Debates of Oct. 3rd, 1994

Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel my temper rising, but I will try to stay calm. Really, that is the absolute limit! That is dreadful! Where does the parliamentary secretary come from? Toronto, surely. He apparently visits Ottawa, but he never goes anywhere else because what he says is totally false.

For nine years, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney did everything in his power to bring Quebec back into Canada. Take Meech Lake, for example, who blocked it? Who stood in the way? The Grits did, the hon. member in particular. He just admitted it. There was a lady whom we cannot name, who is now somewhere, but we cannot say where, and who has just been rewarded for doing the good deeds requested today by the lady whom we cannot name. I refer to Sharon Carstairs. We will not name her. That was one.

Two, the sorry tale of Charlottetown. What a farce. What a pity there was no Mr. Lisée in 1867 to tell us how Canada was built. What about a railway system right across Canada? And a ferry to Prince Edward Island in perpetuity; so we amended the Constitution for the ferry. The deed was done in a business-like fashion by a bunch of businessmen with no long-term vision

about the chaos they were sending this country into. We no longer have a railway system. That was the only cross-country link we had, and it does not exist any more.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Thanks to the electronic highway, we have made progress, in our part of the country.

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

We will see what happens in New Brunswick. He says that Canada is not visible in Quebec. This is why they want to implement their social reform. They want to give students a cheque with a red flag on it. They want to bring together the young and the old. They scare old people when they give them a cheque with a red flag. But seniors in Quebec are no dummies. They know what is going on. They realize that whether the cheque is blue or red, the money comes from our pockets. There is no pot from which to hand out money to Quebec seniors every month. There is no such thing and seniors have figured that out a long time ago.

Actually, Canada is visible in Quebec. There are big signs now. But they never thought of putting up such signs before Mr. Lévesque's government decided to do just that. Such an idea had never occurred to them. Only when Mr. Lévesque got his blue signs out did we start to see nice red signs go up. Now, those signs are black and white; they are as bleak as can be. Like the future of Canada. Completely shut out in total darkness. Such is Canada's visibility. Canada never gave us our fair share. This is what we said; this is what Quebecers know; this is what we will show and demonstrate to them. Canada has no future in Quebec and Quebecers will remember that on referendum day.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to get the member upset.

The member stated that Canada has no place in Quebec. If I understood the member correctly, she implied that the rest of Canadians have not done that much to contribute to the development of Quebec within the context of Canada. It is sad the member believes that because we are all doing our best to make this work. Today several members on this side of the House have stated that the system is not perfect but it has been getting better. By refusing to work at building the country the member will only make the situation worse because the facts will eventually be communicated to Quebecers.

We are entering a very tough period where not only Quebecers are doing the substantial in depth analysis of government programs and services and fiscal transfers. We are talking about programs and transfers of all the things related to our heritage not only in the province of Quebec but right across the country.

When all of those analyses are done, as the Bloc so often likes to do line by line, Quebecers will see that Canada is a much better deal than most of them ever realized. Certainly when every member in the Bloc goes through the line by line exercise in relation to the whole, they are going to see that Canada is the place to be.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a westerner and I am from Alberta and I heard-

Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Remarks such as those are out of order. I have an opportunity to speak on this floor.

In my view the hon. member who just spoke did not speak of a long term vision that addressed all of us in Canada. Is his view that what is required now is to continue to increase program spending to pacify Quebec? Quebecers appear to have made a decision here. The hon. member is suggesting that indeed we have not yet spent enough to facilitate and support Quebec to keep it in this federation, which quite frankly is falling apart.

This bill is about legislating and entrenching multiculturalism which we cannot afford, national bilingualism which we cannot afford, and special interest group funding which we cannot afford. As an Albertan and a westerner I take great exception to the fact that this debate keeps wallowing in the issue of Quebec separation.

I would like the hon. member to address these points and to remember that Canada does extend beyond the Ontario border. There is a whole other part of this country called Canada and it is the west. The west is getting really fed up with all of this talk as well because it is all just talk. I am equally as disgusted and fed up as the hon. member from Quebec who just spoke. I am fed up with this whole debate as well, because it is going nowhere. It is grinding down into a ridiculous discussion about more spending and Canadian taxpayers will not tolerate any more spending.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member was suggesting that more resources were needed in Alberta to augment the bilingualism line-ups. Is that what she meant?

One of the greatest issues in western Canada which the western members especially those in the Reform Party talk about is eliminating the grants, program funding and all of those other things that help us develop as a nation. But very rarely do we hear members, especially those from Alberta telling us to cut the oil tax grants that are buried in the tax act of Canada. I cannot wait for the day when the hon. member says: "Cut those oil and tax grants". That is the day I am waiting for.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of people reading Hansard I will tell them that I am wearing a tartan tie which I purchased in Scotland this summer. It is my family tartan and I am very proud of it.

I just want to make a couple of comments about this whole business. The Liberals have permitted this debate to fall off the tracks. It has ended up in a squabble match between them and the Bloc over whether the Bloc is right or they are right or whatever.

As I said, my wife and I visited Scotland this summer. I was very impressed that the people of Scotland, who have much blood on the ground over various things which have happened in their history, are very, very proud of their Scottish heritage. I can only hope after we are successful in defeating the separatists in their referendum whenever they want to bring it, that the Quebecois in exactly the same way that the Acadians have, will say: "I am proud to be a Quebecer," in the same way that the people in Scotland say: "I am proud to be Scottish, but boy am I happy to be a part of the United Kingdom". I can only hope we will see a move in that direction.

The member for Broadview-Greenwood finally mentioned the word parks in this debate. Surprisingly in the grab bag that is Canadian Heritage, national parks are actually included. I suggest that parks possibly have more in common with the Department of the Environment. I have a couple of thoughts along that line in terms of the reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The Canadian Parks Service objective for national parks as enunciated in 1991 is to protect for all time representative natural areas of Canadian significance in a system of national parks and to encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations. It is for this reason that I suggest because of the very obvious close connection to the Department of the Environment that perhaps parks would be better served in a different department.

Let me also read from the 1990 publication "State of the Parks". The introduction says in part: "The national park profiles and national historic site profiles are designed to identify basic data for each park and site in the system. As such they will provide a context for the first state of the parks report. They represent a first attempt to provide a comprehensive reference list of the values, conditions and threats which occur throughout the system".

At another point it says: "At this stage the data for the profiles are preliminary and reports of conditions are generally based on professional judgments rather than definitive criteria. This report fills an important function in that it identifies quite specifically gaps in the information systems which need to be addressed". And this is the specific connection: "Canada's green plan will provide resources to take an ecosystem approach to the management of national parks. In co-operation with other services of the Department of the Environment, the parks service will be developing indicators to measure the condition of the natural resources and the stability of the cultural resources".

It is important to note that the introduction to this presentation in 1990 was done at a time when parks were actually a part of the Ministry of the Environment. Under Kim Campbell's regime she made this grab bag of Canadian heritage that now happens to include parks.

For reference let me also read from the news release from the current minister dated March 24, 1994. In its background, national heritage considerations, ecological integrity: "In the establishment and management of national parks, Parks Canada strives to maintain the ecological integrity of those protected areas. Ecological integrity is defined as a condition whereby the structure and function of an ecosystem are unimpaired by the stress of human activity and are likely to remain so.

The 1994 Parks Canada guiding principles and operational policies provide the framework for achieving this condition within national parks in conjunction with their sustainable use and enjoyment by visitors".

Parks are of great interest to me because I have three parks in my constituency; Kootenay National Park, Yoho National Park and Glacier National Park. Therefore I am quite interested in them. I have also taken time to read the current and most recent study from the Glacier-Mount Revelstoke National Park management plan.

In summary this very good document tells me the direction the park wants to go. Basically it is leave it alone, do not touch it. Leave it in its natural state. It also talks about the fact that if certain flora or fauna or smaller animals or birds have been removed through the mismanagement of the parks, the parks would like to add them back.

Interestingly though, they say that they will only let wild fires burn if they are in very remote areas and would simply go straight up the mountain. I can appreciate that where we have the Northlander Lodge and other buildings of that type, even parks buildings and camp sites with washroom facilities and so on and so forth that you would want to protect that area. However the difficulty is because we do not have a really clear definition of what we want to do in our parks. Because we have a Disneyland, Bambi kind of an idea about what a forest looks like, we are saying: "Leave it alone, except we will suppress fire".

The difficulty is that even in Glacier National Park there is an area of the park that has a campground in it that has root rot. Root rot is something perfectly normal that is going to happen to trees. Therefore, due to lack of understanding, people from

Canada, the United States and Europe travelling through will say: "Oh my, how awful, this part of the forest has died".

Forests live and die in the same way that populations or people within populations live and die. We have a situation right now in Kootenay National Park-and I would suggest that this would be applicable to parks on the east coast and on the west coast-where we have a bug or a blight. We have in quite a number of trees an infestation where the trees are all turning red. How terrible. No, it is not terrible. That is part of nature's plan, of regeneration.

As a matter of fact the reason why we have dominantly lodgepole pines up through Banff, Kootenay Park, Yoho Park and on up through Jasper is because around 1885 for a three-year period fire actually started as far south as Mexico and slowly worked its way up so that we have this monoculture of lodgepole pine. The trees have now reached a point where they are attracting disease or bugs.

If we as human beings have not learned anything from what was in many cases an explosion in Yellowstone National Park where the place turned into an absolute inferno with no conceivable way of being able to control that inferno, then we have not learned very much. Particularly in Banff National Park they have tried burning some of the undergrowth and underbrush, to try to maintain this Disneyland kind of Bambi, Smoky the Bear, approach to what a forest is supposed to look like.

I also read in the same report under sustainable use that throughout the consultative process leading to a revision of Parks Canada policies, discussions surrounding national parks underwent the most scrutiny. There was concern about which activities and facilities are appropriate within the confines of national parks.

In response a revised policy reflects the role of national parks as part of larger ecosystems. Therefore decision making must be based on an understanding of surrounding environments leading to partnerships for the protection and sustainable use of the whole ecosystem. In the national parks context this means that people gain direct and indirect benefits from heritage resources over the long term without destroying them.

Herein lies the conundrum. Herein lies the problem. In fact, in my judgment in many situations in our national parks-again I direct this to whether we are talking about the east coast, the far north, central Canada, because of our Disneyland approach to parks-we are actually letting the parks act as an incubator for bugs and disease where the trees are being killed. As a consequence we are loading the fuel and when it takes off there is going to be no stopping it. Commercial forests outside of parks are going to be negatively impacted either by disease, bugs or fire.

Glacier National Park has a budget of $7.3 million and 99 full time people. Yoho National Park has a budget of $5.8 million with 81 full time people. In the case of Glacier National Park the vast majority, 75 to 80 per cent, of the budget is for road clearing. I would like to know what in the world Heritage Canada is doing in the road clearing business when we have perfectly competent, capable, equipped departments, subcontractors or contractors to the provincial government?

To give an idea of where this is going, I have a press release in my hand of September 12 from Doug Martin, regional vice-president, Public Service Alliance of Canada and it reads: "Parks Canada is contemplating centralizing Yoho National Park highway crew to Banff and Lake Louise. Also being considered for transfer are the finance and store operations. Yoho employs approximately 60 full time and seasonal employees. The proposed transfer affects upwards of 40 employees who will be required to move to Alberta". It goes on and raises some very legitimate concerns.

I was speaking about an hour ago with the mayor of the town of Golden which is in my constituency. The mayor was asking me: "What is going on, what is happening". He is going into a council meeting tonight. They want to know. They need to know.

I lay at the door of the Liberal government the fact that this area of parks management is completely up in the air, is rolling over, is appearing to be completely out of control. We are into a process of redirection and there is no direction from the top; the top level being the minister of parks.

Furthermore, in taking a look at the whole issue of highways and asking why Parks Canada is in the highway business, I read in a note from the Northlander Lodge, which is up in Rogers Pass: "The Alberta Truckers Association lobbied long and hard and advanced the position that they should not have to pay to transport commercial goods across Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway just because the highway happened to go through the federal park". Parks Canada made a policy decision and in a speech in Calgary the minister announced that through commercial traffic would no longer have to pay a toll to go through the parks. He is asking if there is going to be a reimposition of the toll in the parks because it very directly impacts on his business.

If there is a reimposition of the toll for the vehicles going through the parks, then people coming through are going to be in a position of saying: I am not going to stop at the Northlander Lodge because I did not pay my permit; I am not going to stop for a cup of coffee, I am not going to stop for that extra gas that I think I need, I am going to bypass it. This directly affects him.

The reason why I am asking if it makes sense for parks to be in the highway business is that the last time I looked commercial vehicles, for that matter passenger vehicles, are presently paying to all the provinces diesel and fuel taxes that should be

going to the capital cost of maintaining roads as well as the day to day maintenance of roads.

I believe in user pay. The Reform Party believes that those who are using a service should be paying for it. I understand that and I support that. However if it works to the detriment of the businesses that are located in the parks, then that is just plain wrong-headed thinking.

Right at the moment we have a situation in Kootenay National Park-again let me put in parenthesis that I am referring to some specific situations I am personally familiar with. I have every reason to believe that the same kind of situation is in place in virtually every park across Canada. We are talking about a management situation, what should we be doing. With the greatest respect to my friends across the way, the people are not getting direction from the top.

For example we are looking at enterprise units in parks. What is an enterprise unit in a park? If you have hot pools in Radium, in Banff and in Jasper and the revenue from the visitors to those pools is just going into consolidated revenue, that does not generate efficient management of those pools. As an example, that is the first of the enterprise units. They have hired an individual and the revenue coming in from the pools is going to be segregated so that they can use it to manage the park facilities related to the pools.

Here again, we have an issue of hiring practices. Should we not be making sure that the parks are in a position to be able to hire people with pool management backgrounds rather than being forced to hire from within the civil service, still with the civil service mind, to be able to get the job done?

In conclusion, I believe for dollar efficiency that the heritage department should turn over parks back to the environment department. I also believe in the concept of enterprise units, where you would have user pay so that you get the dollars to provide the service.

Finally, may I suggest that Canada sell the parks building in the very high rent district in Calgary, get out of Calgary, move the people into a town like Golden which is right in the centre, and manage the parks from a low rent district and a district that more reflects the area than the area the bureaucrats in Calgary are presently in.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue, Mr. Speaker. These are a few ideas that I have with respect to parks. In summary I say I believe parks should be moved from heritage back to environment.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments. I was studying today's material about our national park system because my riding of Algoma is one of the most beautiful areas in the country and should have been looked at seriously for a national park, parts of it anyway.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on my concern and impression that he would like to see parks totally self-sufficient in a fiscal sense. Truly there are parks in this country that must be preserved for the good of our children that will never be sustainable on a purely fee for service basis.

Does he believe that the heritage of our country in its natural areas can only be preserved on a fee for service basis? Does he not believe that we cannot look at these resources only from that point of view?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question because it is very valid. If we were just talking about a fee for service basis and we were losing sight of the fact that the parts of the parks that people most frequently want to go to, like the Burgess Shale in Yoho Park, and I am sure there are some other specific areas that people want to go to, there must be a control. There must be a park warden. There must be people who are actually going through the process to make sure that the integrity of that area is under proper control.

I would suggest that for those areas in particular that where we have to be spending dollars using resources to give special protection to those areas, those areas should be not only preserved for the good of our children which would happen, not only totally self-sufficient but I believe they could actually be profit-making so that some of the cost of doing the general work that the member refers to would be able to come out of that revenue and thereby be less draining on our bankrupt treasury at this point.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I listened very intently to his concept of parks. I have been to a number of parks in his riding.

I guess the concern I have which follows along with the previous comment is whether our parks are ones that we want to prevent people from using based on their income. In other words, I think most people look at our parks in Canada as part of our national heritage. I suppose that is what we are debating today.

To the extent that a poor person possibly cannot access some of these areas, I think of the sulphur pools and so forth that the member is talking about, because the maintenance cost is such that they become prohibitive to do so, only wealthy people or middle class people, however you want to define that, will have access to our national parks. I wonder if that is not somewhat of an abuse of the concept of user pay.

I noted one other point. The hon. member talked about the roads that would not be user pay but that some of the facilities in the part should be. I wonder how he gets around that contradiction.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, handling the last point first, the roads currently are user pay and that is currently going into provincial coffers by way of fuel taxes.

What I am attempting to find out is the relationship between the amount of fuel tax that goes into the coffers of the province of B.C. and the fact that basically the province of British Columbia at this point appears to get off scott free from the very excessive costs of trying to keep Rogers Pass open which is a real chore. It is the same thing in Yoho Park.

The member's point is well taken and I have given a lot of thought to his question.

In the area of the pools I do not think there would have to be an excessive charge. If they are handled on an entrepreneurial basis as their own enterprise unit, which is the experiment currently being tried, we would find that the prices probably would not have to go up. If there were an entrepreneurial spirit on the part of management it would end up taking care of itself.

It is just that previously when the dollars were coming in and then going into consolidated revenue, there was no connection between the dollars coming in and the maintenance required because the maintenance required did not have anything to do with the dollars coming in. That is why I support the concept of the enterprise unit.

I would suggest that the member and others consider the Tatshenshini which is an area as far north and west in British Columbia as one can go. It is a large triangle shape that fits into the top corner of the province, right behind the Alaska panhandle. This is an area that the province of B.C. has now turned into a class A provincial park.

I cannot afford to go there. I literally cannot afford to go there. I do not happen to have $5,000 for a helicopter. I do not have another $1,500 for the rafting. It is there if I have the resources and I want to go there. If I have the $5,000 or $6,500 I can get there, but I do not have those dollars.

I suggest that the member consider that what we have done in the case of Tatshenshini in the province of B.C., recognizing that it is not a national park but still in concept, is to take an area, set it aside, take it out of the mining grid and turn it over to people who happen to have $6,500 so that they can raft down the river.

This concept of user pay for specific areas I do not think anybody is going to find too difficult when they put it against the cost of actually providing the service on a park by park basis.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as critic for the Industry, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, particularly since last Monday, exactly a week ago, I also raised, as critic for my Party, to speak on the Department of Industry Act, a piece of legislation aiming at combining former departments which was drafted by the Campbell government and copied by the current government.

At the time, we said that the Department of Industry had so many responsibilities and such a scope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who unfortunately has left, called his minister "superman". We said that we will leave it to the voters to decide whether or not the Prime Minister has made a wise decision.

During the debate, we recognized that the mandate of the Department of Industry was wide-ranging and that there was a lot of duplication with Quebec's regional development programs as well as with other federal institutions dealing with regional development, particularly the NRC.

But the reason I wanted to speak on this bill is that there is also a lot of duplication and overlap, and very little progress, where Canadian heritage and this bill are concerned. Indeed, when it comes to jurisdictions and the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Industry, clause 4(1)(h) of Bill C-46 provides that the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the government of Canada, relating to

(h) patents, copyrights, trade-marks, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies;

And pursuant to clause 4(1)(k), the powers of the Minister also extend to

(k) telecommunications, except in relation to (i) the planning and coordination of telecommunication services for departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, and (ii) broadcasting, other than in relation to spectrum management and the technical aspects of broadcasting;

Thus, we see two important areas where there is duplication and a little overlapping concerning copyrights and telecommunications.

As for copyrights, it has to be either a chance mishap that should be corrected without delay or a deliberate decision. If it is a deliberate decision, it is very tendentious and significative to entrust the Department of Industry with the whole issue of copyrights.

Everybody knows, since they have their own personal culture, that when you delegate a question like copyrights to the Department of Industry, you are going against a whole culture. Just as a business has a culture, a department has one, and in this case it is a business culture.

Writers were familiar with the Department of Communications which was the organization previously responsible for everything pertaining to "Canadian" culture. These people, in Canada and Quebec, were in the habit-a good habit-of dealing with people who understood their problems and with whom they had probably established relationships.

Now, the government supports the Conservative Party's approach of treating copyrights like any other commercial product; this approach was condemned in English Canada as well as in Quebec. We have information on the subject. The whole situation gives rise to so much unease, discomfort and unfairness that it strains the relationship between the artistic community and the Canadian government, as represented by the Department of Industry.

But even worse, we must know that Industry Canada is beholden to American interests, and this is part of the international problem. That was the case with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, in spite of all its pretensions, is no better. It seems that the arts community feels very affected by the situation. For reasons of efficiency and respect for individuals and organizations in the field, bringing the whole issue of copyrights back under the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage has been suggested.

The other aspect concerns communications and telecommunications. There is a lot of duplication and it is very tendentious and revealing. And again, form is favoured over substance. The tools used in the world of telecommunications today are very sophisticated, whether we are talking about optical fibres or coaxial cables, and it is the tools that are the government's main concern.

The Department of Canadian Heritage deals with communications and telecommunications, but it has to take into account the business concerns of Industry Canada. When we say that Industry Canada is beholden to American interests, it is important to know that, according to the information we have, the situation has completely changed in the United States, which means that the cultural sovereignty of both Canada and Quebec is at stake.

There was a time when the Americans' own market was enough to meet their financial needs. They just had to export part of their output to cover their costs and make profits. Today, they have to export a lot more because production costs have become excessively high, as we can see in the world of sports for example.

That is why the cultural pressures from the United States that we have always felt since the Second World War have become even greater over the past few years. Today, the Americans have no choice. This is very serious for us in Quebec, and maybe even more serious for English Canada.

In Quebec, as far as cultural sovereignty is concerned, we, the sovereignists, are in the process of settling the matter. We are taking steps so that the issue of Quebec cultural sovereignty, as well as its full sovereignty, could be settled in a matter of eight to ten months.

But the situation is not the same as far as the cultural sovereignty of Canada is concerned. Instead of putting sovereignists on trial here in this House, if members opposite do not realize that the cultural sovereignty of Canada itself is threatened because of the overpowering influence of telecommunications, they will soon have to deal with problems of great magnitude.

On the week end-as luck would have it-I was listening to a public affairs program of an economic nature, dealing precisely with cultural development. They were saying that Toronto, which had fallen on hard times because of problems in real estate and because of the recession, seems to be recovering much strength, thanks mostly to the cultural sector. Toronto is indeed regaining its demographic and economic weight because of billion-dollar developments in that area. So much so that Toronto has become the third largest cultural city in North America, after Los Angeles and New York, but it is Toronto, American style.

That is a problem people across the way should be concerned about because they face a giant that will smother whatever is left of the distinct personality Canada claims it has. I hate to think what would happen if Quebec decided to go its own way. We are playing our role as the Official Opposition when we tell Canadians that they should shape their own future the same way Quebecers will, shortly.

Since we are talking about broadcasting, telecommunications and communications, I would be remiss in my duty as the member for Trois-Rivières if I did not mention the recent decision broadcasters in Quebec made, almost arbitrarily, it would appear, or at least without notice or with very little consultation, to close down six AM radio stations overnight. I am dismayed to see this happen, and I want my constituents in Trois-Rivières to know it. I already had an opportunity to comment on those radio station closures.

Such a decision raises two concerns. One is the media concentration in Quebec and the attendant curtailing of freedom of expression through various channels. As a result of that concentration, those who work in the media will have to abide by their code of ethics even more strictly in order to do their work properly.

At noontime, the Minister of Canadian Heritage rejected all responsibility. We could very well blame the CRTC or question its decision to grant too many new FM licences, because those new stations slowly but surely eroded the advertising revenues the AM stations depended on. We now see the results of this laxism.

Lastly, in the communications sector, there is also the electronic highway which, likewise, has a commercial aspect. The vehicle is given much more importance than the content and Quebec is completely excluded. This responsibility is assigned

to Industry Canada. In Quebec, however, Mr. Parizeau recently assigned it to his Minister of Culture. I believe that is the right way to go about it and Canada takes a different approch to government, which is not necessarily sound.

I would like to conclude on the fundamental question of what pertains to Heritage Canada. We can argue that one activity should come under this jurisdiction or that another activity should under that jurisdiction, but for us, as sovereignists, Heritage Canada is a major tool of a supposedly profitable federalism, a major tool for the assimilating Quebecers or attempting to assimilate them and intrude in a field which clearly is in provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec, where it should come under the sole jurisdiction of the Quebec government. All the money for Quebec administered by Heritage Canada should be given to the Government of Quebec, as soon as possible.

Therefore, I support the amendment presented by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member's comments were most interesting. There was some discussion of the technical aspects, since according to him, copyright should be patriated from Industry Canada to Culture Canada, and I thought that was very interesting.

However, according to his last comments, the role played by federalism, Culture Canada, the CBC, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and all agencies concerned with promoting French Canadian culture in Montreal and Quebec is an attempt at assimilation. I think that is strong language that does not reflect the real situation at all, because I explained in the House-and I got no reaction-that 40 per cent of the films produced by the National Film Board were French. I think that is a very real aspect of our Confederation.

Again, I got no reaction when I said that the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada largely subsidized Falardeau's last film about the October crisis. I asked them if they could find an instance in which France provided funding for a Corsican or Breton nationalist to produce a similar film. I believe that the role played by the government reflects a wide-ranging, generous and comprehensive approach, and the maturity and confidence to consider the views of the opposition, as we are doing today.

We are still discussing the pervasiveness of American culture in our cultural industries. Sure. It is a fact of life that we, a nation of 6 million francophones, are like an island in a sea of anglophones. Incidentally, I was interested in the references to France, a country which I know fairly well. In 1984, when people went to the cinema in France, more than 70 per cent of the films they saw were French productions. Unfortunately, today, only 30 per cent of the films seen by French movie goers are French productions. It is clear that France has lost control of its national production, while we in Quebec, thanks to the generous participation of the federal government, have been able to produce quality films and support French Canadian songwriters and composers.

I am thinking of Canadian productions like Roch Voisine and Céline Dion, good singers all of them. The Canadian government has also helped small producers who were not a big international success and who were not a big success in the United States. I do not think these small producers really have to go and produce in the United States. We are here to encourage them to develop French culture in Quebec and Canada and to provide them with a market, not only in this country but also internationally.

Today, unfortunately, the opposition failed to take this opportunity to recognize that the federal government, thanks to its grant system and participation, has been a major factor in the growth and development of Quebec culture.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is adopting that point of view on the issue because if, in their longing for sovereignty, there is one area where Quebecers can be proud and sure of themselves, surely it is the arts. The very existence of Telefilm Canada means there is great talent in Quebec.

We saw it again, yesterday evening, during the Gala des Gémeaux: we had the opportunity to celebrate dozens of people who make us sincerely and spontaneously proud and who are part of our own. I think this is an element on which Quebecers will have to base their judgment; the ability in arts and sports of this small group perched in the northern part of North America. Recently at the Olympic Games, we showed the world how good we were. And we showed it also in the economic sector with Québec Inc. We can be sovereign in all areas; we can take our fate into our own hands and take the necessary steps to reach full development.

I think we owe nothing to the Canadian government because the help we received from Telefilm Canada and other agencies was due to the presence of talented francophones who were appointed there and had the insight to see talent and promote it with taxes paid by Quebecers.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue a little further the member's expressed concerns about the invasion of American

culture which might overwhelm all of Canada including his province, according to his thesis.

I really wonder if he believes that in an independent Quebec in the English cultural sea which the hon. member opposite mentioned they could hope to resist these forces without the protection, care and nurturing that French Canadian culture gets outside of Quebec? This is the buffer zone and we pay for it. We westerners pay for it at enormous cost.

I do not say I like it, but it is happening. I think the hon. member should be duly grateful.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go over the things that could threaten the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture, if it exists, because I really think there remains some doubts about that in some circles. In Quebec, in part for historical reasons, we are in a process of taking over our own destiny and making sure that our culture, which is unique in the world, will survive and develop.

It seems that the same cannot be said of the Canadian culture and that the Canadian stakeholders have not yet understood how critical the situation is. It is high time, given the communications systems in place today and the American domination over this small country which is Canada, north of the United States, and what will be left of it after Quebec separation, that these people take their future in hand and understand how critical the situation is. For us, as far as the francophones outside Quebec are concerned, we are going to take care of them like people of the diaspora and perhaps we will demand more than provincial and federal governments do today. We could cite the example of the anglophone minority and the other minorities in a sovereign Quebec and legitimately demand that the rest of Canada be as generous as we are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated a lot the comments of my colleague from the Reform Party. It is a bit disappointing to see that the debate is getting out of hand. We have clearly stated our positions, we have said that we are against that bill for very fundamental reasons and all day long, members of the government kept on rising to tell us again and again how wonderful our country was, how beautiful and how great it was. Both Telefilm and the National Film Board make lots of films.

The National Film Board no longer has the money to make films and this is no secret. It makes films like Léolo. When Telefilm Canada makes a film like Octobre, it is not investing in the culture of Quebec, but an historical event that took place in Canada, in October 1970. Who is the one who introduced the War Measures Act? It is Trudeau. Who caused us to make that movie? Who sent the army to Montreal? The army, that is Canadian for sure. Thus, even if the event took place in Montreal, it is Canadian. We must never forget that. It is not because Telefilm Canada gives money to Quebec to make films, it also gives money to Toronto. We have never denied that cultural aspect. However, we are sick and tired of hearing people talk all day long about how beautiful Canada is while those same people will not admit that this department is going to divide our country instead of unifying it.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week I raised the question of the federal environmental assessment panel investigating a proposal to expand low level military flight training in Labrador, specifically flying over the territorial land of the Innu.

In asking the question I noted that all the public interest groups, including the Innu and the Sierra Club, have withdrawn from the hearings, rendering the process nothing short of a farce. The public has demonstrated by withdrawing from the process a lack of confidence in that process.

I asked the minister what the federal government would do to fix this so that the public and the most disadvantaged group in the area, the Innu, could participate.

Since the question, the Minister of the Environment has met with representatives of the Innu people and with Mr. Paul Wilkinson, a former and recently resigned member of the assessment panel in question. At that meeting and in a letter, Mr. Wilkinson said: "I was forced to conclude that I had outlived my usefulness on the panel when the chairman was effectively telling me that my opinion as a member of the panel carried less weight than that of the Department of National Defence".

The issue of the panel's bias is only one reason why the Innu and others are justifiably not participating in the hearings. According to the Innu, the panel seriously compromised the integrity and independence of the process when it failed to require the Department of National Defence to table critical information before the start of the public hearings so that it could be reviewed by the interveners.

The panel also prejudiced the hearing process by not requiring DND to provide an analysis of the impact of low level flight training on aboriginal rights, including the negotiation and settlement of land rights in Quebec and Labrador.

The Innu requested the right to cross examine DND technical experts but they were denied by the panel. They are therefore saying that they cannot participate in a hearing process in which their land, their lives, the environment around them and their rights are at stake but in which the proponent is not required to put information on the table or stand accountable for other information that is in question.

The Minister of the Environment has heard the arguments and has indicated that mediation may be needed to make the hearings more fair and visibly impartial.

I once again ask that the federal government suspend the flights and suspend the hearings until the Innu rights and concerns are addressed and that after addressing those rights with or without mediation the federal government put in place an independent environmental review process that is fair both to the Innu and the land in question.

The minister has indicated in other places that Canada's new environmental assessment legislation may be proclaimed within two weeks. That new legislation sets out a process that may be fairer. Perhaps the minister would suspend the present hearings until what we know as Bill C-13 is proclaimed and then establish a new panel under the auspices of the new agency and do things right for a change.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention on the low level military flying activities in Labrador and Quebec.

The Minister of the Environment met recently with representatives of the three native groups who have decided not to participate to hear firsthand their concerns with the panel's review procedures.

The minister listened very carefully to their views. She respects their perspective but considers that the panel is conducting its proceedings fairly and in accordance with its mandate and the long tradition of independent federal environmental assessment hearings.

The minister has stated in this very Chamber that if she is presented with any evidence of bias on the part of any panel member she would not hesitate to remove that member. However, to date there is no evidence of any bias among the panel membership. The panel will hear from those who are interested in participating in a process that is important to the government's decision making on this issue.

The participation of the First Nations and Inuit among others is an important aspect of the public review process. The member will be happy to know that the panel has indicated its willingness to be flexible in its procedures and in responding to the interests of key stakeholders.

Thus far there has been valuable participation of stakeholders, including First Nations and Inuit representatives, in the review process. It would be unfortunate if important groups continued to choose not to participate but no group or individual can be forced to be part of this open process.

The panel has received substantial written information from the groups that will not be participating in the hearings and will be using that information to the extent possible. The government encourages all affected groups and individuals to participate in the public hearings and I hope I can count upon my colleagues to also urge all affected groups to participate rather than to abstain.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)