Just as Canadians have shown an ever growing pride in our flag,
Canadians across the country are also showing that they want to
know more about our country, more about the people living in other
parts of this vast land. I have noted that the need to connect is
something which is almost second nature, historically a tradition
among Canadians.
The mission of the Canada information office is to facilitate the
process by creating links among Canadians from sea to sea to sea,
from coast to coast, across mountains and prairies. As we cross the
country we realize how much we know and do not know about each
other. The things which make us great are the things which also
make us different.
The CIO provides up to date accurate information about the
development of the Canadian federation, the history of Canada, the
role the government plays in meeting its nation building objectives.
That is what we are doing, building a nation. To fulfil these goals
the CIO lends a hand to all Canadians who want to know. We work
to establish partnerships with and among Canadians.
It is difficult for me to understand how a member of the House of
Commons could object to a mechanism that ensures the flow of
accurate, factual information about Canada, information sharing
that has as its goal the promotion of all of Canada, all of Canadian
identity and a mutual understanding among the people of this
country.
The government is deeply and enthusiastically proud of its
initiative to promote Canada's richness, its diversity, its heritage
and its multi-faceted stories. What better work could we do for and
with Canadians than to inform them about their country, about the
different regions, about the different peoples.
We are proud of the work the CIO is doing. I would like to
discuss some additional government initiatives that we are
working on to strengthen Canadian identity and unity while
improving the economy and creating jobs for Canadians.
Over the past four years the government has worked hard to
ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system remains the best in
the world.
[Translation]
Broadcasting is a powerful tool for building national unity and
economic strength. It is a powerful tool for strengthening our social
fabric, and our individual and collective empowerment. It is a
powerful tool for strenghthening our shared sense of Canadian
identity and our international success.
[English]
Canada's broadcasters give Canadians a reflection of ourselves,
a sounding board, a window on our neighbours, whether they are on
the other side of town or whether they live on the other side of the
country. Let me give a few of the most basic facts about the
economic impact of Canadian broadcasting.
The Canadian film and television production industry generates
$2.7 billion in production activity, which includes $800 million in
production revenues. Today there are more than 700 large and
small film and television production companies with profits of over
$60 million, sustaining 72,000 Canadian jobs, and giving us a sense
of who we are. This is a sector worth supporting and encouraging,
from an economic perspective, from a Canadian identity
perspective and from a job perspective. This is what we are doing.
(1250 )
In response to the report of the mandate review committee,
which Mr. Pierre Juneau chaired, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage announced last September the creation of the Canada
television and cable production fund. The report has called for
more distinct Canadian content in this time of expanding viewer
choice.
The $200 million a year fund is fulfilling that need by ensuring a
greater sense of Canadian presence on Canadian television screens.
The fund results from a partnership between the private sector
cable production fund and Telefilm Canada's television production
programs. The response to the fund has been positive, especially
from Canada's private broadcasters. They know firsthand how hard
it is fund the cost of producing high quality Canadian programs.
[Translation]
It costs around $1 million to produce one hour of Canadian
drama.
8180
[English]
In one hour it takes us that amount to produce one hour of
Canadian broadcasting. We recognize that if we are going to prove
that we are committed to our Canadian identity in our broadcasting
we must put our money where our mouth is. The $200 million fund
for broadcasting and production is doing exactly that.
It has been remarkably successful. To date, 140 projects have
benefited from a total budget of $269 million, of which $69 million
came from the Canada television and cable production fund. Those
are amazing results from a fund that was launched only a few
months ago.
We estimate that in the future the production fund's annual $200
million investment will lever over $700 million worth of Canadian
production. That should mean as many as 10,000 new jobs to the
broadcasting industry, a sector that already employs over 60,000
Canadians. It is growing at a rate of 14 per cent a year.
What about radio? I was weaned on Canadian radio even when I
did not live in Canada. Today I listen to Canadian radio across this
country. For almost half the life of this country, radio has been the
principal source of self-discovery and self-expression for
Canadians. It is our 24 hour electronic town hall to which 99 per
cent of Canadians have access. The average Canadian spends 20
hours a week listening to Canadian radio and the vast majority of
that time is spent listening to privately operated Canadian
broadcasters. That also includes public radio, the CBC.
The CBC is a vibrant core. It keeps us in touch with one another
wherever we live in this big country. This government is
committed to ensuring that CBC radio's unique voice continues to
be heard from coast to coast in both official languages.
That is why again last week the Minister of Canadian Heritage
acted to support public radio in two ways. First, the minister
announced $10 million in additional annual funding for both
English and French language CBC radio services starting April 1,
1997.
The minister also announced that the government has guaranteed
stable funding for the CBC for five years starting April 1, 1998.
That is good news for radio and good news for Canadian culture.
What I am saying is that in fact sustaining Canada's identity, its
heritage and its culture is not just one thing. It is not simply the
million flags. It is not simply the CIO. It is not simply the Canadian
film industry. It is also the Canadian television industry, the
Canadian radio industry and the Canadian publishing industry. The
market share of Canadian authored books has risen from 5 per cent
to 25 per cent since 1970. Exports of Canadian books are up by 151
per cent over the last five years.
In Canada we have literature in which we can take pride. We
have internationally recognized talented and creative writers. We
have publishers who want to make sure that Canadian stories are
told. We recognize the consistent record of excellence in Canada in
both English and French language literature and book publishing.
As a government, we recognize that the climate of extreme
challenge and change that faces authors, publishers and distributors
of books must be dealt with.
The changing economic environment, the need to reduce
government deficits, technological change, changes in the
marketplace, we know that all of these factors will threaten
Canada's publishing sector. In the face of these challenges, both
short and long term, we have taken measures to ensure that
publishers will enjoy a more stable fiscal environment and can
continue to contribute to the vitality of our cultural sector.
(1255)
That, again, is why the Minister of Canadian Heritage recently
injected $5 million into her department book publishing industry
development program.
Another area that we need to talk about in this ongoing saga of
publishing is the voice of the Canadian magazine industry, which
has faced many obstacles. We are working hard to ensure that the
Canadian case is defended vigorously in the WTO.
Last year has seen many changes. The Copyright Act, Bill C-32,
marking the important step in moving forward and updating the
rights of creators, will significantly improve the status of the
cultural sector.
It evolved as a result of talks with Canadians from coast to coast
and of listening to what they had to say. It has brought about
fairness and integrity that Canadians embrace. It updates the
Copyright Act, which is integral to the jobs and growth agenda that
is our priority.
Canada's cultural sector is dynamic and rich with future
promise. The role of the Government of Canada is to support, in
every way we can and with every single strategy we can, with
multiple strategies indeed, the culture of Canada.
The sound recording industry, the music industry, is a complex
one but we have taken measures to bolster its growth. The minister
made this decision in a response to the March 1996
recommendation of the task force on the future of the Canadian
music industry that funding levels for her department sound
recording program be boosted in the next fiscal year.
This government is committed to continuing to address all the
recommendations in the recording sector of Canada's industry. The
money we will put in is an investment in our cultural industries.
Our museums are well known. They are very important parts that
tell us who we are as Canadians.
8181
We must support and strengthen the culture which underpins
Canada's identity and which strengthens our economy. To support
the culture of this country, we must support its soul.
As we approach the next millennium, we would be wise to use
every means at our disposal to do so. We will use partnerships.
With the cultural sector using the $30 billion that it pumps into
Canada's economy, it will account for nearly-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the time of the hon. secretary
of state has expired. Questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from
Richmond-Wolfe for the motion he tabled this morning. Part of
this motion reads as follows:
That the House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda
activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and
the One Million Flags Operation-
I will never forget my high school teachers, particularly this
history teacher who used to say that freedom is not something one
can beg for; one has to assert it. Another favourite line of his was
this one: ``Love cannot be bought, it must be won, and it takes hard
work to keep it''.
Could the hon. member for Vancouver Centre tell me if there is
any other country in the world that spends as much to buy the love
of its inhabitants, its people?
When I visit my relatives in the U.S. and we attend sporting
events, when the time comes to stand up and sing the national
anthem, it is clear that my nephews, Canadians who have been
living in the U.S. for several years, love the country where they
now live. They are proud of it, because in the U.S. everyone is
treated with respect.
(1300)
Unfortunately, it is not the same here. I will point out to my hon.
colleague from Vancouver Centre that, after the union, in 1841,
when Upper and Lower Canada were joined, not only were both
communities amalgamated, but so were their respective debts.
Quebec, which was not heavily in debt but whose infrastructure
was minimal, joined with Upper Canada, Ontario, whose debt was
12 times higher, but whose infrastructure-roads, ports,
railroads-was highly developed. The total amount of the debts
was split equally between the two.
From day one, equality between the two founding nations was
trampled on. The people of Quebec have almost constantly been
neglected in this federation.
Take industrial development in the automotive industry for
instance. The automobile assembly plant in Sainte-Thérèse is the
only one in Quebec, while there are dozens of these plants in
Ontario. Why is that? Mere coincidence, you say. Hardly. Pride in
one's country cannot be bought with flags.
I was listening to Robert Gillet's radio show where, under the
alias of Bob Sweater, he phoned the 1-800 number to order flags for
free. He ordered enough flags for all the cottages along the St.
Lawrence River. You fell for it and became the laughing stock of
Quebecers with your million flags.
Indeed, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre can rest assured
that Quebecers' love will not be bought with flags. Just as the love
of a spouse cannot be bought, neither can love for one's country. As
far as we, Quebecers, are concerned, our country is Quebec and
two, three or even four million flags cannot change the fact that
Quebec will always be our country.
[English]
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond again to the propaganda
comment that is being made.
Buying freedom. I agree with the hon. member that freedom
cannot be bought. But one has to ask oneself about the 1995
Quebec referendum that cost Quebecers $63.5 million, or the
pre-referendum public consultations that cost the Government of
Quebec $5 million, or the premier's office committing $2 million
to the Conseil de la souveraineté in Quebec to promote a yes vote,
and the international affairs department signing a $1.2 million
advertising campaign with Marketel, is it along those same lines? I
wonder. Do these work together? Are they the same thing? Is this
buying pride? Is this buying freedom?
It should be known with respect to the Canada Information
Office which is being considered to be a propaganda tool that
similar offices exist in countries such as Belgium, the United
Kingdom, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Denmark.
The one in a million flag campaign has been the most popular
campaign in the history of this country. It is interesting to say that a
group of people flew flags from that campaign on their chalets as a
joke. I am here to say that the maple leaf with its two red stripes on
either side, that red and white flag is not considered by any country
of the world to be a joke. It is considered to be a proud symbol of a
country the world looks to for peace, for humanity, for justice and
compassion.
(1305 )
Flying flags on our homes is not a joke. It is a symbol of pride in
our country, regardless of what others would call it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the debate
today is rather interesting.
It is my considered opinion that the heritage minister is a
walking, or I should say, a flying disaster. The minister envisions
8182
herself as a unity minister but cannot even maintain unity in her
own cabinet on issues which surround her portfolio.
For example the defence minister supports a Reform position
that would maintain funding for CBC radio, Newsworld and RDI,
but would privatize CBC television and CBC stereo. He is clearly
offside with her on that issue.
The industry minister and his ministry are understandably very
upset with the last minute disjointed amendments to Bill C-32, an
act to amend the Copyright Act, which destroyed the process of
developing a thoughtful, balanced copyright law. After destroying
the committee process, she presented a dog's dinner of disjointed
amendments that will create a problem of great magnitude rather
than solve the conflict.
The international trade minister appears to be going bald from
pulling out his hair when she stumbles forward with frivolous
comments about cultural exports totalling $1.4 billion a year
because she is jeopardizing Canada-U.S. trade relations. Serenity
in Canada's exports of $1 billion a day is threatened by her
intemperate, illogical rants about Canadian culture.
I have in hand a letter from the Minister of Transport dated
November 21. It should be noted that I also have department
statistics which show that as of November 18 there had been 2,237
flags issued to his constituency against the provincial average of
2,500. In the November 21 letter, three days after those numbers
came out, he went to great lengths to say that flags appeared to be
held up. What he was really getting at was he wanted to be able to
make the following comment.
I quote from the Minister of Transport's letter to the Canada flag
challenge program: ``I am writing to you to inform you that any
flags distributed to my constituents may be done so under the
signature and mailing privilege of my colleague, the Canadian
heritage minister, under whose jurisdiction the program falls, or
any other way you see fit. I do not believe that it is appropriate for
myself or my staff to be directly involved''. Clearly, on the issue
we are debating today, the transport minister was going out of his
way to distance himself from the frivolousness that surrounds this
entire issue which was developed by the heritage minister.
To make my case that she is a loose cannon and a walking
disaster in her heritage portfolio, here is what she has actually done
with this extremely expensive flag program at a cost of $15.5
million. Unfortunately, she has unwittingly proved that there are
two solitudes in Canada and manufactured patriotism by flag
waving does not close the gap.
I have figures indicating the number of flags ordered by riding
throughout Canada. The question is: Why are these statistics
divided into ridings by the Canadian heritage department? There
must be something there. Let us take a look at it.
For those of us who may not be aware, flags ordered in Liberal
members' ridings were sent out through their offices. That is right.
The members' frank or mailing privileges were used. Of course,
there is a tidy list of individuals who ordered flags which no doubt
will prove to be quite useful in the upcoming election. The heritage
minister in a debate with me in the House made the statement:
``The flag is not Liberal. The flag is Canadian''.
As proof that she is taking a hypocritical position, let us look at
the details. An average of 2,000 flags per riding were ordered in
every province across Canada, excluding Quebec. However, the
following ridings had a considerably higher number of flags
ordered. What is the similarity among these ridings? They are held
by Liberal members. I would suggest that these members were
encouraged to ensure these numbers in order that the minister could
meet her one million flag mark.
(1310 )
For example, 8,000 flags were given to the riding of the minister
of fisheries; 8,000 flags to Brian Tobin's former riding; 6,406 flags
to the riding of the minister of francophonie; and 8,440 to
Lanark-Carleton. In contrast, to show how these members pushed
so hard on this program, the heritage minister's own riding only
ordered 2,847.
The real telling numbers are in Quebec. With 25 per cent of the
population, that province only accounted for 11 per cent of the
flags ordered. The average number ordered in Quebec ridings was
only 400. Again I note the following numbers of flags ordered by
the ridings of Liberal members in Quebec against an average of
only 400 flags per riding in that province: Hull-Aylmer, 2,944;
Pierrefonds; 3,075; Gatineau-La Lièvre, 3,338; Gatineau, 3,000.
This clearly establishes that Quebec Liberal members were
aggressively spreading as many Canadian flags around as possible
in a vain attempt to get the numbers up in Quebec.
What did all this cost and how much planning was there? At the
outset the minister clearly and specifically stated that without
donations the program would cost $6 million. Her press secretary,
Duncan Dee, again confirmed the cost would be between $6
million and $7 million. Now the minister has applied her own
mathematical skills to this program, which has cost the taxpayer
$15.5 million. According to this minister, she has actually saved us
$8 million because there was some wild and orchestrated
speculation this past summer that the program would cost $23
million.
In summary, the program announced on February 14, 1996
according to the minister would generate patriotism, drive
Canadian unity and would be funded by donations. Instead we have
a
8183
program which has had little consequence in the province of
Quebec and has cost all Canadians $15.5 million. Remember, the
minister originally said that it would cost $6 million but because it
cost $8 million less than the wild speculation, she says she is under
budget when she comes in at only $15.5 million. We can only hope
the Prime Minister will not make her the Minister of Finance.
Included in that cost is another tidy little contract for the
minister's former campaign manager, a senior partner at Thornley
Fallis, Inc., who is not doing too badly. Since Thornley's
benefactor was made Minister of Canadian Heritage, it would seem
he has obtained five contracts from the Liberal government.
The minister claims to have reached her goal of one million
flags. How was this attained? As I reflected on earlier, with the
assistance of her Liberal colleagues. I have received calls and
letters from many Canadians who never ordered the flags they
received. In many cases they received two, three and even four
flags. A Montreal Le Devoir reporter indicated in a story that his
offices received seven unsolicited flags, again not ordered. The
reporter promptly stuck them in the bottom drawer of his desk. So
we ask, what effect are these flags at Le Devoir? An anonymous
source in the minister's office contacted me and said that they were
instructed to invent names and addresses to get the flags out so the
minister could reach her goal.
I ask members of this House, did they see a great flurry of flags
this past weekend, which would have demonstrated the tremendous
success of this program? How successful? Students in Halifax who
have seen the Liberal government gouge $4 billion from the CHST
which includes funding for post-secondary education showed their
contempt for this wasteful spending by ordering 750 free flags
which flew from their windows in protest. This was the most
significant flurry of flags that anybody could see this weekend.
All of this falls into the same category as the minister's ill
thought Canadian Information Office which when announced was
supposed to cost us only $20 million. Using the same mathematics,
one can only assume we are going to get dinged for considerably
more when the government's term is over. What are we getting for
this? Not even a free flag.
I remind the House that the office is not accountable to
Parliament. It is not accountable to access to information requests;
they are blocked by cabinet order. Employees of that office are
considered to be exempt staff which means the minister once again
can stuff in as many Liberals as she can dig up and put their
services to work for her own partisan purposes. The minister said
the CIO would not duplicate any other government service already
in place. However, what about Reference Canada within the
industry department and all the other information offices run by
each department? Further, a minister is responsible for
intergovernmental affairs. Does his department not respond to
requests for information?
(1315)
The minister clearly stated that the office was not aimed at the
separatists in Quebec. In her July 9 press release she said
``Canadians made it clear that they are proud of their country and
want to know more about each other-the office will bring
measures to help Canadians to understand each other and build a
stronger Canada''.
She denied very vehemently that it was aimed at separatists at
that time. However, only two months later the minister admitted to
a reporter ``the federal government has a duty to respond to the
propaganda which the Quebec government spread during last
year's referendum campaign''. Which is the truth, her position on
July 9 or her position two months later because the two things are
mutually exclusive.
Only in Canada could we have members of Parliament who
come to dismantle our great, magnificent nation. While I share the
minister's concern about the seeds of disunity that the Bloc
Quebecois and other separatists are spreading in the province of
Quebec, she does not have clue one as to what it will take to focus
Canadians on what it means to be Canadian.
Her office has set up a web site, for example, at the CIO office.
Not surprisingly Quebecers are ignoring the information office web
site in the same proportion as they ignore the minister's ill-thought
out expensive flag program.
Let me now remind members of the enormous pride we, as
Canadians, all Canadians, feel when we have such enormously
successful winning athletes standing on the podium at the Olympic
ceremonies, athletes such as Silken Lauman, Donovan Bailey,
Karen Magnussen, Sylvie Frechette and Canada's special
Olympians at Collingwood, Ontario. Does this not instil a greater
pride in our country than a bunch of flags filtered through Liberal
MPs offices at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers to the tune of
$15.5 million?
On August 30, 1996 the minister insisted that the budget is
sufficient to cover the costs and that she will not have to cut other
programs to come up with the funds. She should tell that to the
amateur athletes whose living funds are being eroded today by the
heritage ministry. These are the athletes who grow to become
Canada's athletes at home and abroad. Can patriotic Canadians
afford to buy flags? You bet they can. Could athletes make use of
the $15.5 million for incidentals like track shoes and food? I guess
so.
Why did this minister blow the $15.5 million on this program
when our athletes are starving to death? As part of the $414 million
slashed and bled from the CBC, CBC radio, which is supported by
the majority of Canadians, took a $30 million hit. With
unbelievable massive cynicism last week this minister has now
restored $10 million to CBC radio. The net loss to CBC radio, $20
million. The point is she is blowing away the same amount of
money as she has
8184
slashed from CBC radio and she is spending it on the Canadian
Information Office.
As a consequence I move the following amendment to the Bloc
motion.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words ``Heritage
Canada'' and substituting the following therefor:
``such as the $20 million spent on Canada Information Office and the $15.5
million spent on the One Million Flags Operation at a time when cuts
unprecedented in the history of Canada have been imposed on cultural institutions
such as CBC Radio and direct funding to amateur sports''.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is in order.
(1320 )
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the point of my speech is very simple
and straightforward. Patriotism cannot be manufactured.
Contrary to the ideas the Liberals have, that if it is not done by
the government, somehow it is not worthwhile and it is not going to
happen, the point of my speech is this. Canadian culture is what
Canadians do. Canadian culture is what Canadians are. We are
proud of our nation. We are proud not only of the magnificence of
our nation and the bounty of its resources but we are particularly
proud of its people.
We do not have to be told that we are different to someone else.
We do not have to feel inferior to anyone else. Canadians are the
greatest people in the world. They are industrious. They are
forthright.
It bothers me so much when we run into a situation that unless
somehow the government gets involved, the government mandates,
the government controls, the government funds, the government
over arches everything, somehow we cannot be Canadian.
The approach of the heritage minister to everything, whether it is
the Canadian copyright law, or the Canadian content rules that she
was musing about over the weekend with respect to the CRTC, or
where we should be going as far as CBC or even the importation of
books into Canada, I find absolutely appalling that this minister is
so shortsighted that she cannot see the greatness of our people and
the greatness of our nation right in front of her face.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today because, in this great
and extraordinary country called Canada, we have to condemn the
use of public funds made by this government, which has earmarked
money for propaganda activities that essentially seek to discredit
the people of Quebec.
The Information Canada office, the one million flag operation,
all these schemes are ways of telling Quebecers: ``You are wrong to
feel like a people, to feel like a nation''.
I want to thank the Reform Party member for specifying the
amounts involved. We all know these figures, but we can never
repeat them often enough.
Tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will deliver his budget
speech. Chances are the budget will be soft on Canadians. Since
this government came to office in 1993, budgets have been harsh.
The government did not hesitate to make drastic cuts, which
primarily affect the poor and the needy, and which force provincial
governments to cut health and social programs.
Culture has not been spared either. Cultural institutions of which
Canada can be proud, and to which Quebec can deservedly claim to
have contributed, such as the CBC, Telefilm and the National Film
Board, have been the target of incredible cuts.
(1325)
These institutions played a major role in the expression of my
culture. In Quebec, Radio-Canada has been a tool to make people
aware of the fact that French is a rich and dynamic language, as
well as an original way of stating our identity.
When Prime Minister Trudeau came to office, he had something
against Radio-Canada. He never hid the fact that, if he had had his
way, he would have closed that institution. Since 1993, one can feel
that the current Liberal government would very much like to fulfil
the former Prime Minister's wish, as evidenced by the cuts made to
cultural programs by the heritage department.
There have been a few heritage ministers since 1993. The most
recent, the Deputy Prime Minister, is probably the most
flamboyant. Without the slightest hesitation, she is diverting funds
set aside for culture with a capital C towards purely propaganda
activities. These are activities promoting Canadian unity and
culture, multiculturalism. In other words, culture in Canada has
only one face, only one colour-it must be Canadian.
You will have no trouble understanding that I am opposed to this
state of affairs, because it is my contention, and the very great
majority of Quebecers would agree with me, that my culture is the
culture of Quebec. It is not better than Canadian culture, but it is
different, and we are staunch advocates of this right to be different.
Our understanding of the decisions made by the heritage minister is
that what she is setting out to do is to take away our right to express
this difference.
There are many examples. There was even one recently. We
learned that the Department of Foreign Affairs has new criteria for
awarding grants to artists. The determining factors will no longer
8185
be talent, creativity and originality, but ultimately the colour of the
flag artists prefer. If you prefer the maple leaf, you will get your
grant; if the fleur de lis means more to you, forget it.
This means that the current image of culture outside Canada will
gradually fade, because unfortunately there are many Quebec
artists who identify with the Quebec culture and are not afraid to
say so, even if it may mean the loss of grants. It is all vaguely
reminiscent of the good old days in the USSR when artistic merit
was measured by an artist's promotion of the values of the unitary
state, by his adulation of the government's achievements. This is
not, I think, what culture is.
Culture is the expression of a people, of its identity, of its
difference. For as long as French survives in Quebec, for as long as
the people of Quebec see the French language as the best means of
giving expression to their identity, I am sorry, but we will speak of
a nation of Quebecers.
(1330)
Since it was elected, this government has made major cuts in the
cultural sector. It is very interesting to read what the red book has
to say, although in few months it will be more than obsolete. In the
red book the Liberal Party set out to promote culture and condemn
the nasty Conservatives who dared to make savage cuts.
On page 88, it says, and I quote: ``Spending cuts to the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film
Board, Telefilm Canada and other institutions illustrate the Tories'
failure to appreciate the importance of cultural development''. And
also: ``A Liberal government will help Canadian books, films and
sound recordings to increase their share of the domestic market.
We will also take measures to enable Canadian producers of
cultural products to export their work to international markets.
Finally, a Liberal government will be committed to stable
multiyear financing for national cultural institutions such as the
Canada Council and the CBC''. It took a long time to achieve stable
multiyear financing. And before we get there, there will be more
cutbacks amounting to tens of millions of dollars.
Since 1993, the Liberals slashed the CBC's budget by a third, for
a total of $414 million in cuts, resulting in 4,000 lay-offs, including
1,300 at the French network. Similarly, Telefilm Canada suffered
funding cuts totalling $46 million; at the Canada Council, it was
$12 million; at the NAC, the National Arts Centre, $5 million, and
at the National Film Board, $27 million. Once you start cutting,
you can go on. It is easy. You get used to it.
Last week we heard the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is
still Deputy Prime Minister of this country, promise stable
financing for the CBC. After more than three years of cuts,
promising stable financing means that the CBC will be left with a
downsized, inadequate budget, especially in the French television
and radio sector, which are underfinanced compared with the
English network.
However, francophones are wizards. They do wonders with
reduced budgets. In other words, this government rewards the
competence of artists and producers by cutting funding. All this is
probably planned in advance.
But just the same, some crazy things have happened. They cut
funding, and then they established an office called the CIO, or BIC
in French. At home, Bic is a wonderful little village in Quebec on
the shores of the St. Lawrence, with magnificent views. It is really
beautiful countryside. So, obviously, calling the centre the BIC,
Bureau d'information du Canada, is a bit disturbing, but we will let
it go.
Extraordinary things came out of all this. There was, for
example, the One Million Flags Operation. My impression,
however, when I looked at my Christmas cards this year, was that
things were not going as well as they might, because there were
Christmas cards where an entire family was dressed in a Canadian
flag. Now that is quite extraordinary.
(1335)
It seems there were flags alright, when they were trying to colour
Quebec red and white. It seems that only 10 per cent of the flags
ended up in Quebec, compared to 40 per cent in Ontario. So 50 per
cent of the operation took place in central Canada, except that I
must say I saw few flags displayed in Quebec. I did not see any in
the towns and villages. Perhaps I am colour blind.
They are doing other things too. They are setting up
sweepstakes. Lotteries are in fashion. They are preparing
Attractions Canada questionnaires. It seems to me that if you are
proud of your country, you do not need this sort of incentive. Being
proud of one's country, loving one's country, comes naturally.
When a government feels obliged to invest huge amounts to
force people to love their country, we know it is not going to work.
You cannot force people to love, and Quebecers cannot be forced to
appear to love, because loving involves being treated with respect.
And we can see from all that goes on with Heritage Canada that
respect is not the watchword in this government's treatment of
Quebec.
I had the opportunity to see the figures for federal spending since
December 1994, that is, a few months prior to the referendum
campaign. The figure is nearly $100 million, which is a lot of
money. I am no economist, but I recall our asking for Tokamak, a
high tech industry, the sum of $8 million, which was out of the
question. Yet, $100 million was allocated to propaganda before the
referendum and immediately after.
8186
More than $1 million was spent on the Canadian flag 30th
anniversary celebrations. I wonder how much France spent to
mark the anniversary of its flag. It may be worth asking our
researchers to look into that.
An amount of $1,843,000 was spent for the UN's 50th
anniversary; for the ``Heritage Minutes''-I do not go to the
movies often, but I remember seeing one or two on the big screen,
but putting anything on the big screen is expensive: $2,220,000.
Tourism promotion for Canadians: $15 million. That is
incredible. I have the figures right here; I can read them, even
without my glasses. The ``One Million Voices'' campaign-they
must have sung quite loud because it cost $500,000. And that went
in fact to the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadienne.
Canadian identity alone, in terms of subsidies not identified
within Heritage Canada, cost $3 million. There is the Canadian
passport promotion. Is it not just incredible to be promoting the
Canadian passports? Passports are used less and less. In Europe
today, people can travel freely, but here the passport is being
promoted. It is a well known fact that Canadians travel extensively
around the world; therefore a small amount of $25,000 was
allocated to promoting the Canadian passport. You realize that
there are single parent families with two and three children that do
not earn that much in a whole year.
On federal government services, $5 million was spent. For
Operation Unity: $11 million. And the list goes on, with $23
million here and $600,000 there. This all adds up to nearly $100
million.
I believe the government should think again. Tomorrow is
budget day. We cannot really tell what the finance minister's
budget will contain, but one thing is for sure: in this country,
culture will continue to have a strongly partisan connotation to it. I
must say that it is a shame that propaganda takes precedence over
respect.
(1440)
I hope that, by the year 2000, ours friends across the way will
have learned to view Quebec in an honest, respectful and realistic
way.
I think there is nothing wrong with being naive; it allows us to
keep hoping. I tell you that my hope is alive. We should never lose
hope.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's
speech.
The member sort of criticized, again, Canada and its proud and
well-known institutions, which have worked hard to promote and
to preserve the French fact, in Quebec and across the country.
I find it strange that, when numbers are mentioned, particularly
by Bloc Quebecois members, there is a tendency to exaggerate. I
would like the hon. member to explain something. As she knows,
Quebec accounts for close to 25 per cent of the country's
population, 24.9 per cent to be precise, and pays 22 per cent of
federal taxes. However, in the case of certain federal institutions,
such as the National Film Board, we note that 73.9 per cent of the
NFB's budget is spent in Quebec.
In the case of Telefilm Canada, which was used to edit a number
of well-known Quebec films, close to 62.9 per cent of the budget
was spent in Quebec, including 43 per cent on French language
films. Again, Quebec currently accounts for 25 per cent of
Canada's population.
As for the CBC, I agree with the hon. member that cuts were
made. However, cuts are not unique to Canada. Indeed, major cuts
were made to Radio-Québec and to community radio stations in
various regions of the province. We could also mention the various
cuts made in other countries. It is a fact that the media world is
undergoing drastic changes as we are about to begin a new century.
I am looking at the figures for the CBC, and I agree that cuts
were made. The corporation had a budget of $918 million, of which
close to 40 per cent, or $367,280,000, was allocated to its French
network, Radio-Canada. So, based on the proportion of the overall
population living in Quebec, the province is actually getting close
to $140 million more than it should.
I find it strange and I wonder if, in this post-referendum context
for us, which is probably a pre-referendum context for the Bloc
Quebecois, the hon. member could tell us where Quebec would
find that money, should it achieve sovereignty.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the member asks how will
we come up with this money once Quebec is independent.
You know, it has nothing to do with chance, if I may rely on the
figures given by my colleague, the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, when he says that the NFB
spent 73 per cent of its budget in Quebec, it is very simple. It is
because the creativity is in Quebec, that is all.
What is the mainstay of Canadian culture right now? The
mainstay of Canadian culture is the dynamism of the culture of
Quebec.
Let no one think that money has been allocated to the NFB or
Telefilm Canada out of the goodness of anyone's heart. That is not
the case. It is because of our ability to turn to exceptional account
the money given to our creators.
It is my view that, the day Quebecers take charge of their own
affairs, become their own masters, our culture will have all the
means to find its full expression, without being subject to the
dictates of people who claim to have money, because they have
forgotten that the money they have actually comes from the voters,
from the taxpayers.
8187
(1345)
My colleague was saying that we represented almost 25 per cent,
or a bit less, of the population, but as far as I know, we pay the same
taxes as the rest of Canada. So he was worried about how we would
manage. I can reassure him immediately. I think that our future will
be on a level with our ability, our determination and our respect for
ourselves and for our neighbours in Canada.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
I am pleased to rise in the House to address the opposition
motion today and in particular I want to remind the House of the
accomplishments of this government in supporting Canada's
publishing industry and its progress in the field of copyright
reform.
Our government and our Prime Minister are deeply committed to
supporting Canadian culture and promoting Canadian content. In
partnership with leaders in the arts and culture in Canada, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage is developing a cohesive vision for
the real and sustainable support to culture in this country. Today I
would like to highlight some of our accomplishments to date.
This government wants to ensure the continued development of
the Canadian publishing industry. By directly assisting this sector
and by implementing structural policy measures we are making
sure that Canadian publishing remains an important agent of
cultural expression.
The Canadian poet Hector de Saint-Denys Garneau once said
that writers burst the boundaries of the globe. Our books and
magazines connect us, first to deeper parts of ourselves, then to
each other and finally to our sense of place. In turn, they reflect
Canada back to the world.
Canadians want to read Canadian books and they are doing so.
Recent market research shows that Canadians are reading more
than ever and that most of them are reading Canadian writers.
Eighty per cent of these works are published by Canadian owned
firms.
The successes read like a hit parade of Canadian writers. Many
are household names, remarkable talents, such as Robertson
Davies, Michel Tremblay, W.P. Kinsella, Anne Hébert,
Marie-Claire Blais, Emile Nelligan, Margaret Atwood, Michael
Ondaatje, Gabriel Roy and Robinson Mistry, to name only a few.
Our writers are helping to forge a place for Canadian literature as
a world class art form. It is being translated into dozens of
languages, studied in some 40 countries and recognized
internationally by being awarded some of the highest honours and
awards. For example, Antoine Maillet has been the recipient of the
most prestigious French language literary award, the prix
Goncourt. Michael Ondaatje won the Booker prize, Great Britain's
most prestigious literary award.
Canadian magazines are another essential form of our cultural
expression from news and opinion magazines like L'Actualité and
Maclean's to health magazines like Santé and children's magazines
like Chickadee. Our magazine industry is essential to our sense of
who we are as Canadians.
Canada has over 1,400 magazines. They provide employment for
nearly 6,000 Canadians and bear witness to the fact that our
publishers, editors, art directors and writers are among the finest in
the world. Through the book publishing development program, the
Government of Canada is providing $15.8 million in direct
financial assistance to over 180 Canadian publishers in 1996-97.
As well, over $6 million was provided to support the marketing of
books in Canada and to promote the export of Canadian books
abroad.
(1350 )
The Government of Canada helps the Canadian publishing sector
and Canadian authored books to achieve their considerable success.
The Canadian market share of Canadian authored books has risen
from 5 per cent in 1970 to 25 per cent today. In the last five years
export sales of Canadian books have tripled.
Our commitment is stronger than ever. During the summer of
1996, the government worked with book publishers to study
options to improve the financial health of Canadian owned
publishing firms. The result of this study is fueling a three point
publishing strategy, including short term funding assistance to
stabilize the industry, a feasibility study for creating a publishers
loan guarantee program and other long term measures to stabilize
the financing environment for publishers.
Recently the Minister of Canadian Heritage provided our
publishers with an additional $5 million to bolster direct financial
assistance to the sector for 1996-97. The periodical industry has
received both direct assistance and support through structural
policy measures.
Canadians are reading more Canadian magazines than ever
before. In 1961 about 25 per cent of magazines circulating in this
country were Canadian. By 1992 that had increased to almost 68
per cent. We want to keep this kind of growth in Canada's vital
cultural industries. The book and the periodical publishing sector in
Canada plays a pivotal role in telling us about ourselves, about
Canadian places, events and issues. Our enormous successes in this
sector at home and abroad are dependent upon industries with
strong foundations in the domestic market. The government is
working with members of the publishing community to strengthen
it. That is partnership in action, working for Canadian culture and
identity.
8188
An area relating to the publishing sector and directly affecting
it is that of copyright. Among the initiatives of the government
is its work in copyright reform. For several years Canadians have
awaited amendments to the Copyright Act, important changes that
would update the legislation and help the cultural sector to meet
the challenges of the information age.
Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, will soon receive
third reading in the House. In the early 1980s the Liberal
government of the day produced a comprehensive document, the
Applebaum-Hebert report, which called for the reform of copyright
legislation. In the years that followed, the Conservative
government failed to act to update copyright legislation. We are
remedying that situation by making sure that Bill C-32 passes into
law.
As a member of the heritage committee I work closely with
Canadian authors and publishers to ensure that Bill C-32 addresses
the concerns of both groups. The bill as amended by the heritage
committee effectively balances the interests of the publishers,
authors and consumers of copyright material. Bill C-32 will help
ensure that Canadian authors will be compensated for the
unauthorized use of their works.
An amendment I proposed will ensure that users will have access
to unpublished documents in archives while providing protection
for authors who do not wish to have their papers copied. The bill
will also ensure that Canadian publishers with exclusive
distribution agreements will be protected from parallel
importation.
I receive many calls from Hamilton book sellers expressing
concern about the limits on parallel importation. I was able to
assure them that amendments were made to the copyright bill that
will ensure that book sellers have timely access to special orders.
This government has listened to Canadians. We have taken the
measures to move ahead on such long sought after legislation as
Bill C-32. We recognize that if there is any matter that Canadians
hold dear, it is Canadian culture. By bringing Bill C-32 before the
House we have made a significant contribution to the vitality of
Canada's cultural sector. By protecting the legitimate right of
Canada's creators who are the source of our cultural vitality, we are
ensuring the continued vitality of Canada's cultural sector.
In 1993 the Liberal government pledged its commitment to
support Canadian culture through concrete support and by the
establishment of relevant policies and legislation. We are proud of
our accomplishments and we stand by our commitment to complete
the work we have begun.
(1355)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if the member could help me understand something about just one
of the many aspects of Bill C-32. I am thinking of the blank tape
levy.
With the blank tape levy where people are going to be charged so
many cents, which we talked about in committee, 35 or 40 cents a
tape, it is going to raise $12 million which supposedly will be
distributed to artists. Could the member help me understand how
this encourages Canadian artists, considering that the vast majority
of the music being copied is an American product. The money is
going to be distributed in small part to the Canadian artists.
This is actually simply encouraging two things, number one a
trade battle with the U.S. where it says ``if you are collecting $12
million and the product that you are copying is an American
product, we demand to have our fair share of that''. Therefore we
once again have the Liberals instigating a trade battle with the U.S.
much like with Sports Illustrated.
Second, could she explain to this House, indeed to Canadians,
how this will actually encourage more work by or for Canadian
artists, if it is not what I have always called it, simply a tax on
tapes.
Ms. Phinney: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to give a brief answer to
that question, but maybe I could come back and finish it after
question period. Would that be all right?
The Speaker: My colleague, if you would rather wait and give a
fuller answer after question period, that would be fine with me.
With that, the hon. member for Kootenay East will get an answer to
his question and we will be able to begin Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
8188
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have received several
complaints about apparent overstaffing at corrections Canada's
Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge near Maple Creek, Saskatchewan.
For example, a certified day care worker was recently hired for
the one toddler at the institution. I am told that there will soon be
two toddlers. The lodge has a good working arrangement for foster
care on the nearby Nikaneet Reserve, so that solitary child is at the
lodge only half time.
There are two nurses on staff for the 20 inmates, whereas
neighbouring taxpaying farmers and ranchers who have never
8189
committed a crime still have to travel 30 or 40 kilometres to obtain
basic medical services. Is this fair?
This small institution has four clerical employees. I do not doubt
that they are busy, but why is there so much paper to shuffle?
My diagnosis is that corrections Canada suffers from chronic
bureaucratic bloat.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday I had the pleasure of attending the Prime Minister's
Awards for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and
Mathematics in Ottawa.
It was an honour to attend this ceremony and to witness my
constituent Denise McWilliams receive this award, the highest
honour in the teaching field.
On behalf of the people of Selkirk Red River riding, I rise today
to thank Denise McWilliams for her hard work and teaching
excellence.
Teachers play a critical role in shaping the attitudes of students
and in equipping them for future careers in the global economy
they face. The hard work of teachers today will mean a better
Canada for all of us tomorrow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, again
this week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave us
evidence that the federal government is like the Leaning Tower of
Pisa; it always leans the same way, toward Alliance Quebec.
When the minister was questioned on his government's
intentions concerning the organization of school boards along
language lines, the minister launched an all-out attack against
Quebec's language policies, accusing the Quebec government of
dividing its francophone and anglophone communities.
(1400)
How can we understand a minister from Quebec's constant
attacks on the Government of Quebec, when he never has the
courage to speak out against the failure of provincial governments
to provide services in French to francophones living in their
province?
Such behaviour clearly illustrates this government's complicity
in the anglicization of francophones by closing its eyes to a number
of facts, including the fact that the federal public service is one of
the key tools in the anglicization of Quebec and Canadian
francophones.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to mark national heritage day.
Heritage day, established by Heritage Canada in 1973, is an
opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to celebrate,
discover and share our rich and diverse heritage.
The diversity of our country and of its people is expressed in
many ways and makes us unique among the nations of the world.
Whether we were born here, or came to Canada later in life,
together we have built a great nation, a country recognized by the
United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live.
Today we should all take the opportunity to remember with pride
the contributions of all of those who have helped form this great
country, celebrate the diversity which makes up our heritage and
strengthen the multicultural fabric of Canada.
I call on all members and all Canadians to join me in celebrating
national heritage day.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
are congratulating themselves and expecting applause because
tomorrow's budget, they say, contains no major new spending cuts.
What hypocrisy!
The real story is that in the fiscal year starting April 1, there are
$11.9 billion in new spending cuts by federal departments, all
announced in the 1995 budget.
For example, when the Minister of National Defence appeared
on CTV with Mike Duffy this past Sunday, he said defence funding
has stabilized. Some stability: beginning April 1, 1997, $1 billion
in further cuts will be inflicted on national defence. This will bring
the total cuts at DND over the three-year period to $1.9 billion. The
list goes on.
All these cuts do not include the cutbacks to the federal cash
transfers to the provinces for health and education.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in shutting
the Somalia inquiry, the defence minister is once again showing his
lack of respect for due process. His interpretation of justice was
clearly established when he was Minister of Transport responsible
for the shameful Bill C-22 cancellation of the Pearson airport
contract.
8190
While no one disputed the right of the government to cancel
the deal, this bill would have denied Canadian citizens their day
in court. They would have no opportunity to defend their contract
or their reputations. Even Clifford Olson was not denied his day
in court.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I am
pleased to share with the House the news that the Great Northern
Exhibition in Collingwood has received at the annual meeting of
the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions in Saskatoon the
Local Fair of the Year award for 1996.
Additionally, Jim and Donna Fraser of Collingwood received the
1996 Industry Achievement Citation. Jim and Donna have been
involved as volunteers in the fair industry for 35 years, Jim as an
associate director, director and president of the Canadian National
Exhibition, Donna as a volunteer and director of the Great Northern
Exhibition.
This is a great tribute to the town of Collingwood, its
surrounding communities and the many volunteers that have made
the Great Northern Exhibition an annual event that draws visitors
from all over Ontario.
I would like to remind one and all to set aside September 26, 27,
and 28 for the 1997 Great Northern Exhibition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today I wish to express my deep disappointment in the Minister of
Human Resources Development concerning the announcement of
his new youth employment strategy.
After a wait of over three years, instead of presenting an
innovative strategy aimed at helping young people find jobs, the
Liberal government is still exhibiting its total lack of
understanding of the hard reality faced by young people in Quebec
and Canada, preferring once again to meddle in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
(1405)
Where are the new measures to address the 17 per cent
unemployment level among young people aged 15 to 24? Where
are the new measures to help high school dropouts find a job?
Where are the new measures to give a boost to the 500,000 or so
young people who are looking for work?
I will close by reminding the Liberal government that organizing
media events and inviting publicity-hungry ministers is not the
way to improve the situation for young people. What is needed
instead is to transfer the money which is being blatantly wasted
over to the provinces, who are in a better position to understand my
generation and to respond to its expectations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, February 17, is national heritage day in
Canada, a moment to rediscover and appreciate the things that
make our country a unique part of the world.
Newfoundland and Labrador is a proud partner in the Canadian
Confederation. On Saturday, February 15, people from all over
Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte gathered to demonstrate the pride
and the hope that they share in Canada through our national flag
day. People gathered in numerous community celebrations to fly
proudly the maple leaf on its 32nd anniversary.
Approaching the new millennium, we are in the position to
reinvent our future and strengthen our federation for generations to
come. A strong nation is one that is confident. And, as Canadians,
we are confident of the road ahead.
Celebrating national heritage day and flag day helps to
strengthen our future. It is my pleasure to extend an open invitation
to all Canadians to come and visit our province and explore the
tremendous heritage that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer
as we celebration Cabot 500.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise today and inform the House of an
award winning coach from Lindsay, Ontario.
Marian Sweetnam was presented recently with her second
Ontario female coach of the year award at the 29th annual Ontario
sports award ceremony in Toronto. The first time she won the
award was in 1989, the same year she was selected Canadian
swimming coach of the year.
Marian's swim club, the Lindsay Lightningbolts, won the
division 3 team championship last year. Her most successful
student is her daughter Nancy who has won 13 national
championships while setting 7 national records.
Congratulations on your recent achievements, Marian.
8191
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the One
Million Flags Operation came to an end this week-end, in a most
surprisingly understated fashion.
What could possibly have urged the minister to show such
restraint, for she is known for her extravagant statement? Here are
at least three reasons.
First: At a time when the federal government is applying
unprecedented cuts to our social security net and our culture, this
operation is a shameful waste of public funds.
Second: During this operation, 10 per cent of the flags were
distributed in the province of Quebec and 40 per cent in Ontario,
another unequivocal proof that there are two countries within
Canada, two nations: Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Third: Last year, the Prime Minister of Canada put a damper on
Flag Day when he grabbed a demonstrator by the throat. This very
worrisome image is etched in our memory.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me get this straight. The Liberals and Conservatives have
squandered funds going into the Canada pension plan for many
years. Now they want average Canadians to pay as much as $1,300
more per year out of their pockets to pay it back.
Most of us know that the MP pension plan is the best in the
world, with exorbitant benefits after just two terms in office, more
than any Canadian could ever get from the Canada pension plan.
I ask: How much are the Liberals, the separatists and other MPs
paying in additional premiums to the MP pension plan, just like
they asked the rest of us to do into the Canada pension plan?
Nothing. That is right, nothing.
What comes to mind? Gimme. Gimme. ``Please, sir, can I have
some more. It's good for me but it is not good for you''. Elitists at
the trough, that is what this is all about.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's small and medium size businesses are so taken up by the
various trade missions that were led by our Prime Minister that
they are asking for more.
This is essentially what emerges from a recent survey by the
Everest company for La Presse and the National Bank. Most of the
301 small and medium size businesses surveyed wished to be part
of future trade missions, preferably in Asia, Eastern Europe and
Central America.
[English]
Ninety-six per cent of respondents considered Team Canada
missions important for the economic development of the country;
94 per cent of small and medium size businesses felt these missions
contributed to the enhancement of Canada's image abroad; and 88
per cent felt there were significant spin-offs.
[Translation]
Team Canada missions are a success, as Quebec's small and
medium size businesses can attest to.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was absolutely shocked last week when I learned that the
Superior Court stopped the transfer of all commercial air flights
from Mirabel to Dorval airport.
Several moths ago the government and Aéroports de Montréal
decided that all of Montreal's scheduled flights should use Dorval
and that Mirabel should be used for charters, cargo and other
miscellaneous operations. This was done because many
international airlines, especially European airlines, were
abandoning Mirabel and were using Toronto only. Montreal
passengers had to first fly to Toronto if they wished to go to certain
European cities that had always been served from Montreal.
Dorval is only 20 minutes from downtown Montreal while
Mirabel is at least 45 minutes. The cost of taxis, transfers, shuttle
services and time to Mirabel is uneconomic and an unnecessary
nuisance. I urge the government and the Montreal authorities to get
the Dorval consolidation back on track quickly.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while respectful of provincial powers to education under section 92
of the Constitution Act, the federal government recognizes its
8192
leadership role in advanced education and research in leading edge
science and technology.
This means providing essential infrastructure and financial
support for the outstanding teachers, researchers and students who
will achieve and maintain competitive world standards in these
fields.
We lead North America in areas such as biomedicine,
pharmacology, solid state and particle physics, with a demonstrated
highly successful correlation and application of such endeavours in
new industries, both domestic and export, and also in the many
highly trained professional jobs that come with that.
Federal leadership in higher education and advanced research in
science and technology is the key to an economically prosperous
Canada as we enter the 21st century.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate all those involved with the Chatham Capitol Theatre
Association in my riding. This historic theatre was slated for
demolition to make way for a parking lot.
Local citizens got together to save it, and they are now trying to
raise $2 million for renovation and restoration. The dream is to turn
the building into a performing arts centre led by chairman Kevin
McMillan, a world renowned baritone and Grammy award winner.
I am also proud of the federal government's efforts. It
contributed $216,500 for job creation to help the theatre become a
tremendous economic and cultural boost to the downtown area
while preserving an important part of Chatham's history. The
federal government is investing in communities and people. Bravo
to the Capitol Theatre Association and its foundation of fantastic
volunteers.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada's farm industry is fighting mad over the
Liberal government's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the
PMRA. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Prince
Edward Island Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Soybean
Growers and the B.C. Horticultural Coalition are just a few to be
named. Producers are angry too.
Producers are angry that the PMRA's bloated bureaucracy has
ballooned by 100 per cent. Producers are angry that it takes 11
PMRA bureaucrats to register one product in Canada. Producers
are angry that the government's own studies show that almost
one-third of currently registered pesticides will be withdrawn
under the PMRA. Producers are angry that the PMRA proposes to
re-register all of the 900 farm pesticides now on the market, and do
so every three to five years.
Once again the Liberal government is putting bureaucracy ahead
of common sense. What the PMRA should really stand for is
``producers made really angry''.
_____________________________________________
8192
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec's finance minister is asking the federal finance
minister for $1.9 billion in compensation for having harmonized
that province's sales tax with the federal GST, so that Quebec will
be given the same treatment as the maritime provinces, which will
be receiving almost $1 billion in compensation for having agreed to
harmonization.
Quebec is backed in its demands by Ontario, Alberta and British
Columbia, which also find it unfair that this deal was only offered
to the maritimes.
On the eve of his budget, does the federal finance minister intend
to do anything about this unfair treatment of Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have provided the Government of Quebec with all the necessary
information, the figures and how the calculation was arrived at. As
the Leader of the Opposition well knows, the formula said that a
province that lost more than 5 per cent of its revenues was entitled
to compensation after the harmonization of sales tax.
The four Atlantic provinces and Manitoba and Saskatchewan are
eligible, but Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are
not. Quebec has not lost any money; under harmonization, in fact,
Quebec has made money.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance of Canada is considered a reliable
authority on public finances, and he should hang on to his
reputation.
Will the Minister of Finance of Canada admit that the losses
incurred by the maritimes through harmonization with the GST are
the result of fiscal decisions that, in the past, were made by those
who set fiscal policy for these provinces, making it possible now,
for example, for New Brunswick to woo Quebec businesses by
offering much lower payroll taxes than in Quebec?
Will the Minister of Finance not admit that, in fact, the reason
sales taxes are as high as they are in these provinces is because
different fiscal decisions were made?
8193
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker. First of all, if we look at the formula, we see that
Manitoba and Saskatchewan would have been eligible, and they
still are. But their tax bases are very different from those in the
Atlantic provinces.
So no, really, we looked at the financial ability of provinces;
there is a formula, but it does not apply to Quebec, Ontario, Alberta
or British Columbia.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what is unfortunate about the calculation of this
compensation is that it only came to everyone's attention after
Quebec demanded the same treatment as the maritimes. Then, the
minister came up with might be called the McKenna formula.
But in refusing to grant Quebec fair treatment, despite the
repeated demands of the provincial finance minister, is the federal
finance minister not forcing Quebecers to foot the bill for Frank
McKenna's poaching expedition, when he tried to woo Quebec
businesses with the more advantageous tax situation in New
Brunswick? Is the finance minister not forcing Quebecers to foot
this bill?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the only consideration was the figures of the other provinces. We
asked the other provinces if they had supplied them.
The formula, however, was known in advance. It is very simple.
It says that if you lose more than 5 per cent of your revenues after
harmonization, you are entitled to compensation. That is very clear.
It does not take an accountant or an economist to work it out.
(1420)
There is no doubt that each province has its needs. When it
comes to the various treatments given other provinces, the member
is well aware that Quebec is receiving 45 per cent of federal
equalization payments. At the same time, Quebec, with 25 or 24
per cent of the population, is receiving 31 per cent of federal
transfer payments. I must say Quebec has been treated very fairly.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Again this morning, the newspapers were telling us that the
Minister of Finance, thanks to the leeway provided by his
exceeding his deficit reduction objectives, intends in tabling his
budget tomorrow to announce measures-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: If I were they, Mr. Speaker, I would hold my
applause, for what is coming is not all that worthy of applause.
Tomorrow, the minister intends to announce measures to combat
child poverty and to improve the health care system.
Are we to understand that these measures the Minister of
Finance is preparing to announce, in two areas of provincial
jurisdiction, are intended to make us forget that the child poverty
and health care situations have deteriorated as a result of his own
cuts of $4.5 billion to social and health programs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, we have to look at what the government has done since
it took office. For example, last year we announced the doubling of
the income supplement for the children of the working poor. We
raised this from $500 to $1000. This is money from the federal
government to assist our country's families.
In Quebec alone, we inject $11 billion in federal funds yearly.
Looking at the assistance to the aeronautical industry, the
pharmaceutical industry, the way the federal government is striving
relentlessly to assist Quebec small and medium size businesses, I
believe the hon. member ought to be thanking us.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that the Minister of Finance has cut $4.5
billion from social programs. There are 500,000 more poor
children since he became finance minister. That is the reality.
How can he claim not to have money to give to the provinces
through established social programs aimed at combatting poverty,
and then announce tomorrow some stopgap measures, some
campaign goodies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is the question?
An hon. member: He had so much to say.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): We will let him ask the question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: It is a question about campaign goodies.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): In that case, Mr. Speaker, the
answer is very easy. There are no campaign goodies on our side,
only excellent government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday the finance minister announced one of the
biggest single tax grabs in Canadian history, a 70 per cent hike in
CPP premiums, payroll taxes with no increase in benefits.
Under the old system Canadians paid 5.8 per cent of their
paycheques for a $9,000 pension at the end of the day. Under the
8194
new system they will now have to pay 9.9 per cent of their
paycheques to receive the same $9,000.
Is this the government's primary response to the pension crisis: a
$10 billion tax grab that will penalize young Canadians and kill
jobs? No wonder we need a fresh start on pension reform.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the position of members of the Reform Party as far as the Canada
pension plan is concerned is very clear. They want to blow it up.
They want to see it destroyed. Under those circumstances it is
perhaps understandable that the leader of the Reform Party
deliberately misinterprets what has been done. Let me simply set
him straight.
(1425)
Number one, this is not a tax grab; in fact, it is not a tax.
Contributions to the Canada pension plan are akin to the
contributions to a private pension plan. They are an investment in
the future retirement needs of Canadians.
If the member wants to know what a tax grab is, then perhaps he
ought to look at what the premier of British Columbia suggested,
which was to increase the premiums but provide no value. That
would have been a tax grab. What we have done here is we have
increased the premiums and we have given value.
If the leader of the Reform Party does not want to accept my
word for it, perhaps he is prepared to go into the election in Alberta
and tell Grant Mitchell and Ralph Klein that what they have
participated in is a tax grab. Let him tell Ralph Klein that he is
overtaxing Albertans.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hypocrisy of the minister's reply is not only an insult
to every Reformer, but it is an insult to every senior citizen in the
country.
Here is a well to do finance minister who himself qualifies for a
fat MP pension and what does he do? He is clawing back old age
security from thousands of seniors every month; he is gouging CPP
contributors to the tune of a 70 per cent premium hike and he has
his covetous eye on the RRSP savings as well. Then he has the
nerve to stand in the House and pretend that he is taking care of
seniors.
Will the minister not admit that the Canada pension plan is in
trouble because of decades of Liberal and Tory mismanagement? If
the minister had been the manager of a private pension plan and it
had been mismanaged like the CPP has been, he and his colleagues
would be making licence plates in some penitentiary instead of
sitting in the House.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would urge you to be very
judicious in your choice of words. They sometimes give the wrong
impression.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has stated on a number of occasions that if over the
course of the last decade the previous federal government and
provincial governments had taken the bull by the horns the way
this government has done, then there would not have been a need
for reform.
Let us understand what the hon. member is saying. He is not only
saying the federal government is wrong, he is saying that his pal
Ralph Klein is wrong, that his pal Mike Harris is wrong. He is
saying that the eight out of ten provinces that had the courage to do
what other provincial governments did not and the federal
government which had the courage to do what other federal
governments had to do were wrong. Well, we were not wrong. We
were right. We saved the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to pensions, the government has a
complete double standard.
Under the Canada pension plan Canadians will pay premiums of
9.9 per cent for a maximum pension of $9,000 a year. Under the
Liberals' MP pension plan the premiums are roughly the same,
around 9 per cent, but the returns are much, much greater. For his 9
per cent the leader of the federal Tories will receive $53,000 a year
and for her 9 per cent, the Deputy Prime Minister will pocket
$49,000 a year. That is a far cry from $9,000.
My question is one we are going to ask in every riding in the
country: How can this government ask Canadians to pay 70 per
cent more for a paltry pension of $9,000 a year when Liberal
members opposite continue to qualify for an obscenely wealthy MP
pension?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the government had not taken the action that was taken, the
premiums would have risen not to 9.9 per cent and then been stable,
but they would have gone to 14 per cent. As a result of our action,
the premiums are down substantially.
(1430)
I will tell you what question we will be asking throughout the
election campaign. Hon. members opposite have stood up and they
have said that the increase from 5.8 per cent to 9.9 per cent is a tax
grab. If the Reform Party put into effect what it has talked about,
which is its super RRSP coupled with some kind of funding for the
Canada pension plan, the premiums would have been substantially
higher. Why do Reformers not tell Canadians that what they want
to do is a massive tax grab but they do not have the guts to give
Canadians the calculations.
The Speaker: I am sure no one's courage is being called into
question in the House.
8195
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and his cabinet can make all the
scientific analyses they want and be as generous as they like in
their speeches, especially to the neediest in our society, but the fact
remains that they do not practise what they preach.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is this
government's real strategy not the one revealed by a senior
Canadian official when he told us what the Prime Minister said to
French president Jacques Chirac? He explained his strategy: in
Canada, it was easy to cut health services because it was the federal
government that made the decisions unilaterally, while the
provinces had to make the cuts and pay the political price.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we consider the situation in Quebec, the transfer
payments the Canadian government made to the province of
Quebec in 1966 totalled more than $11 billion, exactly the same
amount that was transferred in 1993, when we formed the
government.
When transfers for certain programs were cut, the slack was
taken up by equalization payments for provinces that do not have
the same per capita income as other provinces. The fact remains
that during the past three years, the amounts transferred by the
federal government to the provincial treasury in Quebec exceeded
$11 billion, and they have not gone below that level.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the figures show that $1.3 billion was cut in transfer
payments, and that there was a $40 million increase in
equalization. Is the Prime Minister saying we are lucky to get more
unemployment insurance? Maybe he should realize this is because
there is more unemployment, and it shows his complete contempt
for the situation. If there is more unemployment, the federal
government's policies are to blame. Reality proves the government
is wrong.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will finally
understand that he should no longer intervene in provincial
jurisdictions such as health, education and youth training and that
he should withdraw from these sectors, give the money to the
provinces and let them deal with the needs of their citizens instead
of making propaganda at the expense of the needy.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Canadian government has a duty to ensure that
the neediest in this country receive sufficient compensation to give
them an adequate standard of living.
This government is certainly not going to apologize for having
done what the provinces jointly asked us to do. After the meeting in
June with the provincial premiers, it was said we would have to
work on the problem of child poverty. All the provinces agreed, and
I hope the Minister of Finance will be able to do something about
child poverty tomorrow in his budget.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada pension plan premiums are payroll taxes. They
are set by the federal government and the provincial governments
and employees and employers have no control whatsoever. They
are taxes pure and simple. This $1,300 increase in Canada pension
plan premiums as announced by the Liberal government will result
in a massive payroll tax increase for every working Canadian.
On May 3, 1994 the finance minister said right here in this
House: ``Payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation''. Does the
Minister of Finance believe today that payroll taxes are a cancer on
job creation?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
just because the Reform Party wants to destroy the Canada pension
plan is no reason for the Reform Party to continue to misinterpret
what Canada pension plan premiums are.
The fact is that workers compensation premiums are taxed.
There are other forms of taxes at the provincial level, health levies
and those kinds of things.
The hon. member, who is normally a fair person, knows full well
that the Canada pension plan premiums are akin to contributions to
private pension plans. They are an investment in the retirement of
Canadians and should not be characterized in any other way.
It is really not incumbent upon the hon. member to scare
Canadians or to mislead them. What he should be doing is
explaining it to them. If he has a difference of opinion let him have
it, but let us not misinterpret what is going on here.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no matter how you dress it up, this is a pig. You can put
any face you want on it but it is always going to be a tax. It is going
to be an unfair tax and will be particularly onerous on younger
Canadians at the expense of older Canadians. That is the way it is.
It is going to be a particularly expensive and onerous tax on young
Canadians.
The increase in payroll taxes paid by every employer and
employee will be about the combined monthly car and mortgage
payment or about half the tuition fee for someone in university. It
8196
will suck $10 billion out of the paycheques of Canadians every
year.
How many permanent jobs will be lost by taking this $10 billion
out of the economy every single year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is quite the opposite. There are going to be thousands of jobs
created as a result of the confidence Canadians are going to have
now that the Canada pension plan will be there for them. Not only
that, but when the new investment fund is set up under independent
management and is able to operate and invest in the enterprises of
Canadians, it will be a very large player in creating jobs within this
country.
The hon. member has said that we have preferred one generation
to another. Is the hon. member saying that we should have cut the
old age pensions currently? Is he saying that we should deindex the
old age pensions? Is he saying we should engage in discriminatory
action against senior Canadians? Let me tell this House that we will
not do it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last Friday, the Minister of National Defence caused quite a stir
by stating that the Somali killed in the events of March 4, 1993 was
murdered. He thus contradicted the conclusions of the report of the
military police and added to the complexity of the matter, because
he spoke of several murders.
When he told the press that he considered the Somali killed on
March 4, 1993 was murdered because he was shot in the back by
Canadian soldiers, was the minister giving his personal opinion or
was he revealing privileged information he had received from a
high ranking army officer?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last
Friday, I clearly made a mistake by linking the incidents in Somalia
and by describing the incident my hon. colleague is referring to as
murder.
Obviously, murder was the conclusion reached in the case of the
Somali killed following torture. In the case of the two Somalis who
were shot, where one died, I apologize as I did Friday before this
House for having mistakenly linked the two incidents.
I think it would be quite inappropriate for me today, just as it was
on Friday, to make this sort of link until the whole issue has been
examined and the conclusions of the Somalia inquiry are presented
at the end of June.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister himself has added somewhat to the confusion in this
matter, and, clearly, the commissioners will not be able to shed
light on all the events of March 4, because they do not have time to
hear any more witnesses.
Since the minister himself has said and repeated in this House
that this question still needs to be resolved, what guarantee can he
give us today that everything will be examined and that we will
find out whether murder was committed on March 4, as he himself
claimed on Friday, since we are no longer assured of getting this
guarantee from the Somalia inquiry?
(1440)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is
very important, there is no doubt. When I make a mistake, I try to
avoid making a second or a third one.
I do not want to prejudice or cause any prejudice to the inquiry
based on the testimony it has already heard or on testimony it may
hear in the future. I do, however, make a commitment to my hon.
colleague and to all the members of this House that, once the
commission is finished, and the conclusions and recommendations
have been made, obviously, the government will have to look at the
whole issue in order to decide how best to react.
I interfered in an area I had no business in, on Friday, but I do not
intend to do so today.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
years ago the finance minister said that payroll taxes kill jobs. Now
he is saying they create jobs. A lot of us are wondering just what
illness the minister was suffering from last week.
Two years ago Liberals voted themselves the best pension plan
that taxpayer money could buy, a gold plated MP pension plan.
Under the plan the Conservative leader would receive $53,000 a
year for his 9.9 per cent premium; the Deputy Prime Minister,
$49,000 a year. Meanwhile regular Canadians would get $9,000 a
year for their 9.9 per cent premium.
To be consistent, to be fair, will the minister announce an
immediate 70 per cent increase in the premiums for the MP pension
plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think what I would like to do is answer the question raised in the
preamble.
If we take a look at the essential ingredient of a successful
economy, we will see that it is confidence. It is confidence that
health care is going to be there for the workers. It is confidence that
old age pensions are going to be there for the workers. It is
confidence by which the government is able to pursue a steady
course, not simply the scorch and burn policies advocated by
Reform and not simply ignoring the question as advocated by the
8197
previous Conservative government and now by the NDP; but
policies that give Canadians the confidence to know that basic
government programs will be there for them.
That is what we have done with the Canada pension plan. The
hon. member ought to understand that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister is trying to brush the question off, but it is a fair
question. People want to know why the double standard. We have
the member for Beaver River who voluntarily gave up a pension
worth $1.5 million because she believes in leadership by example.
Maybe the finance minister is well off and maybe it is not an
issue for him, but ordinary Canadians do not think there should be a
double standard between what Liberal government MPs give
themselves and what they do for the rest of the country.
Why the double standard?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, when taking a look at the pensions of members of
Parliament it will be recognized that the government has opted for
one course while the Reform Party advocated a doubling of MPs'
salaries. The fact is-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
raises the question of a double standard in the context of the
increase of Canada pension plan premiums. I have asked the
Reform Party to state what its model would increase premiums by.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, since the Reform Party will not.
Compared to our 9.9 per cent, the model it advocates, which is
chilling, has a 13 per cent premium. That is what the Reform Party
would do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last weekend, we learned that Major Michel Prud'homme and
Colonel R.G. Taylor, who are military officers at the Canadian
embassy in Washington, had asked an official of the U.S Defence
Intelligence Agency to spy on a Quebec diplomat working in the
U.S. capital.
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the military
staff at the Canadian embassy in Washington submitted such a
request to the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no policy, no direction whatsoever that anybody in
any embassy should spy on any member of any provincial
government, in fact on anybody at all.
As a result, there is an absurd assertion which has no back-up or
basis in fact.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard that line before, but we have not forgotten
the barn burnings in Quebec, the PQ membership lists that were
stolen, the bombs laid by the RCMP and the promotions given to
reward those who had laid them, after the truth came out.
Will the minister give us, from his place, the solemn assurance
that his department never asked any foreign government to spy on
representatives of the Quebec government abroad?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said very clearly that there is absolutely no direction
that anybody do any spying. The individual case was an official of
the U.S. government who gave a speech at a conference in which he
took a position directly opposed to that which was the official
position of the United States government.
We simply made inquiries to determine what the difference was.
He then made an assertion. The hon. member, a rational, thoughtful
member of Parliament in this thing, would know an absurd
statement when she hears one.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of agriculture.
Farmers in western Canada are losing millions of dollars because
of the dismal performance of rail companies. Rail companies are
refusing to ship grain to the west coast.
Over the weekend I met with farmers in the Morris area of my
riding who are tired of being held hostage by the rail companies.
They need grain cars and they need them now.
Will the minister tell these farmers the results of his meetings
over the weekend with stakeholders? Can he assure the farmers in
my riding that grain cars will be provided and grain will start
moving today?
8198
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the grain backlog in western
Canada is obviously a serious and costly problem.
There was a very constructive meeting held last week in Calgary,
which I called and which involved all the players involved in the
logistics of grain transportation in western Canada. There was a
very determined attitude at that meeting aimed at solutions and not
at finger pointing.
We identified the next six to eight weeks as obviously a critically
important time not only to meet basic shipment targets but to
whittle away at that accumulated backlog.
Agreement was reached to try to simplify grain collection
logistics in the countryside on a temporary basis to make the most
efficient use of locomotive power and to speed car turnaround
times.
There were a variety of other measures agreed to to augment
locomotive power, to improve terminal operations and to explore
some trucking programs that could also add to the capacity of our
system.
It is also important to note-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Defence said that
everybody in Canada knows exactly what happened on the ground
in Somalia.
By Friday we reached the point where the minister admitted to
misleading the House and he had to apologize. The minister is
confused about what happened. The minister does not understand
the Somalia file.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. How can
Canadians trust anything that this minister says? How many other
times has he mislead Canadians?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
doubt that, as I said on Friday, I had made a mistake when I used
the term murder in the plural to describe the situation that occurred
in Somalia in March.
As a matter of fact, as a result of that mistake having been
brought to my attention by the press after I left the House and not
actually brought to my attention in this place, I returned.
I checked the first edition of the blues to make sure of exactly
what I said. I understood that I had made a mistake. I came back to
the House at the very first opportunity and made the clarification.
(1450 )
I want to welcome my hon. friend back to the House after what I
know was a difficult period with his health. Just to make sure there
is no confusion in my mind, I would like to make sure that the hon.
member can explain to me why in April 1996 he was quoted as
saying: ``There is now sufficient evidence of problems. The utility
of the commission has been exhausted. The taxpayer's money
should now be spent on a criminal investigation''.
What is the position of the hon. member with respect to the
Somalia inquiry today?
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very humble today, but it is far
too late for the minister's apologies.
The minister continues to interfere with the Somalia
commission. From the start his department has hindered this
commission, refusing to release information. Now the minister's
reckless statements are sabotaging its work.
Does the minister see that his actions demonstrate his total
disregard for due process?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the due process
the hon. member refers to was established in March 1995, had its
mandate extended three times, the third time just recently by the
government, asking the commission to report by June 30, a
substantially longer period of time than was originally foreseen
when the inquiry was put together.
What I am saying is that the government had to make a decision.
We felt it was in the best interests of everyone concerned that we
move on and deal with the specific issues facing the Canadian
forces and the Department of National Defence.
The very due process that the hon. member now speaks so highly
of is the one he said nearly a year ago should be ended because the
utility of the commission had been exhausted.
I know it is difficult, and I did make a mistake last Friday, but at
least I recognize when I make a mistake and I try to correct it. I
urge the hon. member to do likewise when he recognizes that
perhaps he has made a mistake.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On February 10, the Department of Foreign Affairs very quietly
released its new guidelines on the funding of the arts. The new
8199
policy provides that, in order to be sponsored by the Department of
Foreign Affairs, cultural projects will have to promote national
unity.
Given that the Department of Foreign Affairs is violating the
freedom of expression of artists by restricting funding to cultural
projects that promote Canada, will the minister pledge to transfer
his department's cultural program to the Canada Council, which is
an independent organization with no political ties whose mandate
is precisely to manage support for artists?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these changes were made to improve access for various
groups, including young people and native people. These changes
also seek to promote the interests and values of Canadians abroad.
This policy is an important tool to promote Canada's interests
here at home, and to ensure that groups from across the country
have access to the programs.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
surely the minister must know that this program has been in place
for several decades to de-politicize the funding process, and that
Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council were set up precisely for
that purpose.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not realize that he is taking
part in a witch hunt that was started the day after the referendum by
the heritage committee, and that is being led by the ineffable
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member has it all wrong. The whole point
of the program which has been traditionally within the third pillar
of our foreign policy is to ensure that we have an ability to engage
the outside world in the important values of Canada.
To give an example, this is the year of Asia-Pacific. We are
trying to get Canadians involved in the enormous opportunities
developing in the Asia-Pacific rim. Part of the cultural program is
to develop partnerships between Canadian and Asian groups to
develop joint cultural interests both outside of Canada and inside
Canada, and to invite groups here.
(1455 )
They are all judged on merit. They are all judged on artistic
value. We make no reference to politics. We simply want to ensure
that in the burgeoning area of the Asia-Pacific, Canadian culture
and the values it represents will have an opportunity to be
expressed.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last night
CTV television revealed that $160,500 was allotted last year to the
justice minister for strategic communications advice. In other
words, taxpayer dollars were paid to spin doctors to try to make the
justice minister and his government look good during the Airbus
scandal.
How can the justice minister justify using Department of Justice
money for purely partisan purposes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing for which the
hon. member for Crowfoot can be relied on, it is to get the facts
wrong. Once again he has done just that.
In keeping with ordinary government practice, the Department
of Justice entered into the usual competitive process and awarded a
contract to an outside consultant in 1995. The usual rates were
provided for in the contract. The contract was extended for a year
and the services were used for a variety of legislative purposes, all
in keeping with standard government practice.
It is true to say there was advice with respect to Airbus but that
was one of the smallest aspects of the contract. The reality is this
was the usual kind of advice provided to government departments
and was well within accepted guidelines and practice.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course,
$160,000 is a small portion of the $2 million that had to be paid out
because of the bungling of the justice minister on the Airbus
matter.
Seeing that all the money that was spent on the spin doctoring
failed to make the justice minister look good, will he now demand a
refund from his spin doctors?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is all in the eyes of the beholder. I
can only imagine what my hon. friend must see from his distant
perspective back there. But whatever it is, let me assure the hon.
member and the House that everything in this matter was done
entirely in accordance with appropriate government practice.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Co-operation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie.
In recent days, officials of the Government of Rwanda have
allegedly stated that it is was justifiable for them to redirect foreign
aid money toward objectives of the government. Can the minister
tell this House if our foreign aid money in Rwanda has been
redirected to those other than the people who need it the most?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to report to the House that the Government of Rwanda does
not receive any funding from the Canadian International
Development Agency. All our aid in that country and in most other
8200
countries is provided to Canadian and multilateral
non-governmental organizations.
Therefore if no money goes to the Government of Rwanda, no
money-at least no Canadian money-can be redirected by the
Government of Rwanda.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice and it
involves the communications strategic advice that he received
under contract with a well known Liberal media company. The
contract was for strategic communications advice to the minister
on his legislative agenda. We all know that the Airbus was not on
the minister's legislative agenda. Yet some $160,000 was paid to
the Liberal media company under this contract.
Why did the minister pay for advice when it was not provided for
under the contract? How much did he pay for advice on how he
should handle himself in the Airbus affair while at the same time he
was saying that he was uninvolved in the actual affair?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable how the hon.
member seems prepared, indeed enthusiastic, about interpreting a
contract he very likely has never seen which contains terms with
which he is entirely unfamiliar and is using amounts he has picked
up from the odd television report. It is remarkable how enthusiastic
the member is.
(1500 )
The member will know because his question was already asked
and answered, much more capably I might add. The amounts at
issue were paid over legislative advice with respect to legislative
initiatives and all services that were rendered were entirely within
those contemplated properly by the contract.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
point of order. I would like a clarification from you on the type of
language being used on the government side during the course of
question period.
During question period the Minister of Finance used two
different phrases that I think have been ruled as unparliamentary
language according to Beauchesne.
During question period the Minister of Finance referred to the
leader of the third party and said ``that he has not got the guts''.
Then he went to say ``that he should not be misleading people''.
Mr. Speaker, if you look on page 145 and 146 of Beauchesne
they are both ruled as unparliamentary language. I would ask the
minister to withdraw-
The Speaker: My colleague, as you well know and as all
colleagues know, for the most part there are very few words that in
and of themselves are not acceptable to the House but it does
depend on the context in which they are used.
I quote you directly I believe with regard to using the term that
one member ``does not have the guts''. I mentioned to you here in
the House that no member of Parliament's courage-and that is
what this refers to, this type of thing-is ever questioned in the
House of Commons. I would hope that all hon. members would
refrain from using words like that.
A far as the word ``misleading'', goes I listened to the words
very carefully. I heard the word misleading used on both sides of
the floor today. What I was looking for was in the tone, but on
neither side did they say deliberately misleading. I would appeal to
you not to use the word ``misleading'' because if it causes offence
of any kind then we usually get a retaliation on the other side.
I appeal to you, my colleagues, that in the course of the question
period and in the course of debate, we should refrain from using
words like that. We are in an atmosphere where emotions are
running very high and I would urge you to be very judicious in your
choice of words. As far as these words today, I did not find them
unparliamentary or I would have stated so.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this up as a point of order.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
This also arises out of question period today. It involves the
finance minister who, in one of his answers, claimed that the leader
of the Reform Party should not mislead the Canadian public. I take
exception to his blatant misrepresentation.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Once again I encourage all hon. members not to
use words like misleading in the House because we get one word
and then a reaction from the other side.
I think the hon. member is getting into debate. He is welcome to
join in any debate in the House. But I would judge this to be a point
of debate rather than a point of order.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order on which I just
ruled?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, it is on another point of order.
8201
On another reply during question period, the finance minister
said that the Reform's position on the MP pension plan was
something. Our plan is to cancel-
The Speaker: Once again, I rule that this is debate.
_____________________________________________
8201
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 30 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege to present a petition calling on Parliament to ask the
government to introduce some sort of an infrastructure program to
deal with the infrastructure problems which exist across the
country.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition which points out that the
second phase of the National AIDS Strategy will expire on March
31, 1998. The petitioners request that Parliament ensure that
dedicated AIDS funding beyond March 1998 be guaranteed and
that the National AIDS Strategy be renewed now.
I support this petition from members of the public of Don Valley
West.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition to present from constituents in places like Prescott,
Brockville and surrounding areas.
The petitioners ask that the Prime Minister and the Parliament of
Canada declare and confirm immediately that Canada is indivisible
and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and
territorial waters may be modified only by (a), a free vote of all
Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian charter or (b),
through the amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian
Constitution.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions I would like to present.
The first is from petitioners calling on Parliament to urge the
federal government to join with the provincial governments to
make the national highway system upgrading possible.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in response to the many
people who get caught in the middle between unemployment
insurance and other insurance plans because of sickness or
disability.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament introduce
mid-term disability benefits legislation which would allow
working Canadians who suffer from a debilitating illness or injury
to receive continuous sickness benefits in the following form: (1)
15 weeks UIC; (2) mid-term disability; and (3) Canadian disability
pension plan.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from people responding to
the taxation of reading material.
The petitioners pray that the government demonstrate its support
of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on reading
material. They ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST. As the provinces and Ottawa consider
harmonizing their sales tax, reading materials must be zero rated
under the provincial sales tax as well as the GST.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition which was
presented to me by the people of my riding.
(1510 )
As there are over 30,000 nuclear weapons on this earth, the
petitioners call on Parliament to support the immediate initiation
and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention
which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all
nuclear weapons.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions.
The first petition is signed by 982 people from the community of
La Crête. The petitioners call on Parliament to provide a better
postal facility in the La Crête area. The existing post office has
been in use since 1972. It was adequate at the time but this is a
growing community and the present building is no longer adequate
or meets the needs of the people of the La Crête community. I have
had the opportunity to look at the building and agree with this
petition.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has been signed by 100 members from my riding.
8202
It urges all levels of government to demonstrate their commitment
to education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading
materials.
The petitioners believe that the application of the GST on
reading materials is unfair and wrong. Education and literacy are
critical to the development of our country and a regressive tax on
reading hampers that development.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
a petition on behalf of constituents of Waltham and Chapeau,
Quebec, municipalities in my riding, dealing with a social issue.
The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation against
the distribution, sale and promotion of pornographic material in
retail outlets.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these petitioners from Manitoba call on Parliament to join
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading a real possibility. ``Fix the highways,'' they say.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have four petitions today.
First, the petitioners request Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention that will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the next two petitions call on Parliament to urge the
federal government to join with provincial governments to make
the national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition I wish to present requests that Parliament
not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal
budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members
of the Canadian Automobile Association from the Quebec City
area remind us that a large part of the Canadian highway system is
substandard.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to press the federal
government to work with the provinces to upgrade our national
highway system.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition that recognizes the contribution of police dogs to our
society.
The petitioners in western Canada request that the Criminal
Code be amended to specifically include police dogs and specify
penalties, including fines and/or imprisonment for the wrongful
injury or killing of police dogs.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 96 and 101.
[Text]
Question No. 96-Mr. Strahl:
With respect to Canadians entitled to receive both Canada pension plan benefits
and benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, by what rationale and
under what circumstances are CFSA benefits reduced by the amount of a CPP
benefit, what is the general history of this practice, what specific law grants the
government the power to do this and what changes to a specific law or laws using
what wording would be required to eliminate this practice, how many Canadians are
affected by this practice, by what authority can a private disability plan also deduct a
CPP benefit in addition to and at the same time as they are deducted from a CFSA
benefit by the government, how many Canadians are affected by this practice, has
the practice ever been challenged in a federal court, what changes to a specific law or
laws would be necessary to eliminate this practice, and what would be the potential
wording of such a change?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): When the Canada pension
plan (CPP) was enacted, the government was concerned that the
introduction of the new plan not be disadvantageous to its
employees, or members of the Canadian Forces (CF) or the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). To the greatest possible extent,
the introduction of the CPP was to be transparent to employees and
members. When employees of the public service, and members of
the CF and the RCMP became participants in the CPP, both the
contributions and the benefits were integrated into each of their
federal pension plans. The net effect was to provide the same
retirement income for the same contributions.
On the benefits side, the integration was achieved by
incorporating in each of the superannuation acts a clause defining a
procedure whereby an individual's benefits under his/her basic
pension are reduced by a formula which approximates the benefit
that is paid by the CPP for the pensionable time under the
individual's basic pension.
8203
Thus, it is the pension plan itself, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act (CFSA) for members of the CF, which
authorizes a reduction of the pension benefits under given
circumstances. The CFSA contains in section 15(2) a provision
for the pension benefit to be reduced by a formula related to the
CPP benefit formula. A deduction must be made from the annuity
paid under the CFSA when the contributor reaches the age of 65
years (the age at which CPP benefits were payable, originally),
and when the contributor becomes entitled to a disability pension
under the CPP or a similar provision of a provincial pension plan.
The decision to integrate the CPP to the various federal
superannuation acts was not limited to federal pension plans. At
that time, many pension plans providing coverage to private sector
employees were also adjusted to integrate the benefits from the
CPP with the benefits of their own private plan.
The overall effect of this integration of the CFSA and CPP
benefits is that an annuitant's retirement income is more evenly
distributed than it would have been had the benefits not been
integrated. If the plans were not integrated, the pre-age 65 benefits
would be lower to provide for a levelled benefit for life, rather than
being able to reduce it at age 65 to take into consideration the
income that comes from the CPP. The number of CFSA annuitants
in the age group 65 years and over, affected by a reduction in CFSA
benefits related to the receipt of a CPP benefit at age 65, is
approximately 30,000.
The same principle applies to long-term disability plans.
Typically, long-term disability benefits are integrated with other
sources of disability income such as workers' compension, CPP,
and other employer, government, and sometimes individual,
disability plans. The objective of integrating disability income
from various sources is to establish the disability income received
from all sources to a reasonable percentage of pre-disability
earnings. The inclusion of an integration of benefits provision
reduces the costs of the disability plan to the employer. As a CPP
disability benefit is often available (depending on the precise
definitions of disability in the specific plan and the CPP), it is
normal for the specific disability benefit of other plans to be
reduced by any benefit derived from the CPP.
It is usual for plan provisions to include a clause whereby the
specific plan provisions are reduced in some fashion when a CPP
benefit is also being paid. In recognition of this practice as being a
reasonable course, there is no provision in law to stop such wording
from being written into the specific plans. Such legislation would
make the design of adequate disability insurance plans much more
difficult, as they would have to balance the individual's financial
needs over an extended time period with income from either one or
two sources, depending on age or degree of disability.
With regard to the numbers of Canadians affected by the
possibility of double offsets in the event of becoming disabled
while in receipt of both a pension and employment income, the
department does not have data available to be able to provide such
statistics. However, the type of circumstances, for which there
could be a double offset, would be rare, and the number of
individuals in that circumstance would be expected to be low.
Finally, the department is not aware of any legal challenges to
these practices. Besides an amendment to the different federal
superannuation acts to remove the CPP reduction provision, the
department is not aware of any other legislation which would
require changes to eliminate this plan design practice from other
pension and disability plans.
Question No. 101-Mr. Robinson:
Can the Government of Canada indicate whether any department or agency of the
Government of Canada, including the Export Development Corporation, provided
loans, grants or other monetary assistance to facilitate the sale or shipping of
Ultramar Canada's refinery in Eastern Passage, N.S., to Sharjah Refining in the
United Arab Emirates, and if so, what is the amount and nature of this financial
assistance?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows: The Export Development Corporation has been
approached by Ultramar and has offered support for this
transaction on a commercial (i.e., non-concessional) basis.
Financing arrangements have not yet been concluded.
Other departments and agencies have no information on this
subject.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8203
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the question, more than 30 countries presently have in
place a private copying regime or similar legislation. It should be
noted that the United States has a similar regime but that it differs
from Canada's in that it only applies to digital audio support and
recording devices.
8204
The proposed Canadian legislation allows the government to
extend reciprocal treatment to any country that grants or has
undertaken to grant similar benefits to Canadian creators of sound
recordings.
The member for Kootenay East, who has worked very hard on
the heritage committee with the rest of us, spoke earlier today. I
was listening to his speech and believe I am quoting him correctly
when he said that no constituency in Quebec had ordered more than
400 flags. I would like to make it clear to everybody so that wrong
information is not on the record. There is no constituency in
Quebec which ordered fewer than 400 flags.
(1515)
There have also been comments today about the flag program
being disastrous to stores that sell flags, flag poles, et cetera. Here
is a quote from a citizen who has a store in Peterborough, Mr. Rick
Johnson: ``My flag sales are a little down, but the sales of poles are
way up. The other thing is, flags are not made to last. Once these
flags wear out, people will know where to come to buy a new one''.
Another gentleman from Peterborough, Warren Davis, also sells
flags. He said: ``I think it is a great idea. I really do not see how this
could have an adverse effect on my business. People are still going
to buy flags''. He feels that many people simply love to criticize
government initiatives and look long and hard for negatives. He
said: ``Great innovative projects like this get stifled by naysayers.
If people would work together as human beings, they would have a
positive outlook. I think this project does just that. In fact, they
might find that their business will prosper. Sure it costs money, but
it has not affected my business one iota''. He goes on to say: ``This
should get people thinking more about flying flags. It is very
patriotic. I have been printing flags for 16 years and I think people
are thinking more about it this year''.
Another woman who owns a flag store said that her flag sales are
also down a bit but everything should be all right in the long run.
She said: ``This business is basically just a hobby for me, but I have
noticed an increase in pole sales. I am getting more and more
inquiries these days. People are going to need new flags next year.
Hopefully they will continue to purchase them. This should not
hurt business in the long run, but I hope it does not continue as an
annual thing''.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the separatists.
The motion denounces the activities sponsored by Heritage Canada
such as the Canada Information Office and the one in a million
flags operation.
We are now debating the amendment which was put forward by
the Reformers who are supporting the separatist motion. They say
that all the words after ``Heritage Canada'' should be deleted, such
as the $20 million spent on the Canada Information Office, the
$15.5 million spent on the one in a million flags operation and
unprecedented cuts to the CBC. Of course, we know their policy is
to get rid of the CBC. I am somewhat shocked that the Reform
Party is supporting the separatists.
I was pleased, as I am sure all Canadians were, this weekend to
see Ed Mirvish on television getting the one millionth flag. I was
very proud when that happened. He is one of Canada's biggest
supporters of the cultural industries.
That flag program was a success. The people of
Haldimand-Norfolk were very supportive of the program. When I
went down the country roads, I saw that people were proud to be
flying the Canadian flag. They were proud to show other Canadians
that they love their country.
I am not surprised the Bloc members presented this motion.
They want to break up and destroy the country. However, I am
surprised that the Reform Party joined them. Canadians are proud
to stand up for this country, as they are in my riding. I know that it
is ideal for the separatists to try to do that, but it is somewhat
surprising that the Reform Party would do it. I am sorry that the
Reform Party has fallen for this trick of the separatists.
The Liberal Party will not apologize for promoting Canada.
Liberal members will not apologize for setting up these programs
which get individual Canadians together, get them excited and give
them more information about their country. We are working with
different community groups, different programs and young people
throughout Canada so they will know more about the country. How
can that be called propaganda?
The Reform Party has joined the Bloc in saying it is propaganda;
that it is nothing but the Liberal Party spending millions of dollars
to promote itself. Is it propaganda for the Deputy Prime Minister
who today is in Moncton, New Brunswick to set up a new program
with 800 different community leaders across the country, from 120
towns and villages, small communities in rural Canada and in the
urban centres? They will come together in an exchange program
across Canada. Is it propaganda to get Canadians to travel across
the country?
(1520)
I know the hon. member beside me here will remember the
Canada 125 program. It was an incredible program that was
brought out just before the last election for Canada's 125th
birthday. We got Canadians talking to each other. Young Canadians
got to know more about their country. This is what we should be
doing as parliamentarians. Part of our role is to enable Canadians to
know more about their country.
8205
What about a town in western Canada which is planning a
cultural event? Is it propaganda to let Quebecers know and to get
in touch with towns in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba or
Saskatchewan? Is that propaganda? I do not think so and I do not
think the Liberal Party or the government thinks so.
Is it wrong to promote mutual co-operation and understanding
on economic and social issues, on the cultural development of
Canadians? I do not think so. It is not wrong to do that. It is
important that we learn more about the cultural diversities of this
country, that we learn more about some of the economic problems
in this country. Somebody sitting in downtown Calgary or in
downtown Vancouver who has never left their community or their
province may not know some of the issues facing somebody living
in a fishing community or a remote community in Newfoundland
or in Tuktoyaktuk or in my riding in southwestern Ontario.
One of the largest inland fisheries in the world is in my riding.
We have a lot in common with people in Newfoundland or British
Columbia, people on the coasts who rely on the fishing industry. Is
it wrong for the Government of Canada to promote that these
people get together to talk about their common concerns? I do not
think so. I think it is right and it is an important role this
government has.
I guess in Quebec it is wrong to promote Canada. This is what
these federal members of Parliament seem to be saying, that
somehow to promote Canada in Quebec and to show people around
Canada the good things in Quebec are somehow wrong and the
government should not be able to play a role in that. I do not agree.
TVA and CTV are major partners in Attractions Canada. It is
surprising to think that these major networks in Canada would
somehow be hoodwinked by the Government of Canada to be used
in some sort of propaganda in Quebec or outside.
It is ironic that a Quebec member would bring forward this
motion when in fact Attractions Canada's hotline had 9,200
Canadians call it this past week and 5,640 calls, 61 per cent of
them, came from the province of Quebec. Simply put, a great
number of people within the province of Quebec want to know
more about their country. They want to know more about what is
happening outside the boundaries of Quebec. In their present role
the members across the way or the Government of Quebec
certainly will not be the ones that will inform Quebecers about
what is happening in the rest of Canada.
If we are going to bring this country together, if we are going to
move forward into the next century, we are going to need to know
more about each other. We are going to need to know more about
some of the problems faced by Quebecers, some of the problems
faced by rural Canadians or by people in downtown Calgary. TVA
and CTV in joining this program and promoting it are doing what
they should be doing as networks.
We need to be serious about the challenges that lie ahead for
Canada. We need to ask ourselves going into the next century how
we will build Canada and what will be the Canada of the next
century. We as parliamentarians going into the next election, if we
happen to win the next election, will be the ones over the next
millennium who will be making the early decisions as to what
Canada will look like. The government is building a Canada for the
21st century.
(1525)
Information and knowledge empowers Canadians. It lets them
chart their own future and destiny. It must be a disappointment for
the opposition members that Canadians want to know more about
their history, that they want to know more about their institutions,
their social and cultural fabric and their achievements. We have
had achievements. It is important that this government remind
Canadians about these achievements.
We need to understand the diversity. It is strange that this motion
would come from a member from a province that is diverse, a
province that is unique in Canada. To somehow challenge us on
trying to promote Canada in that province is wrong. It shows that
their heart really is not in their country. We need to understand our
duality. We need to have a country that acknowledges, supports and
protects our two official languages and our diversities. We need to
work together to build knowledge about Canada and Canadians.
It must be a disappointment to the opposition that we want to
know more about our symbols and about our heritage. The more we
know about our heritage, the more we know about our culture,
about our environment, the better we can understand the challenges
we all face and the hopes and dreams of Canadians. We need to
build on this. We need to know this before we move into the next
millennium.
Canadians share some very fundamental human values. There is
our value about having a compassionate and a caring society. We
value fairness. We value integrity in our institutions and our
practices. We value equality and we value knowing that our
differences can strengthen us.
We have learned. What we have learned over our 100 years of
history has made us one of the best countries in the world as wide
groups like the United Nations look to Canada for leadership.
I appreciate this time and I would not mind being given one
minute more.
The Deputy Speaker: My apologies to the member and to all
hon. members when I fail to give them a one-minute signal.
Questions and comments.
8206
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the member opposite defend Canada and its symbols.
In principle, I have no objection to that.
We must, however, look at the expenses incurred by the Heritage
Minister to promote Canada in light of the living conditions of real
people. Would the 1.2 million children living below the poverty
line in Canada be happy to wave the Canadian flag?
Would the millions of unemployed Canadians, whose number
has not decreased since this government came to power, be proud
enough to wave the Canadian flag? Are the millions of Canadians
on welfare, whose number has actually increased since this
government started making drastic cuts to social programs, ready
to wave the Canadian flag?
The hon. member asks if it is wrong to promote Canada in
Quebec. It is not wrong but it is rather pointless. If Quebecers were
proud of the Government of Canada, we would not have to
distribute flags. Pride is not based on symbols but on realities.
I will conclude by asking the following question to the hon.
member: If Canadians are so proud of their country, why then did
we have to give them flags to wave?
(1530)
[English]
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I will never apologize for the
Canadian flag, nor will I apologize for trying to promote Canada
not only in Quebec but throughout this country. We have a
wonderful country, as has been expressed by many people around
the world. By flying our flag we are in no way taking away from the
other, more serious problems we have across this country.
The government recognizes, as do all Canadians, that as we go
into the next century, even though we have moved ahead in many
areas, there are still many areas we have not resolved. The hon.
member mentioned some. Obviously child poverty and jobs are
areas that are very important to the Government of Canada, and we
are moving in those areas.
Unless we stay together as a country, unless Canadians realize
the importance of staying together and working together, and the
importance of being Canadian, we will not last into the next
century very long. It is important in the scheme of things to look at
the bigger picture, to make sure that when we are resolving some of
these fundamental problems we also look at the make-up of the
country and what the country is about. It is important that we work
toward resolving some of those problems, which is what we have
tried to do.
We have tried to use the flag. We have tried to show Canadians
the importance of the flag. We have also tried to show Canadians
the importance of each other, to teach Canadians more about other
parts of the country. We have a large country. It is the second
largest country in the world. It is difficult for somebody in
downtown Hagersville, where I was born, to go into Quebec. We
have a language problem. It is important and it should be a priority
for the Government of Canada to take it upon itself to help in that
area.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today, we are discussing a motion condemning the use of
public funds squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by
Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and the
One Million Flags Operation, at a time when unprecedented cuts
have been imposed on cultural institutions in Canada and Quebec.
When I got back to my riding, I went, as I do every week, to buy
a number of magazines. One of these was Le Point, whose cover
this week read L'unité canadienne se crée-t-elle?, or ``Is Canadian
Unity Developing?'' This issue contains a very comprehensive
report on the situation in Canada. The government members would
be well advised to read this report in order to understand what is
happening in Canada and what a foreign observer is thinking of it.
The author comments on Winnipeg, for instance. Apparently, it is
the coldest place in the world. He also mentions St. Boniface,
which has been amalgamated to Winnipeg and where,
unfortunately, 70 per cent of the people now speak English.
This is a statement of fact made by a total stranger having to
describe our country in an international magazine. He must
describe to his fellow countrymen what is happening in another
country.
When the Conservative Party was in office, with Mrs. Campbell
at its head, it was decided to drastically reduce the number of
ministers. The government then thought of establishing a
department called Canadian Heritage, which would contain
everything that could fit nowhere else. Responsibilities were
gathered from all over the place to form a tutti frutti department.
Amateur sports, parks, historic sites and the Department of the
Secretary of State were included in its mandate. The department is
also responsible for the Queen's visits to Canada, the choice of
olympic athletes, etc., as well as funding for these activities. It does
a bit of everything, but mostly propaganda. It has become a
propaganda specialist.
(1535)
The creation of this department was a problem for the Liberal
Party when they were in opposition. I remember that the first time I
went to the Department of Canadian Heritage to meet the then
Deputy Minister, he told me he had recommended to the new
government that it divide up the Department of Canadian Heritage,
instead of using it as a grab bag as intended, and remove
Communications from Canadian Heritage, leaving it with only
those elements having to do with heritage. If the mission of the
Department of Canadian Heritage had really been to reflect what
this
8207
country is all about, it would have been told not to forget that in this
country, there are two peoples, two languages and two cultures.
But that is not what happened. Once in power, the Liberals, as
usual, found things already prepared by senior bureaucrats who are
ready to operate regardless of who is in power. The only visible
change, when a new government is elected, is the colour of the
CBC, which is red or blue depending on the party in power.
When this government came to power, they had to act and ensure
passage of a bill creating the Department of Canadian Heritage.
They created exactly what Ms. Campbell wanted, and asked it to
promote Canadian identity. We then tried to make Canadians
understand that they had to take Quebec into account, that in this
country there are two cultures and two languages.
It is true that, when we debated the issue, we did not know what
the Prime Minister was really thinking. One day, the Prime
Minister answering a question happened to say in the House, and I
quote: ``Mr. Speaker, there is a French culture in Canada, which is
Canadian. It is in Quebec primarily, but I think the culture of the
Acadians and Antonine Maillet forms part of the French culture,
and this culture is not necessarily Quebec culture. So, when we talk
about a Canadian culture, it may be of French or English
expression''. The entire quote can be found in the December 6,
1995 issue of Hansard.
Shortly after the referendum the Prime Minister confirmed that,
although a Quebecer, the little guy from Shawinigan had forgotten
his roots and had made his another culture, the Canadian culture,
renouncing his own, the Quebec culture, for ever. He made this
statement on behalf of all his colleagues, confirming that in his
view, Québec and the distinct society did not exist, as we saw later
with the passing of his phoney motion on the distinct society, this
empty shell devoid of any meaning.
Therefore, in the opinion of Canadians, Quebec culture does not
exist. Yesterday, while listening to ``Le Point'', on Radio-Canada, I
understood that for many Canadians, the Canadian culture does not
exist either. We were shown Saskatchewan francophones, like
Carmen Champagne. Since there are only 50,000 people who speak
French in that province she opted for moving to Quebec to be able
do grow, and make a fortune while selling her records, audio and
video tapes, video clips and all the excellent material she produces
for children. She was looking for a market and she found one in
Quebec; she could not have found one in Saskatchewan.
I also saw other people who spoke English, but I felt they were
more Ukrainian that Canadian. They extolled the beauty and the
wealth of their culture, but they sounded more like Ukrainians
talking to a Quebecer than Canadians. I felt how great their need
was to cling to their Ukrainian roots. I believe that the notion of
multiculturalism Mr. Trudeau put in the heads of Canadians is
probably the single biggest obstacle to the creation of a Canadian
identity.
(1540)
The Prime Minister is looking for ways to have people identify
with Canada; I think he could simply abolish multiculturalism
tomorrow morning, as they did in several countries like Brazil, and
he would find that, tomorrow morning, all the people in Canada
would be Canadians.
Except, of course, for Quebecers, who have already made up
their minds, at least 50 per cent of them, and know they belong to a
culture, they form a people, they have a territory. They still need a
country before they can develop fully, but that threshold will soon
be crossed and we will have the patience to wait for the next
referendum to really fulfil ourselves.
Meanwhile, we observe what is going on in Canada. There is a
subculture, the Quebec subculture, and a larger one, the Canadian
culture. What happened until 1976, at the CBC for example? Those
who governed our country respected both cultures, both people,
and the CBC and the SRC received equal funding. The French
network and the English network received the same amounts.
After the election of Mr. Lévesque, the surprise of 1976, Mr.
Trudeau decided there was a separatist clique at Radio-Canada. He
ordered an inquiry, which was considered to be almost an
inquisition, to finally find out that it was not so, that there was no
such thing as a separatist clique at Radio-Canada. There were only
people doing an honest job who, in the news, showed what was
happening in Quebec.
In 1995, after the referendum, the Trudeau heir adopted the same
attitude. He also said that the CBC had not done its job properly.
The French network of the CBC was, once again, hit by funding
cuts. Clearly, it will be more and more difficult for the journalists
of the corporation to do their jobs in the professional manner they
are known for, if the government keeps casting doubt on the quality
of the programming, which is excellent. The reason is that the
government does not like the way what is happening in our society
is presented.
The CBC suffered extensive cuts. The National Film Board lost
20 per cent of its budget. Funding for Telefilm Canada was reduced
by $50 million, over and above the cuts already announced, in
order to create a fund, with headquarters and decision making in
Toronto, for the production of television programs.
This fund will be made up of $50 million from the cable
distributors, $50 million from Telefilm Canada and $100 from
8208
Heritage Canada. Directors of the fund have been advised to be
careful and to finance programs with a Canadian flavour, programs
which promote Canadian culture, in other words they should try to
avoid films like ``Octobre''.
We saw after the referendum the way the heritage committee
went on a witch hunt, how the chairman was given the mandate to
try to see what was going on, and to promote Canada.
Today, we have reached a stage where we embarked on this
campaign to give away a million flags. Not very long ago, a Liberal
senator was telling me: ``I do not understand you, in Quebec. We
have given you bilingual stamps, bilingual bank notes, a flag, a
national anthem''. I could agree with the bank notes and the
stamps, but it was the late great Réal Caouette, with the complicity
of a minority government under Mr. Pearson, who felt, on the eve
of the universal exhibition of 1967, that it would be shameful to
receive the world without a flag which would identify us all. That is
when the war to introduce the flag started.
(1545)
Consequently, I even wonder if English Canadians ever wanted
the flag, since the government still feels forced to promote this flag
30 years later. There are limits to thinking that it can impose
something to people through propaganda.
As for the national anthem, the government took the one that we
used to sing when we were kids and that was called O Canada. The
words and the music were composed by two francophones from
Quebec. The anglophones translated it, changed it here and there so
it would fit their purposes, but the national anthem was not
invented by an anglophone of this country; the government took the
words and music that two francophones from Quebec had
composed.
There are limits to trying to make us believe that we resist that. It
is true that we resist because this was another era. The government
took the name, the flag, the national anthem; it can have them, but
we are somewhat disenchanted with the whole propaganda
campaign it is conducting to try to impose these things.
My colleagues have also said it: almost $100 million have been
spent on propaganda at a time when the government tells us it has
no money, for example, for programming, for small and medium
size business, for job creation, for the destitute, for poor children.
According to what the Prime Minister told us, some gifts for poor
children will be announced in the budget tomorrow. They we made
poor and now we are being told: ``Thanks to the federal
government, we will save poor children.'' It should have saved
them four years ago, instead of waiting until the eve of an election
to present us with a budget containing measures to save poor
children. Consequently, until now, it is an appalling failure on all
counts.
The official languages policy, which is another failure in
Canada, is a responsibility of Heritage Canada. Most of the money
went to anglophone minorities in Quebec or was spent on teaching
English in the other provinces.
They give lip service to bilingualism, but what they really want
to do is bilingualize Quebecers to better assimilate them, given that
the anglophone minority in Quebec represents only 9 per cent of
the population, whereas 54 per cent of civil servants are bilingual.
The francophone minority in New Brunswick accounts for 38 per
cent of the population, yet only 42 per cent of civil servants are
bilingual. And this great government's latest cost-cutting
innovation was to create only one 1-800 line for all francophones in
Canada having problems with the child benefit.
So, the Official Languages Act has also been a pitiful failure in
the public service. According to a study, in the Ottawa-Hull area,
where the law provides that French and English are the languages
of work, 76 per cent of francophones say that English is the
language spoken at meetings. So, the public service is also a tool
for anglicizing francophones.
Another innovation is the information highway, where the
federal government is interfering again in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. Here, as in other areas, the federal government intends
to exert its leadership, regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction or its
culture. We also find Canadian cultural content in the information
society. They never miss an opportunity to express their contempt
for the people of Quebec.
This morning, I read in detail about the minister's plans for
schools. No one in Quebec can enrol in a school without asking for
authorization. In her paper, the minister says that the great values in
Canada are tolerance, mutual respect, compassion, and acceptance.
(1550)
You have to see it on paper to believe it. It is unbelievable. There
is no tolerance, no compassion, no respect, no acceptance for the
people of Quebec. They talk about values, but they do not believe
in them.
What does the minister put in her propaganda kit? She is
providing a teacher's guide. This teacher's guide is not authorized
by the Quebec Minister of Education. This is unacceptable; this
cannot be done in Quebec. There are videos, an audiocassette, a
CD-ROM, and a box one can check off to order a flag.
How much does each of these kits cost? There are various kits
for various age groups. There is one kit for children between four
and seven. The propaganda is adjusted to the children's
chronological and psychological age. There is another kit for
children between eight and eleven, and another one for children
aged twelve and up. They are available in French or in English.
8209
I think the Minister should substantially change her approach
if she does not want to see the number of sovereignists keep rising
in this country. At the rate she is going now, we thank her very
sincerely because she is helping the cause of a sovereign Quebec.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take the floor once again
this afternoon to give the Bloc Quebecois, to the sovereignists, to
those hard line separatists who spend most of their time rewriting
Canadian history a real history lesson.
Bloc members should realize one thing: they do not represent a
majority of Quebecers. I challenge them to make a survey asking
this simple question: Do you want to have a sovereign country, yes
or no? We all know only 25 to 30 percent of Quebecers would
support the separation of the province from the rest of the country.
When numbers are quoted, all kinds of examples are used. This
morning, I asked a Bloc Quebecois member why the National Film
Board spends 73 percent of its budget in Quebec. Why does
Telefilm Canada spend 62 percent of its budget in Quebec? Why
does the CBC spend 40 percent of its budget in Quebec when the
Quebec population is about 24 or 25 percent of the Canadian
population? It is obvious that Quebecers can draw concrete
benefits, financial, political and cultural benefits from being a part
of the Canadian federation.
Cases of demagogy and propaganda have also been raised. I did
a little research this morning, and I found a few cases of
propaganda. We will play the role of opposition to the Bloc
majority in Quebec. I have questions to ask and my constituents do
too.
The majority of Quebecers wonder why almost $4 million in
public money has been spent on the secret activities of the Conseil
de la souveraineté du Québec. Why does Quebec have a 1-800 line,
which costs $300,000 to Quebec taxpayers, to promote the
independence of Quebec? Why did the presentation in the Grand
Théâtre de Québec launching the referendum campaign cost
$175,000. I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member
for Rimouski-Témiscouata on this.
Lobbyists have been hired at a cost of $531,000 to promote
sovereignty in Washington. There have been mailings and all kinds
of commissions at a cost of $2.5 million. Some $8.5 million was
spent on this happening, on this survey and this referendum. Ir cost
$8.5 million. So, to bring up-
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order.
I am ready to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, but I would rather he would
not put Quebec on trial, because we are not in Quebec, we are in
Canada. Let him deal with the motion before us and stop his
rambling.
(1555)
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it is simple. The Bloc Quebecois is
interested in only one thing, making Quebec a sovereign country. It
is clear; we know that. But nothing is ever said about the
propaganda campaign in Quebec.
Yes, $20 million was spent on flags, and I am proud of it. Of
course, I would have liked that money to be spent elsewhere.
However, there is a $80 million fund, and there is also the fact that
an amount of $20 billion was withdrawn from the Caisse de dépôt
to bolster the Canadian dollar in case of sovereignty.
I am a Quebecer. The opposition is in no position to tell me who I
am and whom I represent. However, as a Canadian and Quebec
taxpayer, I have a right to know where that money is going in
Quebec City. Let them phone their finance minister and let them
give us an answer in the House.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to answer on
behalf of the Government of Quebec. We are not in Quebec here,
we are in Canada. So the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will lose his riding; he should
think of being a candidate in Quebec. Indeed, Mr. Johnson would
be quite happy to count on a new recruit because there is not much
of a future for him in Canada and Bonaventure-Gaspé-Les
Îles-Pabok with the kind of things he is saying here.
It is absolutely absurd not to recognize that the government has
spent $100 million on propaganda. If only it were done for
interesting reasons, such as information. The CIO is supposed to be
an information bureau. The minister told me: ``Go on the Internet,
you will see what is there''. There is nothing interesting on the
Internet, nothing that will inform us on Canada.
If money is being spent to inform people, it should be
information, interesting information on the Internet instead of
propaganda. It is a waste of time to try to force people to love a
country that has not earned their love. That is the problem. The
country must be lovable. How can you love someone who is not
lovable? The country must be lovable, it must really put its values
into practice. It must be tolerant, it must accept things: ``If you
can't beat them, join them''.
So, reach out to us if you want to keep us with you. Otherwise,
we will go, and faster than you think because we are fed up with the
kind of speeches we have just heard.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wanted to ask a question and say a little about the comment that
this is not a lovable country. Surely the member did not wish to
8210
convey the message that this country, Canada, and Canadians are
not lovable. I request a clarification, please.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to love a country,
you have to feel loved by it, not rejected. When you do not feel
loved, you cannot find the situation or the people lovable. You feel
rejected.
I made an attempt in this House that I thought would be a step
toward unity between our two nations. But the Louis Riel bill was
defeated in this House, something that should never have happened
if there had been the slightest consideration for who Louis Riel
was. The vote was against the Bloc Quebecois.
In this country, people are always voting against something;
people vote against someone. People never really show their
acceptance.
If that had happened, I would have said this country was lovable,
but now I know that you are rejecting us with all your being.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. I simply want to say that for people of my
generation, from my country-I was born in Europe-the money
spent on flags brings to mind some unpleasant memories and
unpleasant names like that of Goebbels in Germany.
(1600)
When a country defends itself with flags, and I saw them all over
the place, I saw thousands of them. I do not want to equate the
maple leaf with the swastika-
Mr. Gagnon: The maple leaf liberated you.
Mr. Mercier: I want to compare, if hon. members would show
me the courtesy of letting me speak, I want to compare two
policies. When you want to promote a people with thousands of
flags-
Mr. Gagnon: In Holland and Belgium, the first to get there was
the Canadian army.
Mr. Mercier: What does that have to do with it? Obviously we
are very grateful to Canadians. Let us use our common sense and
see the problems for what they are. I am comparing two policies
which use the same means, which is to fly flags everywhere, and
this reminds me of Goebbels. Although the flags are not
comparable, the policies are.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think we should get hold of
ourselves. We must not confuse issues. This whole flag issue has a
very negative impact on our country. I hope the government will
think about it. We are not in a country where propaganda is
acceptable.
We must appreciate the people, be open-minded and accept
them. The Deputy Prime Minister's papers must not be the only
place where we find that attitude. It must be present in everyday
life and for everybody.
We should stop spending money on propaganda. This measure is
perceived as propaganda, it is regarded as propaganda and we all
know what the results of propaganda are.
We must pull away from this situation we are in. The
government must understand that the $100 million must be spent
elsewhere than on propaganda.
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Saskatoon-Dundurn.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to take part in this debate and I hope it will
enrich the reflection brought about in the House by the motion
presented by the member for Richmond-Wolfe. I am happy to see
that my opposition friend is concerned about the future of Canadian
culture and to have this opportunity to present our own vision on
the issue.
To start with, if I may, I would like to remind everybody that
when we talk about Canada, when we promote Canada, we are
promoting Quebec as well, recognizing it as a distinct society with
its unique language, culture and institutions.
When we are promoting ourselves, we get richer. I would like us
to see the debate from this angle, at least for a few minutes. I was
shocked when I was told that Canada was not a friendly country.
This is not true. Of course, Canadians are not all the same. Their
experience is different, but the vast majority of them love and
respect their fellow citizens in Quebec. I believe the reverse to be
true also.
I have learned over the year that what we do not know well, we
do not understand well, and when we do not know well and do not
understand well, we cannot appreciate of course. It is very difficult
to love.
[English]
I often hear some of my English speaking colleagues who are
less, at times, than totally generous toward their Quebec
colleagues. I would maintain that is a minority.
Very often when that happens, they know very little about
Quebec. They know very little about its language, its culture, its
institutions, the unique place. The reverse is also true. When
someone knows very little about the other, when they do not
understand, how can they appreciate, how can they care?
Unfortunately that is one of the problems that exist at times in
Canada, not just in Quebec but in every single province and
territory.
8211
(1605)
[Translation]
The world has never been so easily accessible. New
communications technologies have made it possible to develop a
greater awareness of the world around us and to have direct access
to an ever increasing volume of information and knowledge.
Through the Canada information office, the government wants to
provide Canadians across the country with accurate, factual and
pertinent information about our country, its institutions, its regions
and its people. It wants to give a Canadian slant to the mass of data
and information we receive.
But this slant is not only Canadian, it is also a Quebec slant,
something that affects, for example, my community in my
Franco-Manitoban riding. We just had the Festival du voyageur, we
even had artists from Quebec who came to our region and were
warmly welcomed. We have artists, writers, all kinds of people
who go to Quebec and are appreciated there. That is today's world.
There is this huge sharing, not only in Canada, but also throughout
the world.
Culture is first and foremost an outlook on the world. In this
sense, it is important to have instruments such as the Canada
information office and Canadian symbols to convey this typically
Canadian outlook not only to Canadians but also to people in other
countries.
When we talk about the flag, some may say this is propaganda,
but we can also appreciate that it is a powerful symbol that affects
all of us. This is what some people fail to understand sometimes.
With the advent of the information highway, content
communication is becoming vital for cultural expression. When I
talk about content on the information highway, of course I am
referring to Canadian content. It expresses and reflects the values,
the ideals and the knowledge shared by all Canadians.
In this context, because of the importance of communicating our
cultural heritage for the strengthening of both the national identity
and the economy, the Canadian government had to take major steps
recently.
The government made many efforts to ensure access to cultural
content on the digital information highway. It has become an
international leader in this area.
At the G-7 conference on the information based society and
development held in South Africa, the government stressed how
very important it is to have a diversity of views expressed and
languages used on the information highway. In the area of heritage
for instance, the government participates in pilot projects put
forward by the G-7 to promote the most democratic access possible
to world culture while respecting individual national identities. It
takes part for example in a project called multimedia access to
world cultural heritage and, through the National Library of
Canada, in the Bibliotheca universalis project.
At home, the Canadian government has worked on setting up a
task force on digitizing collections of cultural and scientific value.
National institutions involved in heritage take an active part in
integrating and developing new technologies. They are digitizing
their collections and making them accessible to the public.
The government will explore many avenues to develop new
ways of helping produce digitized Canadian content of heritage
value. It also plans to promote conservation, distribution and
access to this digitized content.
At the same time, the Canadian Heritage Information Network
supports its institutions' efforts to make their collections available
to a broader public. It provides, among other things, an Internet
directory of Canadian museums and heritage sites. To date, the
network has generated a total of 22 reference databases in both
official languages and a few other information products available
on Internet. More than 1.5 million netsurfers have visited its site.
This is an exceptional showcase for Canada and its culture,
history and heritage. In addition, the Government of Canada has
worked together with CultureNet and the Canadian Conference of
the Arts to develop the cultural electronic network of Canada. This
network will be a window on Canadian culture for people in
Canada and throughout the world.
(1610)
The government is committed to promoting the establishment of
a Canadian information highway that would provide goods and
services in both official languages. As it indicated at the round
table conference on culture, a few days ago, the government will
take every necessary step to promote the creation of Canadian
content.
The federal government also adopted, and is currently
reviewing, a number of measures designed to increase access to
traditional markets, to promote greater dissemination of Canadian
culture abroad, and to penetrate specialized markets for the arts,
heritage and cultural industries. Among the initiatives taken, the
government organized, in December, a national round table on the
marketing of Canadian heritage goods and services abroad.
Given their mandate, museums as well as cultural and heritage
institutions play a prominent role in the preservation, the
promotion and the sharing of our heritage. Some 2,000 museums
and institutions dedicated to preserving our heritage are important
cultural tools, not only because of their number, but also because of
their popularity with Canadians and foreign visitors. It is estimated
that 56 per cent of those who visit our institutions are Canadians. It
is also estimated that Canada's museums welcomed over 55
million visitors.
8212
Through its museums assistance program, the Government of
Canada provides direct support to these institutions, so as to
increase access to collections, to manage these collections
efficiently, and to ensure their preservation, for the benefit of
current and future generations.
This summer, the government will provide more than 800 young
Canadian students with an opportunity to work in institutions
dedicated to our heritage, such as libraries and museums. This will
be done through the Young Canada Works program, which will
include Quebec students. This summer job initiative will not only
help young people earn money, but also help them gain better
knowledge of their country, their province, their territory, their
history and their culture.
We must make sure that our tools to promote culture, and our
heritage institutions, are at the service of Canadians, and we must
also make sure they offer a typically Canadian content. Our cultural
productions and our own perspective on events should also be
shown on tomorrow's networks.
The Government of Canada wants to give Canadians as many
opportunities as possible to undertake initiatives in order to express
their own identity. As we move into the 21st century, we need to be
able to express Canada's uniqueness.
Before concluding, I want to say a few words about my own
province and francophones outside Quebec. There are around a
million of them and people sometimes try to forget about them. In
my riding, close to 20 per cent of the people speak French. A high
percentage of English speaking citizens have also learned to speak
French and taken up the French culture in our province.
There is also a solid core of francophones in other provinces.
Need I remind the House that a third of the New-Brunswick
population speaks French? For the million people outside Quebec
who still speak French, their language and their culture are very
dear to them. When they travel to the province of Quebec, they feel
very at ease. When Quebecers come to our region, they feel
comfortable.
When I travel to France, I feel at ease. I have friends who went
over there and they felt the same way. Yesterday, I had friends over
from France and we went to the Festival du voyageur, and they
really liked it. They had spent some time in Quebec City and had
felt also very welcome over there. They felt very at ease in our area
too. Do not forget that strong ties bind us together.
(1615)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
understandable that the Canadian government was scared by the
results of the referendum and that it wants to try, with great
difficulty, considering the limited budgets available, a sense of
belonging in all Canadian provinces including, for the purpose in
hand, in the ``province'' of Quebec, where most Quebecers are to
be found.
But one should never forget, first, that for each dollar invested in
such propaganda, 25 cents comes from Quebec. Thus, there should
be some form of ethics, some respect, a gentleness and a sense of
democracy in the spending of these funds, since they come in a
large part from Quebecers, including sovereignists.
Also, when one wants to create a sense of belonging, one should
be aware, as we have seen earlier, that the line is very fine between
the will to create that feeling and mere propaganda. Approximately
one year ago, Chantal Hébert wrote something in La Presse and I
would like to know how the hon. member for St. Boniface responds
to that. Mrs. Hébert who, as far as we know, is not a sovereignist
does good work as a daily columnist for La Presse.
She wrote: ``Since 1995, all departments have been instructed to
celebrate the Canadian flag. A survey was made of their efforts. For
example, on February 15, 1995, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation presented its employees with a cake in the form of the
Canadian flag, and its cafeteria provided a ``Canadian'' menu.
Even the Canadian spies were in on it. That same week, all the
employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service found the
story of the Canadian flag in their electronic mail. All public
service managers were urged to circulate a questionnaire on
Canada to their staff through the electronic mail. Consideration
was given to the possibility of asking public servants' children to
participate in drawing contests on their love of Canada. Public
servants were encouraged to wear red and white on the anniversary
of the flag''.
One can promote Canadian patriotism but I think that the very
fine line between patriotism and propaganda was just crossed, and I
would like to hear what my colleague for St. Boniface has to say
about this.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comment and his question. I wonder why they are so afraid of
promoting Canada. Why that fear? When we promote Canada, we
promote Quebec, Manitoba and all the other provinces and
territories.
They do not understand and they do not want to understand. As
for those spies, I do not know exactly what they did. I know Mrs.
Hébert and she is a good writer. I respect her very much. But be
serious. Every day I listen to a number of Bloc members. I accept
them and I even like some of them a lot. They promote Quebec in
many ways even though they have a tendency to exaggerate. They
can go very far.
But can we call it propaganda? Some would speak of lies. Not
me. They just do their work. They do it as best they can. They are
promoting their province, their distinct society, their language,
their culture, and their own special institutions. I commend them
8213
for that but they should do the same for Canada, the country that is
theirs as much as it is mine.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address the
opposition motion today. The achievements of this government in
support of Canadian culture and identity are significant.
Canada's culture has evolved through the contributions of our
creative artists, our cultural institutions and the individual and
collective expressions of who we are as Canadians. It is not one
voice but many represented through the rich diversity of our
regions and our varied ethnic roots.
(1620)
In 1993 this government took over from a Conservative regime
that failed to appreciate the importance of cultural development.
The Liberal government has stayed true to our vision of creating a
stronger, more unified country while strengthening the Canadian
economy. In that vision, we place great importance on the need to
support and strengthen Canadian cultural and identity and to
celebrate Canada's heritage.
The practical side is clear. We want to strengthen the economy
and provide more jobs for Canadians. We are doing that. We are
also creating a stronger, more unified Canada where Canadian
culture and identity thrive and where jobs and growth are a given.
Let me give a couple of examples of how well it is going.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is an active partner in the
federal government's job strategy. A great deal has been
happening. The young Canada works program is putting young
people to work and nurturing their understanding of Canada.
In 1996 the young Canada works program provided interesting
summer job experiences for over 2,000 young Canadian. This
involved four key areas of Canada's diverse cultural and natural
heritage, specifically our national parks and national historic sites,
aboriginal urban youth, Canada's two official languages and our
heritage institutions.
The young Canada works program is unique, providing the
chance for many of its participants to travel to other parts of this
country. I am pleased to say that it will run again this coming
summer.
As a government we are proud that young Canadians have this
chance to connect with other Canadians, people from different
backgrounds and regions of Canada.
Young Canadians have a sense of passion and commitment about
Canada; like the country they call home, their future is ahead of
them. Through young Canada works we are helping young people
to finance their education, gain invaluable work experience and
learn more about Canada.
This year we are adding two more components, providing
graduate students with internship opportunities that will build their
skill sets and increase their future employment prospects. Putting
young people to work is important for all of us. The pride and
passion they feel for Canada touches each and every one of us
deeply at the very core of our being. Our Canadian identity is
something we can share and celebrate. Young Canada works is
helping Canadians do just that.
Another area where this government is working hard to build
Canadian identity and culture while strengthening the economy is
the arts. The arts in Canada have grown rapidly over the last
decade. They contribute to Canada in many ways. They serve as the
human talent pool for all the cultural industries and broadcasting.
They touch on other areas of the cultural sector such as heritage,
architecture and advertising.
The cultural sector contributes overall over $29 billion worth of
economic activity to Canada's gross domestic product and supports
more than 900,000 jobs. The Government of Canada knows that
investing in the arts is a win-win situation. It is an investment in
Canada. It makes good economic sense and it makes good sense for
Canada's cultural identity as well as for Canadian unity.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is a success story in
supporting the creation, production and distribution of the arts in
Canada. For example, the performing arts are burgeoning in
Canada. Over the last decade the number of live performances
increased by 33 per cent. Attendance grew from 10 million in 1985
to over 13.5 million in 1995. Earned revenues, mostly box office
receipts, grew 87 per cent to $187 million.
In 1994 alone Canadians bought more than 13 million tickets to
performances by not for profit professional dance, music, opera
and theatre companies, most of which the Department of Canadian
Heritage supports through the Canada Council.
The Stratford Festival receives almost $790,000 from the
Canada Council. In return Stratford generates $25 million in taxes
and a further $100 million in economic activity.
(1625 )
The young Canada works program and support to the creation,
production and distribution of the arts in Canada are just two
mechanisms through which this government is building a stronger
country.
Our commitment is clear. We will continue to lead the way in
promoting the excellence of our artists and the success of our
8214
cultural institutions and industries. We will continue to lead the
way in engaging all Canadians in the life of Canada, including our
youth who will take up our torch and create Canada's future.
Much remains to be done but our commitment remains. It is vital
to ensuring Canada's strength and prosperity today and in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to point out to my hon. colleague opposite that he neglected to
address the issue raised in the Bloc Quebecois motion. He did not
speak to the motion, he drew us a picture that has nothing to do
with the motion. The motion put forward by one of my hon.
colleagues this morning reads as follows:
That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda
activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and
the One Million Flags Operation, at a time when cuts unprecedented in the history of
Canada have been imposed on cultural institutions in Canada and Quebec.
This is the issue, this is the motion before the House today. As
further evidence of this shameful waste of money, take the $98
million taken from taxpayers in Canada and Quebec to pay for this
propaganda campaign.
Today, February 17, the Canadian Flag Day, is indeed a sad day
for Canada. How sad it is to see such a waste of money, when the
unemployment level keeps rising, the number of jobs keeps
decreasing, more and more people are out of work and more than 1
million children are currently living below the poverty line.
Could we not have used this $98 million to better ends, to
support better programs? Let me give you some examples: the
celebrations surrounding the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag,
which cost $1.1 million; the 600 billboards, 300 of which were put
up in Quebec; the production of TV segments like the Heritage
Minutes, a $2.2 million expenditure which was pointless.
My question is the following: Could we not have used this
money to help the children living in poverty? Why did the
government not choose this option instead of undertaking
propaganda activities for Canada?
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the
member speaking about the spending of money on flags, on the
pride that we should take in this country and on keeping this
country together which, I take it he has already heard, is the best
country in the world to live in. But he fails to mention all the
money that was wasted on the last referendum in Quebec, the
wasted money on posters that were printed in Quebec. Why was
that money not put into Quebec's economy to help the children of
the province of Quebec?
He indicates that the unemployment level is going up. That is not
so. The unemployment level has come down, not as much as we
would like, and we are trying to get it lower and we will get it
lower, but it has not been going up, as has been mentioned.
(1630 )
It is very sad when a member refers to flag day as being a sad day
for Canada. It is very sad that any member of the House of
Parliament of Canada would say that in the democratically elected
Chamber of Canada. That attitude is not understandable. A strong
country leads to employment for all, including youth.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn speak about the programs which are funded
by the heritage department and the heritage minister. Coming from
Saskatchewan as well, I know that the average person who walks
on the streets of Saskatoon or in rural Saskatchewan is not very
impressed with most of the programs and projects funded by
Heritage Canada. There are a few things that need to be funded,
such as discrimination against racism and so on and so forth.
The provincial government has withdrawn funding for health
care and the federal government has followed suit and withdrawn
billions of dollars from health care. How can the member stand in
the House to defend the third or fourth rate priority funding of
Heritage Canada when funding for health care has been so
drastically reduced? It is certainly not going over well in
Saskatchewan.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member
mentioned that the ordinary citizens of Saskatoon do not support
what Heritage Canada is doing. He must be walking on different
streets from the ones I walk on.
The member is critical of what he referred to as cuts in spending.
It is interesting to look at the Reform budget and the cuts which it
suggested. The cuts are very interesting. The Reform Party
suggested cuts to post-secondary education, cuts in health, cuts in
the Canada assistance plan and cuts in equalization. Equalization
cuts of 35 per cent. Cuts to the Canada assistance plan of 34 per
cent.
Reformers are critical of what has been done to get the finances
of the country in order. They would have butchered the system and
destroyed it but all of a sudden, lo and behold, now that it is almost
election time, they are the saviours. Three years ago when it was
not election time they were the ones who would have destroyed the
system.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me
begin my remarks by saying that those statements are absolute
fiction.
We have said that we need to restore the fiscal situation in this
country. Any of the cuts which were suggested in the taxpayers
budget have been far superseded by Liberal cuts. The cuts which
8215
have been made by the Liberals have been deep. They have been
painful for people right across the country.
When we look at health care especially just to sum up the
member's statements, this government has cut more in the area of
health care than any Reformer would ever think of doing. Every
hospital closure in the country ought to have a sign over its door
which reads: The closure of this hospital has been brought to you
by the Liberal Government of Canada.
Probably some of the acrimony which we have seen is what gave
rise to this debate today. I cannot agree with Bloc members on how
they feel about our flag, but I can understand their sense of
disappointment with the status quo, the way the country has gone.
In fact, that is why I am here too, because I cannot go along with
the status quo.
On the one side we have a government which says status quo;
Liberal or Tory, it really does not matter. That certainly was proved
today by Guy St-Julien, the former member for Abitibi, an old Tory
who used to scream from that side of the House across to this side.
He is now going to run as a federal Liberal. What is the difference
between a federal Liberal and a Tory? I do not think there is a
difference. They are just flip sides of the same loonie.
Beyond that the other choice is out and out separation, which is
what the Bloc Quebecois offers. Even though it has been proved
wrong twice in province-wide referenda, it is still here squawking
about it.
This debate today is in fact round two of the flag debate. I was a
teenager when this debate was in the House in the sixties. It was a
pretty painful process to watch. It took about six months because
the government of the day did not bring in closure quite so much as
it does now.
(1635)
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): I was not
born yet.
Miss Grey: That explains a lot of things also. Nonetheless, that
flag debate was one of the most acrimonious debates in this House.
We went to the Canadian flag in 1965 and this maple leaf is one
of the proudest symbols worldwide. I am glad to be a member of a
Canadian society where my flag is held to be so special to us in this
country and internationally as well. That is so important.
It bothers me and upsets me that a group of people in the House
of Commons wants to leave this country. They are out and out
separatists. They try to dress it up with all kinds of fancy names but
they want to pull out of this country. And they are calling our flag
propaganda. We have heard it several times today. It is unfortunate
that the context of that could not be ruled unparliamentary because
I certainly think it is unparliamentary. It is shameful that there
would be people in this place who call our flag propaganda.
Unfortunately the Minister of Canadian Heritage has tried to
offer this free flag program. It is a symbolic thing which, if times
were great, would be appreciated. If we had a great surplus of extra
cash lying around, it would be a great project. But we are $600
billion in debt. The government is spending $70 million a day more
than it is bringing in. It has cut health care. It has cut transfers to
the provinces incredibly, $7 billion with the Canada health and
social transfer.
However this minister wields so much power that she can go into
cabinet and demand $20 million, $50 million, $100 million for
these special projects. That is probably the nub of the issue right
now. It is not whether or not we celebrate our flag, or whether or
not we should have a flag program. She said at the beginning that
this would come from donations from people across the country
and that it might cost $6 million. Guess what? It has come from
donations but it has come directly out of the pockets of Canadian
taxpayers and they did not have any say in how that cash was going
to be spent. It was another one of those voluntary-involuntary
programs that we as Canadian taxpayers get stuck with over and
over again.
The idea was a good one: to generate patriotism and drive
Canadian unity. That is a noble aspiration and a good thing to do,
but again the cost was exorbitant and the minister had no idea
where the cash was coming from. She was able to get her elbows
sharpened up and make some way at the cabinet table. She scared
the Minister of Finance off so that he bought this thing: peace at
any price; the Minister of Canadian Heritage will get some cash to
keep her quiet. It is unfortunate when so many other priorities have
had to be put aside, yet the minister has been able to get her way.
There is another thing that bothers me about this. It is not just the
cost of it but this seems to me to be the government's idea of a
national unity program. Is that all there is? Free flags to say that
this is going to solve our national unity problem?
We do have a crisis in the country, which is that members of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition are separatists. They do not like this
place and they do not like Her Majesty. They have made that very
clear. Is this the government's response in total? Is that all there is,
my friend? Here is a free flag. This is our new national unity
program. What a tragedy and only a year and a little bit after a
referendum that saw us come so close to falling over the edge. The
Prime Minister says: ``We won that referendum''.
It is like the Stanley Cup. We won. I have news for him and his
seatmate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian
Heritage, and news for everyone on the government side and for
everyone who is watching today. Unfortunately, that referendum
was not the end of the Stanley Cup. This thing is going into
overtime because Lucien Bouchard is at the helm in Quebec.
Members know only too well that he was my seatmate for three and
8216
a half years in the back row. Although I disagree vehemently with
his politics, and I am a Canadian through and through, I learned to
understand what a masterful strategist he is. I also know that if he
gets his way and has another referendum in Quebec, he does not
have any intention of losing.
(1640)
Surely there must be something better that this government can
offer those of us who are federalists and passionate Canadians.
Surely there has to be more to offer than just a Canadian flag.
The minister criticized me one time in question period saying
that people in Beaver River ordered flags, as if this was some
terrible thing or some wonderful thing that she had discovered. The
people in the Beav are proud and passionate Canadians as well and
many of them did order a flag. They are not ashamed to fly the
Canadian flag. When these things were being offered to them,
many of them did write in and ask for a flag. And what happened?
They each got three, four or five flags in an envelope. What in the
world is going on in that office where they cannot even count to
one? There is something sad about it.
There has to be something better than national unity just by a
free flag. It has got to be deeper than that.
Our 20-20 plan addresses this so well. We have said that we
understand that there are very real concerns of the people in
Quebec. What we need to do is give back to the provinces what was
originally in their jurisdiction.
We see so much overlap. There is so much incredible lust for
power from the federal government. It has all that power to
organize and administer everything and it simply cannot relinquish
it. There still must be federal powers: defence, foreign affairs,
monetary policy, regulating financial institutions, the Criminal
Code, facilitating national standards, equalization, international
trade, domestic trade. Those are things the federal government
should do well and does do well.
We are always told that we are going to have to decentralize and
there will be no federal powers left, but that is not true. The
provinces still must have the jurisdiction they were originally
designed to have. I think many Quebecers would be happy with
that.
On the flip side of that are 20 reasons why you might want to
stay in Canada, 20 realities about the cost of seceding-or the cost
of separating, let us call it what it is-and those are not pleasant to
think about. I think you should think twice before you decide to go
away.
When anyone sits close to me here and is a separatist and says
that my flag is propaganda, it really bothers me. I want to take
them on and challenge them by saying: When you criticize my flag
or Canada Day, you criticize me because I was born on July 1 in
1952 and nobody is going to mess with my flag or Canada Day, or
Dominion Day as I still like to call it.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from now
on, for me, July 1 will not only be Canada Day but my hon.
colleague's birthday.
I would like to point out to my colleague that the issue here is not
the flag itself but the propaganda it serves. I have the utmost
respect for national flags, for the Canadian flag, as have, I am sure,
all members of this House and all my colleagues in the Bloc. But I
do not like the way the flag has been used. It has been used for what
we call propaganda. The issue is not the flag but the ends to which
it has been used, the intent behind it.
I would ask my Reform colleague whether she is appalled by the
fact that no ceremony celebrated the Canadian Flag Day this year
and that there was only a small ceremony last year. Is this not in
some way reducing the role played by the flag in representing
Canada?
(1645)
I love the Quebec flag and I understand why Canadians love their
own flag, as it is legitimate and respectable to do. But when the
government on the other side is unable to celebrate Flag Day as
fervently as it denounces our speeches, I am puzzled. What we take
issue with is the use this government has made of the Canadian
flag. Do you not agree, dear colleague?
[English]
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it fairly clear in my
speech that I have a problem with the way the government went
about it, first, in terms of the cost of the flag program, for which we
do not have the money, and second, in terms of the fact the Liberals
think this is their only national unity scheme.
The member said that he has respect for the flag and I appreciate
that. He said he has a great love for his flag, the fleur de lis, the
Quebec flag. I also have the same love for my provincial flag of
Alberta. Over arching that is my citizenship as a Canadian. I
celebrate the Canadian flag first and foremost and after that come
the family of provinces and there I celebrate the Alberta flag.
He said that there was no great ceremony for flag day. Could it
have something to do with the way flag day went last year?
Members will remember what happened last year. The
remembrance I have of flag day was not so much the celebration of
the flag but watching my Prime Minister take a guy out because he
got in his way at the flag day ceremonies. What a disgrace, what an
embarrassment for a national leader.
8217
He did not follow the RCMP who celebrate the flag and who
were looking after the Prime Minister that day. He just bulldozed
out into the crowd to be the great hero. Some protester got in his
way and the Prime Minister said: ``So I had to take him out''. He
just turned him around and threw him to the ground. Is this what
we are to celebrate under our flag? Is this what other countries
see when they look at our flag? Is this the way Canadians behave?
I do not think so.
I appreciate what the member said about the flag. I was not sure I
heard that earlier from his colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata
when she said it hard to love a country that is not lovable. That is
shameful. It is absolutely shameful that someone would holler that
out in the shouting match between two Quebecers. She said: ``If
you want us to stay, come and get us''. For generations the rest of
Canada has been coming to get Quebecers.
Quebec is in this family. There are days when we are not happy
to be part of a particular family. I know that. There were four
teenage sisters growing up in my family and lots of days I am sure
we all wished we had another family, as is only normal. But love is
not conditional. This is the family. These people are part of this
family and family life is not conditional.
The flag is ours. And whether some days or some years the
people in this separatist camp think they want to run away from
home, they are part of the family. I think it is shameful to say: ``It is
hard to love a country that is not lovable'' and ``If you want us to
stay, come and get us''. You are here. We love you. Please stay.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to compliment the member for Beaver River for an excellent
and rational point of view on this whole issue.
The motion before the House today, an accusation from Bloc
members of funds being squandered on propaganda, is a bit of a
narrow-minded, hypocritical motion. I would like to point that out.
The balance of the motion states that instead of spending money
on free flags and the Canada Information Office and in light of the
cuts to the cultural institutions that more money should be spent on
health care and education, et cetera.
I would like to point out to Bloc members that their former
fearless leader who sat in this House, that same Lucien Bouchard
who is now running and guiding the province of Quebec, in his next
budget and the budgets in the ensuing years will cut spending on
health care and education. He will have to make cuts and eliminate
the waste in those areas because that is where savings can be had
and that is where, even in welfare and other social programs, he is
going to have to revisit.
(1650)
This party, which claims it can do all and be all for everybody,
will have to face the stark reality of what governments are all
about. Governments are all about taking tax dollars and reinvesting
them back into the country, for natural infrastructure and for human
infrastructure. The group of people that best knows how to do this
is the group that should be running this country.
For 30 years we have had politicians who have mismanaged
these finances. They have mismanaged them so badly that they
have had to borrow close to $600 billion to cover everything they
wanted to do for the people of Canada. They would not live within
their means.
The stark reality for everybody, no matter to what political party
you belong, is that we are in a time of fiscal restraint. We are in a
time of having to balance budgets. We are in a time of not
squandering and wasting taxpayers' dollars.
When talking about this motion that attacks the Department of
Canadian Heritage we must ask what is its purpose. Why do we
have a Department of Canadian Heritage? The purpose of the
department is to promote Canada. The purpose of the Department
of Canadian Heritage is to invest in Canada so we can be proud of
ourselves and our country.
Let me point out what the department currently does in dollar
terms. According to the public accounts, the Canadian identity
program costs half a billion dollars. We spend over $300 million on
Parks Canada. We spend $1.171 billion on the CBC. We spend $95
million on the Canada Council which promotes Canadian arts and
artists. We spend $190 million on Canadian film development and
the National Film Board combined. We spend $91 million on
museums of heritage, civilization, science and technology. We
even spend $4.45 million to protect the battlefields of Quebec. We
spend $23 million on the Canadian radio, television and
telecommunications, plus an additional $10 million this year
because the Liberal government now wants to give stable
multi-year funding to the CBC for the next five years. We spend
$19.6 million on the National Arts Centre which is right down the
street.
We spend $98 million on the National Capital Commission, the
fourth level of government in this area of Ottawa-Hull. I have a
hard time with that. Is there a need for four levels of government in
the city of Ottawa? There is the federal government, provincial
government, municipal government and a National Capital
Commission on top of that.
Nobody gives you a ticket around here because they are afraid to.
If they do give you a ticket they do not force you to pay for it
because nobody knows whose jurisdiction it is. If there was ever a
city that needed to be cleaned up, it is Ottawa. Toronto is a
megacity. Why do they not make this a megacity, combine
8218
everybody and kick the National Capital Commission people out of
here. Let us just have one city and be proud of the city called the
capital of Canada?
Across the bridge, Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau are thinking about
getting together and forming one city. It is a great idea and there
will be savings. We will have fewer politicians to boot which is
what we need in this House and all across Canada, fewer
politicians.
The National Gallery of Canada, the National Library of Canada
and the National Archives of Canada add up to $129 million. That
is $2.9 billion, close to $3 billion, which is recorded in the public
accounts, that we spend through Heritage Canada to promote
Canadian identity. That is to promote Canadian human
infrastructure and to communicate information about Canada
through the telecommunications medium.
Is that not enough? Should we not now be proud Canadians?
Should we not now be able to show all across Canada, across the 10
provinces with $3 billion that we are together and that we have it
together? No, it is not.
This government throws money at every problem, from Indians
to separatists to oil and gas people. It just throws money at
everything. It does not throw what is really important at the
Canadian public. What it does not throw is pride and the idea of
being proud to be Canadian. There are better commercials from the
private sector on being proud to be Canadian than what comes from
this government.
We have to start promoting Canadians. One thing this
government could do, which it does not have the guts to do-I
know that is a parliamentary word, I know I can use it because it
was used today in question period. This government and its Prime
Minister do not have the guts, they have the power. But the heritage
minister does not have the guts-yet she has the power-to do one
thing on our census form. One simple little thing that would shut
the separatists up. One simple little thing would bring us altogether
from coast to coast to coast and that is to allow us on our census to
put down Canadian, not Hungarian Canadian like I might have to
put down, not French Canadian, not English Canadian, not
Ukrainian Canadian, not German Canadian, not Polish Canadian
but Canadian. Why do we not do that? Why is it that the
government, with all its power, is too lazy and too stupid to do
something so simple and so common sense?
(1655)
We are all, first and foremost, Canadians, not French Canadian
or English Canadian or Canadians from Quebec. We can be proud
of the region we come from. We can be proud of our cultural
distinctions and our differences but we are Canadian. Why do we
not just put down Canadian? What would be wrong with that? How
much would that cost? Very, very little and this government will
not do it.
I have said that Heritage Canada spends close to $3 billion on
Canada, on Canadian identity and promoting this country. What
about bilingualism? The separatists sit here and say we are not
giving them enough. The Official Languages Commissioner claims
we spend at least $600 million, but that is ridiculous. We know the
cost of bilingualism is a lot higher. The cost is probably more like 5
per cent of the gross expenditures of the government which is about
$120 billion.
Therefore, it is safe to say that we spend a great deal on
bilingualism, on having everything in two languages and on
promoting French outside of Quebec and English inside of Quebec,
which the separatists do not want. The separatists believe in
democracy, freedom and respect. You can take Quebec out of
Canada but you cannot take anything out of Quebec. You can
protect language as long as it is French. You do not protect English.
That is hypocritical of this party. The cost of bilingualism promotes
Canadianism and Canada and is another expenditure that we have.
My main point is that the government has not done enough. It
has spent $3 billion in Heritage Canada. It has spent anywhere from
$600 million to $6 billion on enforcing official bilingualism.
In conclusion, national unity cannot be legislated. This fly a free
flag program was a disaster. Where was the Prime Minister on
Saturday? Where was the leader of this country? Where was his
pride? Was there nobody to strangle this weekend? Was there
nobody to get his hands on this weekend? Where was he? The
papers state he was out grocery shopping. Yes, right. Why was he
not proud of what his minister was doing?
National unity cannot be legislated. It cannot be done. You
cannot make the separatists happy. They have it in their minds that
they would be better off by themselves. They are not correct in that
assumption. We have to do more for Canadians in Quebec. Why
does the government, which has a lot of bilingual ministers, not go
in there and do more for Canadians in Quebec, more for the
anglophones and more for the francophones who want to stay in
Canada? Just to fly a flag is not enough. It is a failure. It was empty
rhetoric.
I would like to see Canada come together and stay together. The
start would be with the census where we would mark down our
origins as being Canadian. Everyone who is born here is Canadian
no matter from which province.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
heritage minister today made one of many announcements,
specifically about the fact that she is putting together a program for
schools.
I must say that I agree with my colleague from Beaver River, as I
do with my colleague from Calgary Centre, that we are proud
Canadians and that these symbols, these flags, these crests and all
of the information about the provinces are a very important part of
Canada. I applaud the minister for the intent that she is exhibiting
in making this kit available.
8219
However, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on
this. In our so-called paperless society, it is rather interesting that
all of the information is currently available from Industry Canada
by way of Internet. Probably the majority of schools at all levels in
Canada now have access to the World Wide Web, the Internet.
(1700)
They can retrieve from the Internet all the graphic material
which would include the flags, the coat of arms, all the provincial
crests and provincial flags, and all the background and data that the
teachers would require as teaching aids to tell our Canadian
children more about Canada. However, while that is at no cost, this
kit that the minister is putting together just by coincidence happens
to include a CD ROM and a video. Very clearly there is going to be
additional information on that.
I wonder if the member would agree that the probability is that
once again our heritage minister is going to be giving to the
students and teachers of Canada her own tiny perfect little vision of
what Canada is really about rather than simply providing the
information so that the people, the teachers and the students can
come to their own judgment and inform themselves accordingly.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for
the question. Certainly his comment and analysis of how you can
promote Canada and disseminate information at a lower cost is a
very valid one and I agree wholeheartedly with him.
It is clear in this whole fly a free flag program. A flag is
supposed to be a symbol and if you are proud of your country why
do you have to get a free one? Why not spend $15 and buy one?
One could still be proud to do it. I think that is something we could
have achieved for flag day and promoted.
The concept was a good one but it was going to cost $6 million,
then actually $17 million and then another program on how to
promote Canada, not knowing the cost. The cost could be in excess
of what is in her budget, although a $3 billion budget is pretty good
and there should some slush in a few places.
She said $6 million. It was finally $17.7 million with $2.2
million coming from the private sector, both corporate and
individuals, with donations. That is $11.7 million net cost to the
government. That is 195 per cent over budget. Obviously for this
minister what is a million, what is a hundred million or what is fifty
million?
In this promoting Canada and the failure of it, why when there
were two 1-800 phone numbers for drapeau and for flag the rest of
Canada subscribed to 89 per cent of the flags whereas in Quebec it
was only 11 per cent? Why is it that we cannot wake up Quebecers?
Why is it that we cannot wake up those Quebecers who want to stay
in Canada and get them to stay in Canada? Part of this education
program through the CD ROMs and computers should tell the facts
and the truths.
For four years in the in the high schools in the province of
Quebec they were teaching their Quebec students that with respect
to their contribution to equalization payments, they paid more into
Canada than they received when the facts were just the opposite.
They took more out of our $8.5 billion equalization payments. The
province of Quebec receives over half of that. They misrepresented
the facts and this government let them get away with it and that is
what I object to. It has the power, the knowledge and all it has to do
is make some decisions. It does not cost to fix what is right. It does
not cost a whole lot of money to be proud to be Canadian.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac-asbestos industry.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
share my time with the hon. member for
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle. I am happy to have the opportunity
to speak to the question raised by my colleague from
Richmond-Wolfe and to have a chance to correct some facts
mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
The expression the pot calling the kettle black is indeed one that
would apply in this instance in my opinion. I have listened to the
comments made by opposition members who feel it is a crime if
you admit that you are proud to be Canadian and a Quebecer. As a
Quebecer I am indeed insulted by the accusations that are being
made today.
Through its efforts of promoting Canadian identity the
Government of Canada is playing a crucial role in defining its
future. We are committed to strengthening Canadians' sense of
attachment to this country, as well as the links which unite them
from coast to coast. To that end we have given Canadian citizens an
increasing number of opportunities to learn more about their
country and to communicate among themselves and with the rest of
the world.
(1705)
Through dialogue and understanding we have succeeded in
building a society that is enriched by cultural diversity and two
official languages, a society that is open to the rest of the world and
facing the future head on.
8220
Be it through the Canada information office or the one in a
million national flag challenge program, the federal government
is proud to promote Canada's richness and diversity both here at
home and throughout the world.
[Translation]
If there is a subject on which the Bloc is ill-advised to criticize
our government it is that of government propaganda.
The Bloc Quebecois and its brother, the Parti Quebecois, have
mastered the art of political propaganda. For those two parties,
everything is a good vehicle for the promotion of their separatist
views. We could give a few examples of cases where the PQ
government and its sovereignist allies used public money to
promote their political option. This government and its partners
spent large amounts of money promoting their separatist option and
trying to obtain a Yes vote in the last referendum. All these
expenses, all this money wasted came out of the pockets of Quebec
taxpayers.
For the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, propaganda knows no price
or age limits. Whether it is producing new history books or
replacing students' workbooks with propaganda books, whether it
is sending pamphlets to senior citizens and those receiving social
assistance, postcards to all households in Quebec, press releases
and documentation to schools, material to professional
corporations, whether it is by stepping up the number of regional
tours, summits, consultations of all sorts, for these two separatist
parties, the end justifies the means.
However, when the government decides to respond and to
correct the inaccuracies being spread by the separatists, they come
out with charges of propaganda and misuse of public funds. When
the Government of Canada decides in turn to encourage national
pride, the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois charge propaganda and
misuse of public funds.
The Bloc Quebecois refuses to accept that the very great
majority of Quebecers love Canada and are happy to see the
Canadian government finally decide to promote Canada.
[English]
In the eyes of the Bloc it has become unthinkable that Quebecers
still wish to be considered Canadian. What do I tell the 518
constituents in my riding of Saint-Denis who asked to receive a
flag to display their pride in their country?
We received many phone calls for the Canadian flag. People are
still proud to display the Canadian flag in the riding of Saint-Denis
and all over the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
I will give a few examples of spending on sovereigntist
propaganda and, as I have said, the list is not exhaustive. First of
all, with respect to the use of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois
would be well advised to take a little look at what went on in
Quebec during the last two referendums.
In 1980, the entire government machinery was made available
for ``the cause''. Millions of dollars were spent on polls, when the
economic situation should have called for tighter control over
public spending.
In 1995, the entire government machinery was again put into
service, once again for ``the cause''. But sovereignists will use any
excuse to make such behaviour acceptable to the public.
This motion refers to budget cuts to cultural institutions that are
unprecedented in Canadian history.
The Government of Canada never dared use artists for political
ends as the Parti Quebecois did in the last two referendums. The
Government of Canada supports artists without ulterior motives
and without asking for their allegiance to any doctrine. For at least
30 years, the Government of Canada has maintained programs to
support cultural institutions and all Canadian artists willing to put
their talents to contribution in any artistic or cultural activity.
(1710)
In Quebec, it was not the Parti Quebecois but a Liberal
government that introduced the act recognizing the status of the
artist. The Bloc Quebecois would be well advised to look closely in
the mirror before making accusations like the ones it made today.
I would like to quote Lucien Bouchard, who said in 1994: ``I
would respect the flag of any country, and especially that of my
own country, which has been the flag of my ancestors for hundreds
of years. I must respect it''. We have numerous quotes fromMr. Bouchard when he was sitting in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite my own personal experience as
an example.
[English]
My parents arrived from Greece. I have lived for over 37 years in
this country. My parents chose Canada. This country has been good
to them. They love this country. They are proud Canadians. I am a
proud Canadian. Where else in the world would someone with my
modest background have had the opportunity to serve their fellow
Canadians in this respected institution which we call the House of
Commons?
For me and the majority of Canadians of Hellenic origin as well
as other Canadians of other origins, and the two are compatible for
my friends from the Reform Party, the flag is one symbol that
unites us. It is a symbol that tells us of the greatness of this country.
Every year I hold a Canada Day celebration in my riding. Over
1,000 proud Canadians of all origins and including French
Canadians participate in that event. We celebrate our flag and we
celebrate our country.
8221
I will continue to do so every July 1. That is my commitment
to my constituents. I will continue to show the flag, to show how
proud I am to be a Canadian, how proud I am of a symbol that
is respected internationally. Everywhere I travel people talk about
the greatness of this country. One of the symbols they have come
to know is our flag.
We will continue to live in a society that is tolerant and that
respects other opinions, but there is one thing that we will never
compromise on, the Canadian flag and the symbols that unite us
and the fact that we are and will continue to be proud Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have just
listened to our distinguished colleague from the Montreal region,
who told us about how her father came from Greece 37 years ago,
and how much her family appreciates life in Canada. I respect the
feelings she has shared with this House.
I would, however, like to ask her the following: she lives in
Quebec, she was brought up in Quebec, she speaks French and
English. Could she explain to us how she sees the Quebec culture,
how she sees the Canadian culture, and what distinction she makes
between the two?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I think I would need more than
one minute to respond to my colleague, if I have to explain my
pride in being a Quebecer, my pride at belonging to a distinct
culture, to use that term, one which I accept moreover.
I am proud to be a Quebecer, but I find that the two cultures are
compatible. There is no difference between being a Quebecer and
being a Canadian, for me they are the same thing. I can be a
Quebecer, and proud of it, I have lived in Quebec all my life and I
hope to continue living in the province of Quebec for the rest of my
days, as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian citizen.
Mr. de Savoye: What about culture?
Mrs. Bakopanos: For me, culture is where the beauty of Canada
lies. The beauty of Canada is that we have two cultures, and that we
can draw from the richness of both the Quebec culture and the
Canadian culture.
(1715)
What I find a bit odd is that Bloc members cannot appreciate the
cultures of Quebec and Canada and be proud to be both Quebecers
and Canadians.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member for St. Denis when
she referred, in English, to ``the pot calling the kettle black''. How
can Bloc members rise in the House and with a straight face say
things like ``Denounce the use of public funds''?
They object to our spending $15 million on promoting unity and
tolerance in this wonderful country, and they just spent $60 million
on a referendum that is divisive and hurts Quebec's economy. Talk
about a double standard.
I think that is appalling. I have friends among the First Nations,
and they would probably call this speaking with a forked tongue.
On one side, millions have been spent. The separatist movement,
which the Bloc supports, has infiltrated our schools and the CBC.
Millions have been spent. At this very moment, the Government of
Quebec is spending millions of dollars of federal money to promote
its independence option.
So I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud of my Canadian flag.
In recent years, I travelled in many countries, and people recognize
the Canadian flag and the symbol it represents. It is not recognized
because it has a nice maple leaf and it is red, although I am rather
fond of the colour red. This flag is known throughout the world for
what it represents: the best country in the world where tolerance is
a fact of life. And it is this tolerance, this unity we want to keep in
Canada and Quebec, because Quebec is still part of Canada.
I have my roots in Quebec as well. My ancestors arrived in
Quebec City in 1634 and 1658, respectively. My francophone
culture is not Quebec culture, not Franco-Ontarian but Canadian.
When we refer to Canadian culture, we are talking about
anglophone culture, francophone culture and the culture of all the
ethnic groups in this country.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his comments. In my speech I referred to what the PQ
government spent on government propaganda so I will not repeat
what I already said.
I believe we are all aware that public money is being spent for
purely partisan purposes. I think we saw many examples of this in
the last referendum. We can only hope that our Bloc colleagues will
think about all this, and I will repeat what I said, that I am proud to
be a Quebecer and a Canadian. I am proud to be both.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion by the member for
Richmond-Wolfe, I would first like to say that the Government of
Canada is taking a whole series of measures to promote Canada's
identity.
The Canada Information Office and the one in a million flag
campaign are only two of a multitude of measures the government
has taken to enable Canadians to express their pride and sense of
belonging to Canada.
Culture is the collection of ways we see ourselves belonging to a
group, a society and a country. It is not an abstraction outside
reality, but, rather, the vital link binding us each to the other. It is
therefore to be found at the heart of Canada's culture.
8222
As Canada's ninth largest industry, the cultural sector involves
some 670,000 jobs and creates revenues of $16 billion annually.
By promoting our cultural industries, we are achieving a twofold
objective: helping Canada's identity grow and Canada's economy
expand.
Like all the other sectors in society, the cultural sector has had to
do its part and come up with innovative solutions to meet the
challenges posed by the state of the economy.
(1720)
Even in times of cutbacks, the present government has taken
direct and indirect measures to strengthen the cultural sector and
promote cultural growth.
I am thinking of the television and cable fund for the distribution
of Canadian programs announced last September, among others.
Television is a unique vehicle for cultural programming and
occupies a large space in our lives. No other medium is so much a
part of our daily lives and has such sway over our leisure time than
television.
Television allows francophones, especially those who live
outside Quebec, to have direct access to French culture in this
country and to follow what is happening in the community and in
French Canada in general.
Television is a means of conveying values and realities specific
to francophones, even to promote the growth of the French
language. For minority francophones, the access to French
programming is, in some cases, a matter of survival.
Despite the need to have French-language Canadian content on
the air, only 30 per cent of French television dramas are produced
in Canada. Furthermore, it is estimated that about half of Quebec
children's programming is produced abroad.
We must expand our capacity to communicate our views on the
world to others in Canada and abroad in both official languages.
We must broadcast more television programs produced by
Canadians about Canadians for Canadians and the entire world. In a
multi-channel television world, it is also a matter of survival.
Without competitive quality Canadian programming, the Canadian
presence on the air will diminish gradually.
It is essential for Canadians to be able to watch programs which
they like and which reflect their reality. It is in this perspective that
the Government of Canada announced the creation of the Canadian
television and cable production fund for the production of
Canadian programs, which amounts to $200 million per year. This
fund is expected to produce $650 million worth of investments and
to create some 10,000 new jobs. As was announced a few days ago,
in addition to this new fund, the government will now provide
stable funding for the CBC.
These two measures will help boost the broadcasting industry in
Canada. They will generate new dramas, new variety programs,
new programs for children, new documentaries and new cultural
programs.
We are committed to supporting culture, and we will continue to
implement measures to promote it. These measures demonstrate
without a doubt that we are committed to supporting every aspect
of arts and culture, which is the cornerstone of our collective
identity.
Whether we are francophones or anglophones, whether we come
from Gaspé or Vancouver, we all have the same desires and the
same goals: we all want our culture to reflect what we are. The
measures taken by the government to support the cultural sector are
a direct contribution to the vitality of the two large linguistic
communities in this country.
Mr. Speaker, there are several ways to promote the development
of the Canadian identity. The Government of Canada may not have
all the answers but, even in a period of financial restraint, it is
taking critical steps to strengthen our identity and reaffirm our
presence within the international community, because the future of
our country is at stake.
(1725)
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to my colleague's speech. I believe he overlooked
several facts. He concealed some figures.
He did not mention the fact that his government has cut $20
million from the French radio network of the CBC, nor that it has
also cut $7.5 million from the Canadian centre for magnetic fusion
in Varennes. However, this same government found $23 million for
its heritage minister's flags. It also found $550,000 to celebrate the
50th anniversary of the Canadian citizenship and passport. I could
quote more figures in other areas where it failed to mention how it
is going about its propaganda activities.
In Canada and Quebec, we have artistic creators. Current
guidelines from Heritage Canada require that people wanting to
deal with Canada in that area do so not on the basis of their artistic
talents, in every aspect of artistic life, but on the basis of whether or
not their work promotes Canadian unity.
Their talents are evaluated according to their capacity to
strengthen Canadian unity. I ask my colleague if he believes that
using artists to promote Canadian unity is a good way to meet this
objective?
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my
colleague for his question. I agree that, in the present context, some
cuts are necessary.
I would like to remind my colleague that the funding for
Télé-Québec, the corporation which replaced Radio-Québec, has
been cut nearly by half.
8223
On the other hand, we in this government did not impose such
drastic cuts on Radio-Canada. We did make some cuts, but their
purpose was to ensure the survival and financial well-being of the
corporation. I refuse to say that we are not protecting our cultural
institutions.
When I look at what the Quebec government, Mr. Bouchard's
government did, when I see the extent of the cutbacks in the
cultural institutions' budgets, a 50 per cent cutback, I think there is
something seriously wrong with the system.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
anything else, I would like you to ask if we have unanimous
consent to put this motion to a vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We do not have
unanimous consent.
(1730)
Mr. de Savoye: I am truly sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had to check
the interest of my Liberal colleagues in this matter.
From a legal point of view, I am a Canadian; from a
constitutional point of view, I am a Canadian. But in my heart, I am
a Quebecer. This is the crux of the matter. How much money, how
many flags will Heritage Canada have to distribute to change the
deep feelings I have?
I travelled in a number of countries; I travelled in the rest of
Canada. When I am outside Quebec I see the cultural differences, I
see the difference in values, I see the difference in standards and
benchmarks. When I am outside Quebec I know that I am not
home, in the very deep sense of the term.
Yes, when I travel in Canada I am legally in that country given to
me by the Constitution, but it is a country where people speak and
think in English. The values are excellent, but different in their
form and substance from the ones we have in Quebec.
There is an Anglo-Canadian culture, different from the
American culture. I know, I have been on both sides of the border,
but this culture is not the culture found in Quebec. To tell you the
truth, I would be hard-pressed to name movie stars, singers, actors,
etc. from English Canada. I would not have the same problem with
Quebec artists. Why? Because I listen to radio programs from
Quebec, and they introduce us to artists from Quebec and the rest
of the French-speaking world; because I read in French and I soak
up what happens in the environment where I was raised and
educated, which is Quebec.
When I am on this side of the Quebec border, I certainly find a
friendly environment, with people with whom I can develop some
friendships, but who are not from my culture. These are people
with their own culture, and I am pleased to share in, to know and to
appreciate their culture, but it is not mine. How much money will
the minister of heritage have to spend to entice me to adopt a new
culture?
You understand that Canada does not have enough money to
change this culture that is deeply rooted in me. And if this is true
for me, it is also true for millions of Quebecers. No amount of
money will ever change this people and assimilate them into
another people. This is why the minister of heritage's work is
doomed to failure and this is in fact a waste of public money.
What I am saying is my case and the case of millions of
Quebecers, but not the case of all Quebecers. Earlier, the member
for Saint-Denis expressed an opposite opinion: she feels
comfortable in this English Canadian culture.
(1735)
This is what she feels and I cannot blame her for it. But the
opposite is also true. I cannot be blamed for my own feeling,
millions of Quebecers cannot be blamed for sharing this feeling.
On this side of the border, the culture is different and,
consequently, attitudes are different. A week ago today, I had the
opportunity to attend, in the Lester B. Pearson building, at the
Department of Foreign Affairs, a presentation by a panel of
American experts on the second mandate policies of the American
president, Mr. Clinton.
The masters of ceremony, of course an official from the
Department of Foreign Affairs, opened the meeting exclusively in
English. But at the registration table, we were welcomed in both
official languages. The documents handed out were bilingual, and
interpretation services were available in seven or eight languages.
French was naturally among these languages.
This meeting ran all morning and into the afternoon. There was a
question period scheduled for members of the audience. I was the
only one who got up and went to the mike to put a question in
French to our American guests, who were provided with
interpretation services of course. In fact, of the 75 or 100
Canadians in the room, I was the only one who questioned these
eminent panellists on the policy thrusts for Mr. Clinton's second
mandate regarding cultural issues in Canada.
You will understand that there are serious matters at issue here.
Take the matter of Sports Illustrated for instance. There is also the
dispute between the Minister of Industry and Telesat Canada, on
the one hand, and the American FCC, on the other hand, over who
will acquire two American satellites to be used for television
broadcast.
8224
Nobody but me raised this cultural question. It is important to
all of Canada, but I was the only one to raise it, and I did so in
French. I was not in my own country.
You will understand that the differences I perceive as I travel
across Canada are important enough to make me feel like anyone
who travels to a foreign country. Of course, I use the same
currency, Canadian money. Of course, I do not need a passport. But
I do not find myself among people who share my values, feelings
and nationality.
A little more than a century ago, Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe
Routhier composed the music and the lyrics of ``O Canada'', in
French. These lyrics referred to their francophone ancestors. The
translation in English came only later, and it does not render the
notions and the feelings of the original, but is rather a transposition
reflecting the values and the feelings of those of British ancestry.
(1740)
In so doing, already 150 years ago, they created two Canadas,
one of which is now called Quebec. How much more will the
Minister of Canadian Heritage have to spend to change this reality
which persists after 400 years, of which the first 150 were totally
French? The Minister of Canadian Heritage has invested a lot a
money to influence my heart.
For the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag,
300 of the 600 billboards were put up in Quebec, while the other
300 were scattered throughout Canada. In that sense, we were
already distinct.
An amount of $1.1 million was allocated to heritage moments, or
heritage minutes, designed by the Charles Bronfman Foundation,
but $2.2 million was paid. For the Canadian identity, we are talking
about $3 million; for the operation unity, during the referendum
campaign, the Privy Council was allocated $11 million; the
Council for Canadian Unity received $8.4 million, while the
Canada Information Office, which was funded by Heritage Canada,
got $19.5 million. The one million flag operation cost $23 million;
operation unity cost $5 million; the Attractions Canada spots
currently shown on the TVA and CTV networks cost $1.5 million.
All these figures add up to $100 million. And let me tell you this:
even after spending $100 million, the heritage minister has not
managed to change one bit the feelings that make me a Quebecer.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that, in my opinion, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage is using all these resources to deny Quebec's
specificity and to make it a Canadian region like any other. You
will understand that, after spending $100 million, the minister still
has not succeeded in her attempt.
As for the language issue, the government is trying to hide its
failed Canadian policy. All the key federalist players deny the fact
that francophones outside Quebec are being assimilated-thank
goodness there are some left, thank goodness they are taking their
destiny into their own hands, and thank goodness Quebec will
always support them. However, the fact is there were many more
10, 20 or 100 years ago.
The goal of the Canadian language policy is no longer to
preserve and promote the linguistic duality but, it seems, to make
Canada a bilingual country for francophones, which will eventually
lead to their assimilation.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for culture and
communications. She is in charge of official languages, national
parks, historic monuments and sports. Parliament created that
department to put together all the areas relating to the promotion of
the Canadian identity, to which I do not relate and never will.
(1745)
Here are four examples of Ottawa's attitude toward Quebec
culture, a culture which, as far as the federal government is
concerned, does not seem to exist. First of all, the passage of the
Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, which
provides that the Department of Canadian Heritage shall initiate,
recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies,
projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and
values, cultural development and heritage.
On both sides, existing values are excellent and impressive, but
they are different and consequently should be treated differently
and distinctly with all due respect, through appropriate
mechanisms developed by the people who espouse these values.
After the referendum, the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage held hearings to help promote Canadian unity and
Canadian identity. The committee invited major Canadian cultural
institutions to testify about their activities to promote Canadian
unity and asked citizens to suggest activities that would reinforce
Canadian identity and unity.
Merging these two cultures is sheer fantasy. Quebec culture is
fundamentally distinct from the culture of the rest of Canada. And
perhaps there are a number of cultures in the rest of Canada that are
just as distinct, if we consider the aboriginal people.
A third example: the director of the National Gallery in Ottawa,
Shirley Thomson, made a submission to the committee without a
single reference to the visual arts of Quebec. Believe it or not, John
Harvard, who chaired the committee and only speaks English,
commended her for remaining silent on the subject.
My fourth and last point is this. The director general of the
Canada Council, Roch Carrier, was scolded by committee members
8225
because the council awarded a grant to Marie Laberge, a
sovereignist artist who co-wrote the preamble to the sovereignty
bill.
My point is that as far as culture and values are concerned, it is
impossible-and history has shown this to be the case with even
the smallest groups on this planet- to change the values by which
we live, to assimilate a population and especially a population like
Quebec, which has been around for 400 years and is developing by
leaps and bounds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your attention, and I hope
that what I just said will help my colleagues in this House
understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is wasting public
funds.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for
Timiskaming-French River.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, which
were, in my opinion, at times, anecdotal and personal.
(1750)
I would like the member to tell us what these values are. He talks
of Quebec values, of Canadian values. Canadian values are
universal: those of tolerance, sharing, equality among Canadians. I
think this has given the country its strength for these many years.
I agree that Canada is in a league of its own. The member
opposite will agree with me, as do most people on this planet, that
Canada is nevertheless a success. I recognize that the program of
the department of cultural affairs cost nearly $20 million.
I would ask the member to explain the dramatic costs of
Quebec's separation from Canada and the divisions it would create.
Walls are tumbling down these days. The focus is on unifying and
sharing in every respect, not only in terms of trade, but in terms of
values as well. These Canadian values are part of our daily lives.
We hear international commentators saying that they would like
to have lived in Canada. Our standard of living, our economic
successes are the envy of many.
It is sad to hear people criticizing Canadian values. Canada is a
success compared to other countries. The United Nations has said
so on a number of occasions. We can go as far back as Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, who said, a little over 100 years ago, that the overriding
thought in his life was to reconcile the various elements of this
extraordinary country. The combining of these various forces is
what made Canada into what it is today.
I hope the member opposite will remember that these values are
universal and that they have served not only all of Canada, but
Quebecers especially.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I
have never, ever, put down Canadian values. They deserve respect,
but these are values that belong to the rest of Canada. Quebec has
its own cultural values, as every nation has. There are no values
with a capital V that are universal. Even the French have values
that are different from ours. The fact that we speak the same
language does not necessarily mean that we share the same values.
The Americans speak English and so do English Canadians. Do
they have exactly the same values? No, there are some differences,
just as there are similarities, I am sure. There are, of course, values
that transcend cultures. Tolerance is one value that we share, I
agree.
But when I discuss our cultural foundations and our vision with
my English speaking colleagues, given their cultural baggage, they
sometimes see certain values differently than I do. This difference
is normal and natural, and I respect it.
What I ask is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to show the
same respect and stop stubbornly spending tens of millions of
dollars on eliminating these differences. The richness of our
respective cultures would suffer. These differences must remain.
We must remain who we are. We must develop a new co-operative
approach and partnership. Sovereign states sharing certain
responsibilities seems like a modern alternative to the old approach
that does not work.
(1755)
Earlier, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine indicated how prosperous a
country Canada was. You must agree with me that, for a time,
Canada did seem to be a prosperous country, but that was only
because of endless borrowing, resulting in this accumulated debt
we have today, totalling approximately $600 billion. Any country
ill-advised enough to accumulate such a huge debt would become
the best place in the world to live in.
At present, in all our ridings, and I am sure this situation exists in
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine as well, some people can
barely afford three square meals a day. There are children who go
to school hungry. This country we call Canada is not the best place
in the world to live in for these people. Such situations should not
exist.
During that time, approximately $100 million was spent on
trying to swallow up Quebec's culture. That is a waste of time and
money and, more importantly, it is money that would be better
spent helping the most disadvantaged in our society.
I think I have made my point. The hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will certainly agree with me
that there are people in his riding who could use this money.
8226
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf is right when he says that
Canada's current prosperity is largely the result of loans we have
a hard time paying back.
I want to tell my colleague, and the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, that this prosperity was
generated by the work of Canadians and Quebecers; it is not related
to the confederation. Canada's prosperity should not be used as an
argument in favour of the federation. We all know other federations
which are definitely not prosperous, such as Russia or the former
Yugoslavia.
There is no causal link between the political system of this
country and its prosperity. It is work, the work of the people, that
generated this prosperity. So, let us stop raving about this
prosperity and use it as an argument in favour of federalism.
If you cut a cake into two pieces, the pieces are as good after as
they were before the cake was cut. If we split Canada into two
parts, will Quebec and the rest of the country be less prosperous?
The answer is no. So, let us cut the cake into two pieces, let each
one have a piece, let us remain friends, and let us stop raving about
how good the cake was before it was shared. It will be just as good
after it is shared.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier, the hon. member for Portneuf talked about wasting
time and money. The biggest waste of time and money for
Quebecers was to elect 50 some members from the Bloc
Quebecois.
These members have been sitting here for about three and a half
years. I did some quick calculations. I figured that, over the last
three years, they collectively spent, in salaries, budgets for their
ridings and transportation, some $100 million, all this on purely
separatist propaganda.
The only motion which I could support today in this House
would be: ``That this House condemn the use of public funds by the
Bloc Quebecois on purely separatist propaganda activities''.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, whatever amount we cost the
public purse, each of us costs exactly the same as any member of
this House.
However, the money used to pay for my salary and for the
operation of my office comes from my constituents who elected me
with 54 per cent of the votes. That is democracy. If my hon.
colleague opposite cannot respect the fact that 53 members of the
Bloc were democratically elected according to the rules of this
Parliament and of this Canada to whom we belong legally and
constitutionally and which also govern the way he was elected
himself, if there is a double standard allowing him to sit here
because the rules are good for him whereas they are not good for us
and we are not entitled to sit here, then he should say so and
assume that Quebec would be better off forming a country of its
own.
(1800)
In any case, that is what we want. We are asking for it, we are
waiting for you to grant it to us, and if you refuse to do so, then the
people, by way of a referendum, will demand it.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too was elected by 60 percent of my constituents to serve
Canada in this House. That is what I intend to do.
I would like to address the House today to set the record straight.
I want to talk about the exceptional measures taken recently to help
francophones in this country develop culturally. It is true that the
arts and culture sector in Canada has suffered cutbacks, on both the
anglophone and francophone sides. You know this better than
anyone: the economic situation in which we find ourselves requires
that the government reduce spending. It has no other choice. This is
the case for Canada and it is the case for all other countries in the
world, including Quebec, more about which, which is now up
against new international stakes.
All sectors in society, including the cultural sector, must look at
the situation and carry their share of the load. Canada's prosperity
depends on it. But let us be clear: there is no question of the
economic development of our country moving ahead to the
detriment of our culture and our collective identity.
Above all, the Government of Canada has no intention of
weakening without due cause a sector as important as culture,
which alone contributes $30 billion to the Canadian economy and
represents almost 900,000 direct jobs, even less so in this time of
expanding markets and borders when the cultural vitality of a
country is a key to success and to the future.
Francophones share in this cultural wealth that makes Canada so
unique and so successful. One quarter of the population speaks,
sings, writes and lives in French, including my community in
northern Ontario. From our earliest history, francophones have
constituted an influential force that has contributed to the growth of
this country, culturally, socially and economically.
In this context, the government's commitment to francophone
communities in minority situations takes on its full significance.
The government wants to help its communities meet the challenges
of their situation so that they can continue to take part in Canada's
development and help strengthen its cultural identity.
Francophones outside Quebec recently expressed their concerns
regarding government cuts to the CBC. They were worried that
these cuts would have adverse effects on regional programming.
8227
We know how important it is for these communities to have
access to French language broadcasting that reflects their values,
presents their perspective on the world and enables them to
communicate with each other. For those who are most isolated,
it is nothing less than a matter of survival.
Aware of this reality, the CBC and the government took the
necessary decisions. Last January, the CBC announced a series of
measures to reduce the impact of these cuts on French language
programming outside Quebec.
First, the four western television stations will give up the news
cast Ce soir. In addition, regional stations will continue to produce
children's, news and special broadcasts focusing on events of
importance to these communities.
Second, the CBC will make available to independent producers
and community groups of the Acadian community in the maritimes
a mobile T.V. unit to cover cultural and community events. It will
also provide a $500,000 line of credit.
Third, the sum of $500,000 will be set aside for the most affected
radio stations outside Quebec, those in Vancouver, Edmonton,
Regina and Windsor, in order to augment the content of local
broadcasting.
(1805)
I remind everyone that radio stations serving minority
francophone communities were less affected by the cuts than other
CBC radio stations on the average throughout the country.
In a press release dated January 30, the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne, a national coalition of
nine provincial and two territorial francophone associations,
praised the efforts of the CBC. It said: ``This reorganization
demonstrates that the CBC is becoming increasingly attuned to the
needs of the communities in the various provinces, as well as to its
mandate to those communities''.
Subsequent to this, the Government of Canada also made two
major decisions which will help the CBC fulfil this mandate. It
announced that it would be giving an additional $10 million to the
French and English language services of CBC radio.
According to Marcel Pépin, Vice-President CBC French
language radio, this will enable radio to better fulfil its primary
missions: to support talent, maintain information systems which
are strongly anchored in the regions, and properly reflect regional
voices on the AM and FM networks.
One piece of good news follows another. Starting April 1, 1998,
the government will guarantee stable financing to the CBC for the
next 5 years, in keeping with the announcement it made less than a
week ago.
In addition, a new television and cable production fund has been
created for the production of Canadian programs, totalling $200
million yearly, and now accessible to the CBC.
I hardly need to point out that these announcements were
received with a great deal of joy by the francophone communities
in this country. Canada's cultural vitality must of necessity include
the cultural development of its francophe population. French
speaking Canadians have shaped the history of this country, and
they lend a singular face and a special voice to Canada. That is
why, despite the financial restrictions facing it, the government has
intervened to strengthen the cultural foundations of the
francophone communities outside Quebec.
To touch the culture of a country is to touch its very soul. On the
eve of a new millennium, we are becoming increasingly aware of
the necessity of using every possible means to strengthen the soul
of this country. All of these measures, and those the government
plans to take in future to safeguard Canadian culture, are paving the
way to the Canada of tomorrow.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to put a question to my hon. colleague, the member
from northern Ontario.
In this country, there are two founding nations; it is a little bit
like a couple. You cannot buy love. I recall that on October 27,
1995, people in the party opposite spent an inordinate amount of
money on a sudden show of love for the Quebec people. Tens of
thousands of people from Ontario and New Brunswick converged
on Place Canada, downtown Montreal. Even the airlines were
asked to do their share. People were supposed to suddenly show
their love.
Twelve month later, there was an attempt to repeat the
performance, but this time the airlines and the Liberal Party of
Canada were not asked to contribute. The result: hardly 225 people
showed up to profess their love for the Quebec people.
(1810)
Was it love for one day or love for ever? Quebecers will not be
bought with flags, biased information, information that sounds like
the kind of propaganda that could be heard on the airwaves in
Europe at a certain time.
I must commend my hon. colleague, the member for
Richmond-Wolfe, for his motion. I would like to read the part I
am interested in. As he said so rightly a little while ago, the
government must reduce its expenditures. It has been cutting
everywhere except in the area of propaganda.
The member for Richmond-Wolfe wrote:
8228
That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda
activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and
the One Million Flags Operation-
Finally, I would like the member to tell me how it is that his
government has been had by Robert Gillet? While on the air on his
Quebec radio show, he dialled the infamous number
1-800-DRAPEAU and said he was Bob Sweater. He ordered
thousands of flags to fly on every cottage on both sides of the Saint
Lawrence River, from Quebec City to Gaspé. Thousands of flags
were actually shipped.
They had to give get rid of these infamous flags; the magic
number was one million and there are 30 million of us. This means
that one Canadian in 30 had to receive a flag. Robert Gillet, alias
Bob Sweater, received several thousands of them. Sirs, you have
become the laughing stock of Quebecers.
We are in the thick of budget cuts. Try to explain to your
government that it is currently squandering public funds on
propaganda activities that are underhanded, disgusting and verging
on the ridiculous.
Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed one of those Canadians
who travelled to Montreal in 1995. I did it with pride, and I would
gladly do it again tomorrow. I went back there afterwards too. It
has not been just a one day love affair, as you say. I do not believe
in the love of one night, also called a one night stand.
I went back to beautiful Quebec City. And I have to tell you I
visit Quebec City with the same pride I feel when I visit the
Rockies, Vancouver or the maritimes. Each summer, I spend a
week down there visiting my Acadian brothers and cousins.
Incidentally, I met the hon. member there.
Let me say just this. We did not go to Montreal just to tell
Quebecers we love them, but also to undo some of the
misinformation by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. I
visited Jonquière, not far from Mr. Bouchard's riding. I asked about
200 people how many French speaking Canadians they thought we
have in Ontario: 5,000, 10,000, or 50,000?
When I told them 50,000, they were amazed and would not
believe there were more than 10,000, because that is what they had
been told by the separatist propaganda. When I told them there
were 600,000 francophones in Ontario, and that 400,000
anglophones had learned French, they would not believe me. One
million people speak French in Ontario, and they are not even
aware we exist, and they want to make an informed decision on the
future of this country. This is the problem we have in Canada.
There is a lack of communication.
(1815)
Quebecers are ill-informed by the media which are very often
separatist but work with federal money. That is why it is so
important that the federal government should make sure
Quebecers and all Canadians are proud of their flag and have all the
information they need if another referendum is ever held, so that
Quebecers can make an informed decision. This time you will be
soundly beaten.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): With your propaganda.
Mr. Serré: I would rather use public funds for propaganda to
promote pride in this country-and I am proud of it-than to
promote separation and job loss.
My colleague, the member for Portneuf, just said that there are
children who still live in poverty and suffer. I admit this is true. It is
true in Quebec and outside. But the problem may now be more
serious in Quebec because of the separatist option which hinders
job creation and economic recovery in that province and elsewhere
in Canada.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member who
just gave an impassioned speech. He spoke with a lot of conviction
about the Canadian francophonie and, of course, the preservation
of Quebec within the Canadian federation.
However, I want to point out that the promotion of a sovereign or
an independent Quebec is hurting Quebec and is worrying some
people, including investors. We must ensure that the people know
the full cost of independence.
We talked about the unemployed young people in my riding and
the economic problems we have, which are, indeed, very serious. If
we do not have the opportunity to address the concerns of our
people it is mainly because of the political instability which is
being propagated and pursued by the Parti Quebecois and also
because of the presence of the Bloc Quebecois here, in Ottawa.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member argues that political instability is hurting the economy, but
what about Team Canada's missions in countries where human
rights are violated? What about these missions in countries where
the political system is almost undemocratic and even in some cases
totalitarian? This is going too far.
We have to tell it like it is. Federalism comes with a price that
the province of Quebec has been paying for the last 150 years.
Federalism comes with a price tag that has reached an unacceptable
level, and sovereignty is the option supported by the province of
Quebec, which is asking the rest of Canada to set up a new
framework called a partnership. This framework would be
particularly well defined, absolutely negotiable and would put an
end to any so-called political instability.
It takes two to create instability. As long as this problem is
maintained by our federalist friends, it will not go away. The only
way to settle it is to opt for a partnership where the province of
Quebec will become sovereign and take its responsibilities, and
where Canada will do the same. Only then will we be able to face
8229
the problems of the 21st century, instead of trying to deal with
problems left over from the 19th century.
[English]
Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Frontenac a while
ago was talking about love of one night.
Mrs. Picard: On parle tous français ici. Ceux qui t'écoutent
parlent français et comprennent le français.
Mr. Serré: It is my right, Madam, to speak English or French in
this country, and I prefer at this point to address the House in
English. Please have the decency to accept that.
(1820 )
The member for Frontenac was referring to a love of only one
night. I think the member for Portneuf is talking about having a
separation, a divorce, because the family is not working anymore.
After that he said ``We want to get back together. We want to
remarry. We will get divorced but we want to keep not only
alimony from Canada but also bed privileges''. I say that they
cannot have it both ways.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think there is very little time left in this
House. I can assure you that Quebec will be part of the Canadian
Federation for still a very long time because I can feel things are
changing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gagnon: Things are changing in Quebec. I feel the will of a
new generation. The will not of the old generation, not of these
backward-looking people, but of a new generation that has taken
the opportunity to travel, to explore, to exchange, to find new ways
to communicate, new ways to create jobs, to open up to new
horizons often unexploited.
You know, the great Canadian project meets the real needs of the
people. Lucien Bouchard came to my constituency in the Magdalen
Islands to announce a $200,000 grant for a small project there. As
for us, we invested $1.5 million to send workers back to school, to
develop programs, to train a new generation of workers. That is
what the Canadian government wants; that is what the people want:
to put Canadians back to work.
I hear them in the House talk about telecommunications, and the
electronic highway, but, as you may know, my constituency has the
greatest number of netsurfers in all of Quebec. More than eight
villages are on the net. This is not the case, unfortunately,
throughout Quebec. Through federal programs, thanks to the
Canadian government, these new community centres are linked to
the Internet. I hope they will be able to create long term jobs in my
riding.
Unfortunately, there is always some lag time in communications.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
recognize that, as usual, our colleague is brilliantly doing his thing
but I think he is not speaking on the motion and therefore is out of
order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I have no doubt that the
hon. for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will soon speak to the
motion and that his remarks will surely be similar to others made
during debate this afternoon.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight, so to speak, these
values. And one of the great values of our Canadian federation is
taking care of the needy. It is also to say the truth and, often, to
denounce iniquities, injustices frequently committed by the
government of Quebec.
Of course, I sometimes speak as someone in opposition, but
what concerns us most is not propaganda, it is not flags, it is to put
people back to work. And I believe that we must tell this to
Quebecers, we must condemn the opposition once and for all, by
saying that there are costs-
[English]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I will now speak in English. Maybe
I will be better understood by the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I appreciate whatever he is
saying but obviously he did not get the point you made, that he
would eventually come to the motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): As I said earlier, today's
debate has been quite general, at least while I occupied the chair.
I have no doubt that the hon. member who is making remarks
concerning national unity, which really has been the topic of
today's debate during most of the time I occupied the chair, is
making his remarks are on the same subject and that directly he
will be moving on to the subject of the motion.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, one must conclude that the hon.
member of the opposition has not understood anything because
Quebecers said no on two occasions. I wanted to remind him of
that.
(1825)
I think that we must make sure that Quebecers and the rest of
Canadians gain a better understanding of the way the Canadian
federation works. Our system is not perfect, I admit, but I believe
that it is our duty to explain to the people how our federation works
and to promote exchanges between Canadians.
8230
I do not think that we must put up obstacles. I do not think that
we must isolate Quebec from the rest of Canada or from the
international mainstreams. I think that sometimes, we must spend
all the money that is necessary. Some people may not like it, but
some others are happy with it and I believe that the ultimate goal
is to make sure that for Quebecers, the sovereigntists do not take
over the debate without being challenged in their assertions.
I think that it is worth mentioning the millions spent by the
Quebec government in nonrecurring or special projects, like the $4
million that went to the Conseil de la souveraineté, to which I often
allude, the $300,000 spent on the 1-800-INDEPENDANCE toll
free line, and the $8.5 million used to finance the separatist
commissions and the sovereignty commissions just before the
referendum.
That opposition that is suppose to be the loyal opposition is not
so loyal to Canada after all. This is not the case. These people have
used most of their time dismantling the Canadian federation, and I
believe and hope that the figures provided by the opposition and the
things it says will be put in the proper context, based on clear
explanations of the benefits of the Canadian federation to the
people of Quebec.
I know of no government, be it in England, Germany or France,
which would not do anything in its power to preserve the unity of
its country. I believe we have shown an exemplary tolerance. We
are not propagandists, but people who wish to share true
information. We want a balanced debate. I believe that the primary
goal of the Department of Cultural Affairs and of this government
is to make sure that the truth is known. The reason we are here in
this Chamber is to discuss a substantive issue. We talk about the
Canadian flag, Canadian colours and Canadian history.
I wish to talk about the future and about employment. Now, we
all know that the future lies within the Canadian federation and not
outside as the opposition claims.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
distinguished colleague-
Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, I think that this discussion is being
conducted on my time, and we already had two interventions. I did
not have the opportunity to answer the hon. member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): As I indicated, there are
two minutes left for questions or comments. As we all know, it is
customary for the first question or comment following a speech to
go to an hon. member from a different party, and this is the reason
why I recognized the hon. member for Frontenac who now has the
floor for one minute.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for playing
Solomon. That is perfect, one minute for me and one minute for the
hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
When I met the constituents of the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, on three occasions, these very
warm people told me: ``This is strange, you are coming to visit us,
but we never see our own MP''.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. These are
allegations. I can tell you that I go there every month and I do not
think it is appropriate for the hon. member to discuss the problems
in my riding. I can assure you that I look after my constituents'
interests and I believe that they will be the judges of that.
Things like the Irving Whale, the $1.5 million invested in the
Magdalen Islands, the new ferry soon to be put in service, will
remind people that the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is working hard on their
behalf, for their well-being.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Debate is now closed. It
being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings
on the motion have expired.
_____________________________________________
8230
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday, I asked the Prime Minister about his visit to France on
January 22 and 23.
In my first question, which was very straightforward, I asked the
Prime Minister to tell the House about the outcome of his
representations with his counterpart, Alain Juppé, concerning the
safe use of asbestos. By way of an answer, the Prime Minister
merely pointed to some facts known to everyone, namely, the
announcement during a press conference of France's refusal to
reconsider its position on the asbestos issue.
In a supplementary question, following the answer given by the
Prime Minister, that I considered totally inadequate, I asked for a
simple explanation about the Liberal government's stubborn
refusal to go to arbitration before the WTO.
As early as last December, I had raised this alternative with the
minister of international trade and the Prime Minister. Almost
three months later, the government is starting to examine the issue
more seriously. I was hoping the Prime Minister, despite his
inability to adequately manage this crisis, which goes way beyond
the trade dimension, could have given at least one good news to the
asbestos people. On the contrary, the Prime Minister seems to lose
8231
total interest in the issue and only gives vague interpretations of
our regional realities.
I would like to know the underlying reasons behind the Liberal
government's refusal to take serious steps to make France respect
its commitments to the WTO and the OTI. France is violating a
significant trade commitment based on a single report, the
scientific bias of which seems basically flawed.
In fact, this past January, the Royal Society of Canada made
public its analysis of the INSERM report which clearly
demonstrated that the basic premises of the French specialists no
longer reflected the current reality of asbestos handling methods
and the safety aspects.
The Liberal government is unwittingly losing all of the
opportunities available to it to preserve more than 2,000 jobs in
such a vital sector of our economy. What could the underlying
motivations of the cabinet possibly be to explain this chronic
hesitancy to draft a concrete action strategy to deal with the French
government?
During the 80's, Canada dared confront the US on the same
questions. Today, it refuses to get involved in a process which
could enable the asbestos industry to gain some exemptions from
the French decision.
The Bloc Quebecois has been calling, ever since this crisis
began, for a structured intervention from the Liberals. We are still
waiting for even the foundation of such a structure. The
government, and the Prime Minister and his minister of
international trade in particular, are settling for saying over and
over that negotiations are under way. The people in the asbestos
mining region are concerned, and the government's
shilly-shallying is not enough for them.
I am therefore making a formal request to the government to
initiate as quickly as possible a procedure to contest France's ban
on asbestos before the World Trade Organization.
If the asbestos mines were located anywhere but Quebec, would
the response have been as vigourous as the government's response,
past and present, to defend Sherritt's interests in Cuba in relation to
the ban under Helms-Burton?
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during his visit to Paris on January 22 and 23,
the Prime Minister raised Canada's concerns over the French ban
with both the French prime minister and the French president.
During the same visit, the Minister of Industry provided the
French authorities with a copy of the report from the Royal Society.
This study, commissioned by the Canadian government, raises
some important questions regarding the report from the Institut
national de la santé et de la recherche médicale which is used by
the French authorities to justify its asbestos ban. Prime Minister
Juppé has agreed to have its experts examine the Royal Society
report.
The federal government meets regularly with the Quebec
government, the industry and the unions to develop a common
approach in addressing the French ban on asbestos use, as well as
its potential effects in other markets. This is in line with the
concerted action plan agreed upon on July 24, 1996 by all the
parties.
The federal government has raised this important issue at the
highest levels in France. I anticipate that all interested parties will
continue to play their respective roles in this jointly managed file.
As an example of that concerted approach, our missions
facilitated the current meetings by the Quebec minister for
international affairs in Germany, Belgium and the U.K., where the
asbestos issue will be raised, as well as his upcoming visit to
Senegal and the Ivory Coast.
The Canadian Minister of Natural Resources is also writing to
her Quebec counterpart on a memorandum of understanding with
the industry on the responsible use of asbestos.
We are also invoking our rights under the World Trade
Organization to address the French ban. As a first step we formally
asked the French government on January 27 to justify the ban under
the technical barriers to trade agreement. France's reply will help
us in assessing the asbestos ban in the context of France's WTO
obligations.
Pending that reply, it is premature at this stage to discuss other
options available to Canada under the WTO. When all relevant
information on that file will have been gathered with the help of the
Quebec government, the industry and the unions, the Minister for
International Trade will decide on any further action.
Meanwhile, it is irresponsible to discuss publicly any strategy
with regard to further WTO actions, as it could prove harmful to
the asbestos industry and its related jobs in the region.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The motion to adjourn to
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 6.38 p.m.)