Debates of Dec. 14th, 1994

Motions For Papers

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to defer the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Therefore, the vote is deferred until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the other notices of motions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended today by 13 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).

Because of the notice provision the House would require the unanimous consent of all members to proceed now with Bill C-53. I wonder if there is unanimous consent.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In viewing the motions on the Order Paper this morning I noticed a misprint in Motion No. 12. It should have read: "That Bill C-53 be amended in clause 7" and not clause 4 as it is reported. I would like the assurance that this will be corrected in Hansard .

[The Deputy Speaker]

So done, and I thank the hon. member.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is a long ruling and I understand copies will be available for anyone who wishes to have it in writing, almost instantly if not already. There are 27 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-53.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 21 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 8 applies to Motion No. 10; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No.

8 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 21; (c) on the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 8 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; (i) a vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motion No. 9; and (ii) a vote on Motion No. 5 applies to Motion No. 21.

Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows:

(a) Motion No. 11 will be voted on separately.

(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 13.

(c) On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 12 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 13.

Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 14 applies to Motions Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 19; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 14 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 17; (c) on the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 14 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 17.

Motions Nos. 20 and 23 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 20 applies to Motion No. 23.

Motion No. 22 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 24 applies to Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27.

I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 21 to the House.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 24, on page 1, and lines 1 and 2, on page 2, with the following:

"4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating a ) to Canadian identity and the identity of Quebec; b ) to the values, cultural development and heritage of Canada and of Quebec; and c ) to areas of natural or historical significance to Canada or Quebec.

(2) The Minister shall not exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by the Act, unless the Minister has received the approval of the government of every province where a ) the government of the province has enacted legislation or established a provincial program in a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction under subsection (1); or b ) the government of the province has notified the Minister in writing of its intention to enact such legislation or to establish such a program.''

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 8, on page 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 9, on page 2.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 11, on page 2, the following: c .1) copyrights;''.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended replacing lines 16 to 18, on page 2, with the following: e ) national historic sites, national battlefields, heritage''.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended replacing lines 23 to 27, on page 2, with the following: g ) the promotion of language policies centred

(i) on freedom of speech,

(ii) on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in the other provinces,

(iii) on recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, and

(iv) on recognition of bilingualism where the number of citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision to them of services in both official languages;".

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing new paragraph (2)( j ), with the following: j ) the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment;''.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-53, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 43, on page 2, and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"5.(1) Subject to subsection (2), in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by section 4, the Minister shall initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and the identity of Quebec, Canadian values, cultural development and heritage and the values, cultural development and heritage of Quebec and areas of natural or historical significance to Canada or to Quebec."

(2) The Minister shall not exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions referred to in subsection (1), unless the Minister has received the approval of the government of every province where a ) the government of the province has implemented in the province a policy, project or program referred to in subsection (1); or b ) the government of the province has notified the Minister in writing of its intention to implement a policy, project or program referred to in subsection (1).''

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-53, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8, on page 8.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the amendments moved by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata and myself concerning Bill C-53, on the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I do so with pleasure, because the amendments proposed by the official opposition well reflect one of Quebec's traditional demands from the government in Ottawa. Indeed, the very essence of the proposed amendments-and we make no mystery of it-is the recognition of Quebec's cultural specificity and identity.

In so doing, we propose that the federal government and the House of Commons at the very least recognize the fields in which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. Once it has recognized them, we ask that it respect them.

Bill C-53 as written is seriously deficient, first of all, because it fails to recognize the existence of more than one national identity on Canadian territory. We refer in particular to clauses 4 and 5 concerning Canadian identity, Canadian values, Canadian culture and Canadian heritage.

I have already had the opportunity several times in this House to express my opinion that no unified Canadian culture exists, since efforts are still being made to define, discover and grasp it. We also note a glaring omission in the bill. Indeed, no mention is made of the Quebec and native cultures and identities. Why? For what secret reason is the government systematically ignoring those very real and important cultures? Is it to eliminate them? Is it to better promote a new product, as though this was a mere marketing strategy? There has to be a reason. Maybe some day we, mere mortals, will be worthy of that knowledge.

The vast majority of Quebecers do not agree with this legislation. Let me quote some testimony heard by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I will quote officials from Quebec organizations which represent a very large number of people, because their opinions carry more weight. I will start with the Mouvement Québec français, whose members are the Montreal Teachers Alliance, the Association québécoise des professeurs de français, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, the Mouvement national des Québécois, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, the Union des artistes, the Union des écrivains québécois and, last but not least, the Union des producteurs agricoles.

Together, these groups represent a very large segment of the Quebec population. Here is what their spokesman, Guy Bouthillier, had to say:

"In this bill, everything related to culture is labelled under the heading Canadian identity. Indeed, nowhere is there any reference to Quebec and its culture. From the federal government's point of view, there are only one culture and one identity: the Canadian ones. This will come as a surprise only to those who still believed that there was some basis-as well as some honesty on the part of those who oppose that notion-for the concept of a distinct society. This bill will at least have the merit of dissipating any lingering illusion. Beyond the fine rhetoric, there is the written word, the legislation, which will prevail in the end".

Needless to say, the Mouvement Québec français rejects this legislation.

François Rocher, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University in Ontario, said this: "The government's approach is part of an unfinished process to build a national identity by denying existing realities in Canada".

He went on to say that the only option that would be both acceptable to Quebec and potentially beneficial to the other

provinces of Canada would be to revert to the duality concept-at least in the case of Quebec-and to accept the political consequences of such a decision.

I may add that Professor Rocher submitted his analysis of the bill in his professional capacity and not as someone representing a nationalist organization from Quebec.

On the other hand, one of the best known organizations in Quebec is the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal, also a member of the Mouvement Québec français, as I mentioned earlier.

In their brief, they said, among other things, that they were firmly opposed to Canadian multiculturalism and to legislation that would enshrine intrusions by the Government of Canada into Quebec's cultural life. The culture of the people of Quebec must not be subordinated to the priorities of the culture of another people, the people of Canada. This bill is centralist in design and a threat to Quebec's distinct identity. It was a bill that would be forced down people's throats, over the almost unanimous objections of Quebecers to a concentration of authority over cultural matters in Ottawa and to a view of national identity that was designed to submerge Quebec's identity, according to the brief. It is all there, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that all intervenors from Quebec who examined this bill condemned the centralist vision underlying the federal government's intentions. The problem is not new. It has been with us for a long time. What surprises me is that these people are still willing to come to Ottawa to express their views as Quebecers. After years of struggle, one would expect them to stop trying. However, they are anxious for their friends in Canada to understand the differences that make Quebec distinct, a distinctness that will soon be expressed in a new status for Quebec, that of a sovereign state.

I want to take this opportunity to thank these people for spending all this time and effort to attend the committee's hearings. I want them to know their efforts were greatly appreciated.

I also want to mention the entirely unacceptable attitude of some committee members who consistently stayed away when witnesses from Quebec testified before the committee, which merely confirms the general lack of interest for Quebec's concerns. This attitude is reflected in the wording of the bill and has always been present in relations between Quebec and Ottawa. It is not just a lack of courtesy. It reflects a complete lack of interest and consideration. This is very sad.

Members from Canada had a chance to become better acquainted with their future neighbour. They did not take advantage of this opportunity and as a result may not understand that the purpose of our amendments is the very basis of our determined opposition on this bill. Another perfect example of the two solitudes, although the Minister of Canadian Heritage denied this when he appeared before our committee.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage to Bill C-53. I have proposed 14 amendments and present these as common sense changes. We are told the bill is a simple housekeeping matter, but I suggest this is not the case. The bill should not be passed in its present form and the amendments suggested will improve it.

The first glaring omission is the requirement by the department to submit an annual report. We have heard all the rhetoric from the Liberal side of the House on how accountable it is to Canadians, yet despite this it has neglected to include a clause requiring the department to explain its actions to Canadians.

The Auditor General has made it clear that Canadians and members of Parliament require more access to information about the operations of government than what was presently received. In light of this it is hard to understand why the government has chosen to move in a direction away from reporting of this kind.

We have heard in response to our concerns on this issue that information on the departments may be included in the estimates. However, this is unacceptable for a number of reasons. First, the estimates are prepared to outline in general terms the proposed spending priorities of the department, whereas an annual report provides information about how the money was spent. This is an important difference.

Second, an annual report will include a description of the plans and priorities for the future and an evaluation of whether former plans and priorities have been met. Such information is not contained in the estimates.

Third, the only assurance the House has that information which was formerly contained in the annual reports will be included in the estimates is a promise from the government-cold comfort indeed.

The bill is meant to streamline government and to get rid of bureaucratic redundancies. However consider the following. The inclusion of parks, natural marine conservation areas, historic canals and copyright create an array of confusion and wasted money.

During the review of the bill at committee we heard testimony regarding parks. The managing director of the association for mountain parks protection and enjoyment provided for the committee a balanced review of parks. His presentation did not promote a vision from either of the extremes on the issue. He did not promote a tree hugger approach to parks, which advocates a zero usage mandate for parks. Nor did he promote an industrialist approach, which advocates unsustainable parks use. The position suggested was one of compromise between industry and sustainability. He said: "Many Canadians have questioned why the government moved Parks Canada from the Department

of the Environment to a new and seemingly unfocused Department of Canadian Heritage. Over the previous 14 years Parks Canada had established a firm position within the DOE as the leader and innovator in matters affecting the environment. I have proposed an amendment which will delete from the bill all references to Parks Canada. This will allow us to move it to DOE where it belongs".

The same arguments can be made for natural marine conservation areas. Why should the Department of Canadian Heritage be responsible for natural marine conservation areas? It makes no sense. Presently transport looks after historic canals. I fail to understand why we are going to pass a bill that will add jurisdictional headaches, in this case specifically to canals. Again this is needless, wasteful duplication.

I have also proposed amendments which would have the effect of deleting from the bill the references to copyright which it now contains. As the American model demonstrates, the last thing that artists need is a bloated bureaucracy which fights over jurisdiction for copyright responsibilities. The most effective assistance to artists is to take the responsibility for copyright and to lay it squarely within one department. In this instance I believe that department to be industry.

Bill C-53 gives the minister jurisdictional powers over the promotion of greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms, related values and multiculturalism. No one would disagree with the nobility of the intent behind these statements, just as no one would disagree with the statement that racism is bad.

However, our concern remains with the number of ministers responsible for these programs. Presently they are covered by immigration, justice, health, heritage and who knows how many others. This kind of administrative overlap is wasteful and needless.

We have proposed an amendment which would transfer to the regions responsibility for national languages. When reviewing the bill at committee we heard a number of witnesses who criticized the federal government's language policy. The Liberals did not call a single witness to defend the policy. This can only be because it is so hard to find someone to defend it.

Regarding language policy, we recommend the bill include a clause which would read the minister has jurisdiction over the promotion of language policies centred first on freedom of speech, second on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in other provinces; third on recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada; and fourth, on recognition of bilingualism where the number of citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision of services in both official languages.

The Prime Minister has stated that in order to help bring the deficit down he wishes to replace duplication within the provinces. The amendment will do just that. It recognizes that the primary responsibility for languages should remain in the regions and the provinces.

Members of my party have been pointing out the wasteful spending of special interest grants since we arrived in this House and for seven years before our arrival. Clause 7(a) of the bill gives the minister the authority to issue grants, contributions and endowments.

The amendment I present finally puts an end to the special interest funding that Canadians have come to resent. The only people who defend these grants are those who receive them. Surely their opinions should be questionable because of an obvious conflict of interest. When we ask Canadians who do not receive these grants how they feel about them their answers are always the same. They do not understand why their tax dollars should be spent on small groups of people with narrow agendas, especially when that money could be spent in better ways like reducing the deficit and debt and to help protect programs such as health care.

Finally, the government has put in the bill clause 8 which will give the Minister of Canadian Heritage the unilateral authority to raise revenues by arbitrarily raising fees for services or facilities. According to the Financial Administration Act, the minister must take such decisions to cabinet. Such a requirement is the minimal process to be followed for the accountability and transparency of fee increases. Now with clause 8 of the bill, the minister will be able to raise any fees he chooses. He must only consult with the relevant party. What does that mean?

Our amendments bring a nominal level of accountability to government. I seek the support of the House to the changes we recommend.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

If we are proposing this many amendments, Mr. Speaker, it is chiefly because the bill, as it stands, is really unacceptable to us.

I would like to address in particular the amendment we have proposed on copyrights, as we would like to have copyright throughout federal jurisdiction brought under the Department of Canadian Heritage. We feel this amendment is essential for the following reason: shared responsibility for copyright by the two departments causes undue delay in reviewing the Copyright Act.

When they testified before us last Monday, representatives of the artists' union told us that they have been waiting for politicians to get around to amending the Copyright Act for eight years.

On December 22, 1993, the director general of the Montreal artists' union, Mr. Demers, wrote the Prime Minister to tell him that this sharing of responsibility by two departments has led to a two-headed vision, which has resulted in objectives that were more often than not contradictory. The Copyright Act is the only legislation protecting the rights of creative artists. We believe that it should be designed around this priority. Since it is in the interest of creative artists that consumers have unrestricted access to their works, the Department of Canadian Heritage will certainly not lose sight of their unique interests. We need only review existing legislation in other countries to see that protecting the rights of creative artists in no way impedes the circulation of their works, quite the contrary.

Another reason for presenting this amendment is that the Department of Industry is mandated to look after the interests of consumers and corporations, a responsibility that interferes with the interests of creative artists. The cultural industry is like any other industry, according to the Department of Industry.

During the proceedings of the industry committee, the director general of corporate governance at the Department of Industry, David Tobin, testified as follows:

Our view, of course, is that cultural groups are exactly that. They are a cultural industry and we recognize them as that. There are employment and financial considerations. They are adding value to it. When you ask whether we treat them differently, I would argue that we consult with them, we share information with them, and we discuss their concerns. I do not think we treat them any differently.

This raises a doubt in my mind: what will happen in the next rounds of negotiations if we are unable to really defend our cultural industries, if we do not see them at the outset as clearly different from other industries? What will happen then with the GATT agreements we had such a hard time securing, at the very last minute this time around.

Another reason is that the industry minister does have legal responsibility for copyright matters. They tried several times to convince us that the responsibility was shared between the two departments, that the two ministers would address the issue, and that the Department of Industry works with the Department of Canadian Heritage. The deputy minister who testified on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage said that they were 100 per cent responsible for drafting the bills.

Some responsible individuals with the same mandate at the Department of Industry told the industry committee that their goal-as Mr. Finckenstein stated-was to consolidate the four old departments into a single one and to combine the four old laws into a single one. That was to create the Department of Industry. This bill reflects the situation that prevailed under the old legislation.

The old legislation included the Copyright Act, which came under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; responsibility for it has now been given to the Department of Industry. Let me say that the old Department of Communications Act does not contain a single reference to copyright. The only law which refers to it is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act. We now find this same reference in the Department of Industry Act.

This clearly suggests that the Department of Canadian Heritage will have no jurisdiction over copyright, despite what we may have been told and what the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself may have said.

Another reason is that the heritage department's mandate is to promote cultural development. We saw that very clearly in the brief from the Union des artistes, which said: "Since the role of this department is to look after identity, values, cultural development and heritage, we think that it is logical, fitting and obvious that this department defends and promotes the rights of those without whom the above concepts are meaningless".

Surprisingly, during the election campaign which brought it to power, the Liberal Party answered a questionnaire from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, dated October 4. Two questions drew my attention because the answers were particularly interesting.

The Liberal Party was asked if it would make it a priority to revise the Copyright Act so that this law would really defend the financial and moral rights of writers. The Liberal Party answered that revising the Copyright Act would be a priority for it. "We will ensure above all that writers reap the just rewards of their work at the same time as we facilitate access to material protected by copyright. Liberals understand the importance of copyright. That is why, when we reorganize the administrative structure", which we are now doing with this bill, "we will review the Conservatives' decision to divide jurisdiction over copyright between two departments".

I am really sad to see the Liberal Party, which had made a formal commitment to establish a single department and to correct the mistake made by the Conservatives, perpetuate that mistake through Bill C-53. I am sad to see that it gives priority to the industry rather than to creators. Soon, Canada will no longer be a place for creators, because the industry will have taken precedence over creativity.

Another reason why the government should accept the amendment which we propose is expressed, once again, by the Canadian Conference of the Arts: "The cultural sector has a long experience of the paralysis resulting from the sharing of responsibility in key sectors. Suffice it to mention the dead end in

which the copyright legislation is stuck, precisely because of this fragmentation of jurisdiction".

As recently as yesterday, we saw an example of the difference between two departments can be and perhaps what a minister with clout can do. When we pressured the heritage minister on broadcasting and cable television companies, he said: "I cannot intervene". However, when major companies asked the government to order the CRTC to review the decision to approve a $2 increase, the government said: "Yes, that decision will be reviewed". Not because that decision is costly for the poor, but because it affects major companies. That is the problem: When it comes to defending real causes, the Liberal Party does not deliver. It does not fulfill the promises it made on cultural development and copyrights.

I deplore this situation and I hope that, before the end of the debate, the government will have the courage to postpone the passing of this bill, which really does not benefit Canadian culture and creative artists. I also hope that the minister, who probably hears our plea somewhere, will take these factors into consideration for the future of Canada.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised and even disappointed to hear the motions presented by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, who calls herself a Canadian first but, at the first opportunity, is not averse to lashing out at French Canadian minorities.

Bill C-53, an Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other Acts, says in clause 4( g ), which the hon. member for Calgary Southeast would like to redraft in her image, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to see ``the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada''.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast proposes that lines 23 to 27 be replaced with the following: " (g) the promotion of language policies centred: (i) on freedom of speech''. I wonder whether the hon. member for Calgary Southeast realizes what she is saying. Freedom of speech is not about the language you speak but the ideas you want to share with others. She does not even understand the principle of the freedom of speech to which people are entitled in Canada.

Second, she recommends the following: "on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in the other provinces". This is horrifying, coming from a person who calls herself a Canadian but would like to see only Quebec as French speaking and the other provinces, and I say the other provinces and not the rest of Canada, as English-speaking.

As a French speaking member from Ontario, a fourth generation franco Ontarian, I say to the hon. member, through the Chair, that her proposals are an affront and an insult. As a French Canadian and a francophone, do I not have the right to speak my own language and receive services in that language? You would take away these rights. It is utterly despicable to want to take away those rights, and to tell anglophones in Quebec: From now on, you will have to speak French if you want services or whatever.

I would ask the hon. member's colleague to repeat what he just said. Was that a racist comment, sir? Would you repeat what you said?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I did not hear the remarks. Dear colleagues, this is a very important debate. If all members could just keep their cool and their comments to themselves, this would benefit us all, as Canadians.

I give the floor back to the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.