House of Commons Hansard #102 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Shall the questions be allowed to stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Sheila Finestone LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, I was addressing the challenges that were before us as a society to erase racism, to ensure social cohesion and to also assure that there would be shared responsibility between different levels of government, between citizens and industry and the private sector to enable Canadians to live in peace and harmony with respect and understanding.

The questions I had been addressing, as members have heard, include those about how to address the special problems faced by disadvantaged minorities, by immigrant women, by women of colour, by youth caught between two cultures, by dislocated seniors, by those who look different from the majority, by those seeking medical assistance who face language and cultural barriers and how to ensure fairness and equity of access and equivalent accreditation of skills and educational undertakings learned in other places but brought to bear, to enrich and to enable our country to grow and develop.

Last, how do we marginalize those groups which would actively promote hatred against others. In that regard, I would like to warn members of the House and the public of the activities of the Nationalist Party in the promotion of European Heritage Week. This group is clearly racist in its intent, white

supremist, and we must not support the activities that they are undertaking.

Do not be fooled by fancy posters. Look at the group behind. They have become very sophisticated in their approach. I particularly want to thank Mayor Rowlands of Toronto for bringing this matter to my attention.

These are the important questions that together we want to answer at all levels of government and institutions. I believe those institutions that we have put in place are there to protect our democracy, which I pointed out earlier is very fragile. With the non-governmental organizations and our community-based volunteer groups, we can make a difference.

After nearly a year on this job, I have to report that it works. I have travelled to hear and to listen. The framework that brings together the wide-ranging concepts of our society associated with heritage are in place, for example, our cultural policy, our official languages policy, the policy on multiculturalism, the physical properties of national parks, the importance of human rights, charter challenges, volunteerism, sports and a number of others.

Despite the fact that Canadians have diverse backgrounds and origins, they are united by a shared sense of values and an attachment to Canada which we have built together, in English and in French, as well as with respect for the heritage, language and customs of our Canadian citizens.

It is also apparent that Canada's increasingly diverse population provides a unique resource, a resource base actually for successful development and expansion of our economy on domestic and international levels. We all know that business is international today, that business is multicultural today.

We have found in Canada people from all languages, cultures and religions who understand the culture of business around the world. They could help us develop and expand our economy at the domestic and international level.

What this implies is that we will fully use those cultural languages and skills and the knowledge that people have, and the fullest potential of everyone who comes to this country, recognize the personal contacts and the means that people have to open doors to business, to new markets, to new products and new services.

If we have the collective will to use the potential of all our citizens, and in a sense of fairness and equity for the individual and in an undertaking in the best interests of all Canadians, I believe we will move forward with a great sense of prosperity and understanding.

To close off, I want to talk for one moment about this. Canada, in its very multicultural mosiac, has a set of laws that are unique in this world. They have been coalesced under the proper kind of umbrella for their added protection. We wish to all share in the development of the experience that we have had here, in the way we have the machinery of government in place and that is to be shared with the rest of the world.

We have been asked to do that. Australia has just copied us. We have been asked to go elsewhere where things are even more sensitive. Here at home I want people to recognize that we have built a constructive model with enormous potential to ensure the future success of our society but we should always keep in mind the aphorism "if you're in the business of shining shoes, your shoes had better shine". Our programs need constant upkeep, tender loving care and appreciation by the people in the House and the people in the country.

We must not undervalue the civilizing influence of our multicultural policies. They may be more lasting than many of our great monuments. These policies are about the quality of life, about the power of humanizing nations, about people living together with hope and a sense of understanding, respect and appreciation for the future with a sense of belonging.

Canadians must be ever more vigilant. While those who promote hatred and bigotry use even more sophisticated technology and high tech, we must redouble our efforts in promoting a truly just, inclusive and representative society. We cannot afford to do less. Giving us this right in the Department of Canadian Heritage under Bill C-53 is a status that I believe is important. Canadians will learn to treasure the great resource we have in all our cultural diversity and give it respect and understanding.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's statements. I have a couple of comments and questions I would like to ask.

In this great country one of the real freedoms we have for people who immigrate to Canada from other countries is the freedom to preserve their cultural heritage and cultural traditions. One of the questions we are asked by Canadians as we talk to them about multiculturalism is: Why does the federal government feel it is necessary to provide taxpayers' money to these groups in order for them to pursue their cultural heritage?

Some comment that if a particular ethnic group felt so strongly about preserving their cultural heritage they do not need federal taxpayers' money to do so. It is provided in the freedoms that they enjoy in this country.

I would like to ask the member what specifically is the government's justification for providing taxpayers' money to these cultural groups in order for them to preserve their cultural heritage?

I have another question or perhaps a comment. I am sure I heard the member earlier say that when she was in Quebec she was a Quebecer and when she was in Canada she was a Canadian.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC

I did not say that.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

I would like to ask the hon. member if in fact she did say that and if she did not would she refer back to that portion of her speech because I thought I had a question for her?

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, the end result of whatever it was that I said-I would have to look at the "blues" because I do not have everything written down-is the fact that I said I am a proud Canadian everywhere and anywhere and that is what I am.

With respect to the freedoms that the member spoke about, with respect to the importance of the federal government lending a hand to groups across this land, particularly new Canadians, Canadians who have arrived from countries where they have suffered terror, trauma, torture and lack of understanding of the role of the police when they arrive here because they have lived in a police state, I would say to the member that as a government, as a people and as human beings it is important for us to help them understand the structure of our society to enable them to integrate into this society.

I have not noticed that without some help major groups have volunteered so quickly to go in and help them. I would also like to point out that if the member is from an immigrant group-and I know from his riding he has had requests and received and given grants for immigrant and visible minority women-I wonder if he would believe that those visible minority women have triple discriminations, have a difficult time adapting to our society and have some skill re-learning to do while at the same time helping their children get settled.

As the member well knows, this country is not famous and businesses have not been famous and are just learning to hire people who are of colour as one of the equality measures as well as on their competence and ability to do the job. We have not recognized skills that are learned outside of this country. We have accredited to them the equivalences of what they have learned elsewhere. Now you do not want to give money to those kinds of groups, the visible minority groups who have come to him, the Abbotsford youth commission that has come to you, the native friendship centres that need money, the anti-racist and anti-hate education councils. These are the groups you would like to deprive of doing work both at the public, the volunteer, and at the institutional level. Well I do not agree with your perspective.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before I continue the period of questions and comments I would like to remind everyone to direct their comments through the Chair.

There are occasions, and maybe in most instances, when you could exchange comments very cordially. I know you all debate very well and are very respectful of one another but there are times when it is awfully critical to go through the Chair. I think it is a good practice for all of us when intervening to direct our comments through the Chair.

With the few moments left in questions and comments, the hon. member for Elk Island.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with real interest to the speech. I am very interested in the direction the government is taking Canada with respect to equality of our citizens.

Over and over when I have been speaking to groups I ring a chord of agreement when I say we need in government policy to remove totally any reference to gender, colour, race, or to culture because only then can we treat people equally.

I have an example of racial and gender discrimination in my riding in the person of a young man who in applying for an RCMP position for which he was qualified in every way was disqualified because he happened to be white and he was male. That is sexual discrimination. That is racial discrimination. I do not care how you cut it.

The direction we are taking where we name certain races, certain colours, and female gender as having special privileges is perpetuating the kind of apartheid that brought South Africa down. We need to remove that. That will be the healthy direction.

I would really be interested in the minister's comments on that.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, you were in this House when we spent a great deal of time studying section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was such an important section that we delayed the application of section 15 for three years. It came into effect April 15, 1985.

We do not have time to undertake an extensive examination of why section 15, the non-discrimination section of the charter and the right to affirmative action given equal competence and equal skills is of fundamental value in this country because it is equal to the question of fairness, access, respect and appreciation for differences.

I would suggest, if I may, that the "Equality for All" report be given to my hon. colleague. I am sure he would like to read it and understand why it is not discrimination and is only in the sense of the best action, not only in pay equity but employment equity, that one would want to move forward anyone who has compe-

tence regardless of colour, regardless of language, and it is antithetical to what South Africa did.

It is too bad that this member and the member sitting in front of him did not have the opportunity to read the report that could have enlightened some very biased disinformation that was given this morning.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-53. This legislation, described as a mere technicality, provides an ideal opportunity to explain Quebec's perspective to our fellow Canadians.

As you know, the Bloc Quebecois has the mandate to protect Quebec's interests at the federal level. Those interests are largely dependent on the development of Quebec's own cultural life as well as on its exclusive control over it. This is what Mr. René Arpin, chairman of the advisory group on Quebec's cultural policy, said at the hearings of the standing commission on culture, in June 1992.

He said that "Quebec's distinct character and sound management of priorities require that the province have complete control over its cultural choices". Mr. Arpin added that "the federal government must completely withdraw from the cultural sector, regardless of Quebec's constitutional future".

Around the same time, the then Quebec minister of Cultural Affairs, Mrs. Frulla-Hébert, who can certainly not be labelled a sovereignist, said: "When it comes to programs, the federal government does little or no consultating". Genuine consultation is practically non-existent, and, when it does occur, it is often at Quebec's request. When, as often happens, it is faced with a fait accompli , Quebec has to state its real needs after the fact''.

Since Bill C-53 mainly concerns federal activities in the cultural sphere, I will discuss certain aspects of federal encroachment in this area and, more specifically, the causes of this intrusion, how it is expressed in the bill, and its harmful impact on Quebec's development as an autonomous State.

Federalism or the invasion of Quebec: the origin of Quebec's problems lies in the very nature of the federal system. In fact, Quebec is considered to be just another province, one of ten, which is a denial of reality. Federalism means a central government that must reconcile the usually divergent interests of various regions and cultures.

Because the Canadian government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that some day we should have a Canadian identity, it blithely ignored the situation in Quebec. Now this situation is quite different from Canada's. Quebecers are not concerned about their identity. Studies keep reminding us that Quebec's identity is alive and well, thank you very much. Canada's existential problems do not concern Quebecers.

Quebecers worry more about their economic and cultural development. However, since English Canada is seeking its elusive identity, Quebecers will have to contribute financially to this quest for the Holy Grail. This, without any decision-making power, since the power is shared among representatives of the ten provinces. That is one of the ways in which the federal system has an impact on Quebec.

Another side of federalism we cannot ignore is the negative consequences of the federal government's tremendous spending powers. These spending powers were gradually granted to the Canadian government by the courts which were, and still are, dominated by the legal profession from English Canada. However, as constitutional expert Gérald Beaudoin has pointed out, the courts are uneasy about with this power.

After analysing the jurisprudence in this area, Beaudoin noted that judges often issue formal warnings to the effect that spending powers should not be legislated in an area under provincial jurisdiction. He wrote that it was clear that abuse of spending powers confused the issue of government responsibilities in a federation and could upset a sometimes fragile balance.

The message is clear. Spending powers which initially were to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances are now used, at the drop of a hat to intrude in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Professor Beaudoin also quoted Professor Jean Beetz, former Justice of the Supreme Court, and we found his comments very revealing. The former Justice wondered about the financial power of federal institutions. Despite ineffectual warnings in the jurisprudence, a new kind of legislation had been created that allowed the federal government to influence provincial jurisdiction by dispensing its largesse as it saw fit.

The minister's powers, duties and functions under this legislation mostly concern matters of provincial jurisdiction. I am referring to the arts; the status of the artist; cultural heritage and industries; the conservation, exportation and importation of cultural property; and, to a lesser extent, amateur sport.

The federal government will be investing more than a billion dollars a year in Quebec on culture only, and we contend that this legislation is a form of back door intervention and an

encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. We strongly denounce such federal schemes in Quebec.

As I said earlier, Quebec officials have been asking for years for the exclusion of the federal government in the area of culture and the transfer of all powers to Quebec. Yet, section 4 of Bill C-53 would give Heritage Canada full power in the area of Canadian cultural development. Subsection (2) lists the areas of jurisdiction, and I will give you some which worry us: the arts, including cultural aspects of the status of the artist; cultural heritage and industries, including performing arts, visual and audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film, video and literature; the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment; the conservation, exportation and importation of cultural property. This is not just encroachment, this is a full-scale invasion.

The predatory attitude of the federal government illustrates very well the impossible Canadian duality. On one side, English Canada is seeking a national cultural umbrella, hoping it will bring about a Canadian identity-a national obsession-and hence a Canadian culture. On the other side is Quebec, where identity and culture are alive, dynamic and strictly our own.

Quebec does not need federal intervention. On the contrary, to ensure that Quebec culture continues to blossom, we must be free from federal intrusion. We must be given the money spent in Quebec by the central government to use as we choose and according to priorities that we would set ourselves to meet our needs.

There are at the present time an astounding number of overlaps and duplications between the cultural institutions and programs of Quebec and Canada. Here are some: the arts councils, the state television networks, the archives, the national libraries. Why not save millions for the taxpayers by eliminating these duplications and giving Quebec sole responsibility in an area so vital for its future as a nation?

Culture is what drives society. In a publication entitled Le Québec dans un monde nouveau, the present Quebec Premier said it in these words: Our culture is the blend of our common history and heritage, of our common values and institutions. Our life as a community, our solidarity and collective vision are based on our culture''. He then added:Culture is the expression of a feeling of belonging to a community, it is the very fibre of our people. It is incarnated in our way of life, our way of thinking and creating. Within the particular North American context, Quebec culture must continually assert itself, promote creation expressing its originality, and seek enrichment by assimilating contributions from outside its borders. These are the requirements necessary to our vitality and survival''.

Within such a context, it is easy to see how different the Quebec culture is from the Canadian experience. We must promote the development of our culture, but not within a framework imposed by a government representing the other group.

This was the conclusion reached by two well-known Quebecers who followed one another as Quebec Minister for Communications and Cultural Affairs. In 1992, Mr. Jean-Paul L'Allier and Mr. Denis Vaugeois wrote: "Political subordination and economic inferiority can only breed an atrophied and diminished cultural life. It can be artificially sustained for a certain period of time as is the case in Canada and Quebec. But money is not enough. Inspiration is needed. We must be able to rely on our own resources. True development cannot come from outside".

It is imperative for the federal government to withdraw from Quebec culture and to compensate the Quebec government accordingly.

Multiculturalism is another area under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Here again, Quebec's specificity is not being respected.

There is in Quebec a consensus on how to deal with our fellow citizens from outside Quebec. The position adopted 20 years ago and systematically maintained since then is based on integration and respect. Quebec society favours the full involvement of all its members, whether they were born here or elsewhere. However, in order to meet this goal, integration into Quebec society is emphasized. We expect new immigrants to learn the national language, French, and to familiarize themselves with our traditions. This position does not imply in any way that racism or discrimination in any form is tolerated. On the contrary, Quebec society makes it a point to respect differences and individual rights.

Yet, respecting differences is not the same as officially promoting and institutionalizing these differences, as the Canadian multiculturalism policy calls for. Quebec has chosen to integrate its new members into Quebec society rather than the opposite. There is a major and, in my opinion, irreconcilable difference.

This is another area in which the central government flouts Quebec policy. The federal government legislates, creates programs and spends considerable amounts to promote the opposite approach. While, in our opinion, respect for individual rights clearly comes under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government continues to encroach on Quebec jurisdiction. We denounce and will always denounce this situation. That is another fine example of federalism's benefits.

Before closing, I will point out another insidious aspect of this bill, namely the Canadian heritage minister's duty to promote and develop English-speaking minorities. No one needs a history lesson to know that only Quebec has an English-speaking minority.

Quebec anglophones are the best-treated linguistic minority in Canada, a fact that some of them even recognize. Representatives of French-speaking groups from outside Quebec would be easily satisfied with the status enjoyed by English-speaking Quebecers. Of course, I am not saying that there is no room for improvement. However, Quebec treats its minority with a very open mind.

It is in that context that we question the federal government's intentions in this area. In pursuing the objective of promoting the development of that so-called minority, does the government intend to legislate against Quebec's policies, even though these policies are very generous? Since federal legislation takes precedence over provincial legislation, Quebec's language policy could thus be subverted.

Does the government intend to spend large amounts to promote English in Quebec? Does it intend to give anglophones social and cultural facilities that are out of proportion to this linguistic minority's share of the population?

Let me reassure you that neither I nor my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois nor the government in power in Quebec have any intention of reducing in any way the advantages that our English-speaking fellow citizens enjoy. On the contrary, the Constitution of a sovereign Quebec would confirm the rights and advantages that the English community enjoys now. That is public knowledge.

However, I am concerned about what the federal government actually intends to do in Quebec. The government has no obligation to consult the provincial government and would probably feel no obligation to do so, as history shows. These issues are too important to give the central government complete power in this area in Quebec without saying a word.

Another issue raised by the bill is equal treatment for French- and English-speaking minorities. How can we ensure that francophone minorities will benefit fairly from federal largesse? How can we ensure that they will be able to catch up with Quebec's anglophone minority to some extent? Bill C-53 remains silent on this fundamental aspect of the treatment of minorities in Canada.

Quebec knows what to do; it knows what to do for its culture and for its minority. The central government should restrict itself to its own field of jurisdiction. Perhaps that is what good government means!

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Mr. Speaker, I wish first to inveigh against such a lampoonist speech! What it described is very far from the reality of the federal contribution, which is extremely generous in Quebec, to the promotion of the French Canadian culture across the country and around the world.

Tell me something: how is it that Telefilm Canada, which comes under this department, subsidized Mr. Falardeau's latest film, Octobre , with the participation of the NFB as well?

I wonder if there is another country in the Western hemisphere that would subsidize a film produced, written and directed by a separatist, a fellow who is bent on breaking up his country. Do you know of any other country that would do the same thing, a country with the will to finance such a project? Name one.

Tell me something else: did the hon. member know that over 40 per cent of the National Film Board's budget goes to Quebec productions, to productions in French?

I would also like to know this: on the subject of the federal contribution, we could also mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I learned recently that the CBC produces more hours of original programming than France does for its own programming, its own culture. In a country with 6 million francophones and a total population that is half that of France, the Canadian government spends more than France on this. And then, some say this is a ploy on the part of the federal government. Some people have the nerve to talk about interference. When you look at the figures though, they speak for themselves: the federal government is the one promoting the Quebec culture and I think that many creative artists recognize this.

Finally, I understand what the Bloc Quebecois is driving at, but let us not forget that opinions are divided in Quebec. You have producers, directors and people who would readily admit it. As a matter of fact, we saw in certain documents last year that the involvement of the federal government should be maintained because it is generally more responsive to the aspirations and legitimate financial needs of our producers in Quebec.

I am prepared to take questions from the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, given the questions asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, it seems like he did not understand the points I was making.

Earlier this afternoon, in my speech, I talked about the federal government's involvement in what should be provincial jurisdictions. What we want in Quebec is to manage our own money and to decide what we want to do with regard to promotion in Quebec, outside Quebec and throughout the world.

For the federal government to implement institutions is one thing, but to decide what to do in the province of Quebec is quite another thing.

As a matter of fact, I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage where many questions will be raised. We have met with artists' associations which are complaining about the decisions made by the government and the federal institutions, because these decisions do not completely allow the

government of Quebec to maintain its own institutions and jurisdictions.

I can see that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine did not understand a thing I said. We do not want to hear about how many millions were invested; we want to decide, by ourselves, how to spend that money.

I think I have answered the questions put by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that 40 per cent of the National Film Board's productions in Montreal are French productions. So, if I understand the opposition's logic, if Quebec were to separate tomorrow, funding would fall to 22 to 25 per cent. Quebec would be the loser in this situation and that is what the opposition does not seem to understand.

Where will the people on the other side get the money to organize trips and trade shows? Let us not forget that a lot of money comes from federal grants. I was just talking about the Monument national, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, Radio-Canada and Telefilm Canada. The Canadian government has never questioned the work of our artists from Quebec.

As I was saying earlier, the hon. member does not want to admit to this 40 per cent, to the fact that Quebec receives more than its share of funding for its cultural institutions. She cannot give me an example of a film like Mr. Falardeau's Octobre , a film about the FLQ that was funded by Telefilm Canada and by the National Film Board. I challenge you to give me an example from another country. Do you know of any film about the Corsicans or the Bretons that was funded by the government of France?

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

I can see that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine still has not understood the meaning of my intervention. The federal government invested in the movie Octobre because that is where the money is. If Quebec had had the money, then Quebec would have been asked to fund this type of production.

I am sorry, but I have to say that this bill will just aggravate the problems related to Quebec's cultural identity.

I am also aware that these funds come from the money we give the federal government to manage our country, which means that Quebec pays for these federal grants. We would like to see how we could manage our own programs. Of course, it would look bad if the federal government did not give anything to our producers and artists from Quebec. Nevertheless, it is an historic event. We could have a debate about the October Crisis here in this House, show you the movie, show you how some Quebecers were treated and how Mr. Trudeau sent in the army. This crisis-

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. This debate generates a lot of passion, which is good, but the Chair would appreciate it if hon. members showed more respect to those who express their views.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the purpose of this bill is to promote, with our own money, a single vision which melts Quebec's culture into a multiculturalism program which presents problems for Quebec and which will also present problems for English Canada.

In fact, there is no consensus regarding this multiculturalism program. We should have a debate on the objectives of such a program. We want newcomers to adopt Quebec's culture, to learn French and to respect our institutions and customs. Indeed, it is one thing to know these institutions and customs but quite another to respect them.

This is what we mean when we say that we want to manage our own programs. We want to have control over the programs and the money used to promote the distinct character of our society. We speak French and we want to promote our own culture.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage. I believe the best way to use the time at our disposal is to review the programs and responsibilities which fall under the jurisdiction of this new department.

First, I want to point out that the Department of Canadian Heritage has actually been in existence for over a year. Since its inception, which goes back to the general government reorganization of June 1993, officials of that department have discreetly but confidently succeeded in strengthening the links between the various and excellent programs which fall under its scope. This "growth stage" has been exciting and enriching. The fact is that it is not over yet.

There is still a lot of interesting work and progress to accomplish before the Department of Canadian Heritage is fully recognized and plays its important role among other federal departments. Obviously, the tabling of this bill was a major step in that direction, as will its second reading.

I have just alluded to the range of programs within Canadian Heritage. I want to elaborate upon the department's composition and the scope of its activities. Before I begin let me add a caveat. Because of time constraints, my review of Canadian Heritage program areas cannot be all-inclusive. Nonetheless I am confident that the members present will find this description illuminating.

Undoubtedly, one of the most visible programs administered by Canadian Heritage is Parks Canada, one of the department's three principal sectors. Many Canadians, and for that matter many visitors to Canada, have been fortunate enough to experience the splendour and richness of the country's system of national parks, national historic sites and historic canals.

A steward of these unmatched examples of our national and cultural heritage, Parks Canada is charged with the protection and interpretation on behalf of all Canadians. Given the nature of its mandate, Parks Canada is primarily a regional organization. It has strong and respected presence in every region of this country, including the Gaspé Peninsula, contributing significantly to the local economies of communities all across Canada directly through expenditures on its own operations and indirectly through the tourism and economic benefits generated as a result of those activities.

The second major departmental component is centered around the Canadian identity and the contribution of all citizens. Without question, it represents one of the largest series of responsibilities and incentives throughout the government. It includes programs promoting the official languages, excellence in amateur sports, human rights, the welfare of aboriginal communities living in large urban areas, the development of our cultural diversity, and finally, the full contribution of all citizens, including recent immigrants, to our society. In brief, these programs are of interest to each and every one of us, since they deal with what it means to "be Canadian".

We live in an era marked by major social and economic change. No one can deny that. In this context, initiatives undertaken by this departmental component are considered even more important. In fact, by promoting and increasing our sense of community and identity, these programs can truly help us to understand today's goals and to prepare for tomorrow's challenges.

The purview of the third major departmental component can broadly be described as encompassing cultural development and heritage. The responsibility of this sector extends to the arts, broadcasting and heritage conservation programs as well as the cultural industries pertaining to film, video, sound recording and book publishing.

In an age of unparalleled technological advancement where adaptability to change has become a prerequisite for success and where globalization of markets presents both potential for growth and new competitive challenges, Canada's creators, artists and producers are looking to government to provide leadership in formulating the legislation and policies that will allow them to compete and thrive.

To cite but two examples it means taking action to ensure that creators are justly compensated for the use of their works. It means fashioning a policy framework that will ensure a place for Canadian content and cultural products on the information highway of the future.

In general, it means ensuring that Canadians continue to see themselves reflected in a strong and vibrant culture.

I have briefly described the department, the activities of which are far-reaching and of significant importance to all Canadians. Although these programs may seem disparate at first, a slightly deeper examination would dispel these doubts. I hope I have managed to demonstrate, to some extent, that the various components of this new department have much in common, that, given their purposes, they complete each other and generate a kind of synergy that truly makes it more than the sum of its parts.

I look forward to the enactment of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. That step cannot fail to have beneficial and enduring effects in enhancing our sense of Canadian identity and participation in society, in furthering our cultural development and ensuring the continue appreciation and protection of our priceless array of natural and cultural heritage resources.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to explain a couple of things emanating from his speech.

He talked about the department being "successful in cementing relationships in this reorganization". If that was exemplified by the previous exchange between the hon. member and the member for Quebec Est then I would have to question the validity of that comment. He might wish to expand on that point.

The member also went on to give a lengthy list of all of the departments and all of the responsibilities of Canadian heritage, but he glossed over one point: the well-being of native peoples. I would like him to explain how and why he believes that Canadian heritage is indeed addressing this point. Our aboriginal people really do constitute involuntary citizens of Canada. They were never asked their opinions on the French or British regimes nor on Confederation and what really constituted their disenfranchisement.

I would like the hon. member to please give some thoughtful reasoned debate to the question of the well-being of native peoples. I would also like an explanation on the first comment he made regarding the successful cementing of relationships in the reorganization of his department.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that we also have a department for Indian and northern affairs. We have a most capable minister with a budget who tries to address the varying issues that touch upon aboriginal communities.

I can speak for my area where the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs promotes various school programs for youngsters trying to lead very interesting lives as full partners in Canadian society. We may have to make a distinction however because when it comes to cultural affairs there is probably more that can be done in trying to enhance aboriginal culture.

In my speech I was speaking in terms of aboriginals in urban areas such as Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere. There is much to be done in trying to give them the opportunity to express who they are and their culture to fellow Canadians.

On the second point the hon. member quite correctly pointed out there are various views and opinions in terms of the role of the federal government in Quebec. As members know the Bloc Quebecois may have the majority of seats on the opposition side but it does not have the majority of votes in the province of Quebec. We are talking of only between 44 and 48 per cent.

We should also take these things into account. We do not speak for all Quebecers. I have tried to inform the hon. member that the federal government has been a most productive and viable force in my home province of Quebec in terms of encouraging cultural development.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

An hon. member

And everywhere else.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

And everywhere else. It is important to note that the federal government has invested heavily in French culture to a point that our investments in CBC productions are far superior to what the French government invests in its own TV broadcasts. That is astonishing.

Forty per cent of the productions by the National Film Board are French Canadian. Regrettably, the hon. Bloc member is saying that Quebec wants it all for itself. However it would have to settle for 25 per cent if it opted for independence and right now it is getting 40 per cent.

What I am trying to tell the two hon. ladies is that the federal government is doing its part in promoting arts and culture in Quebec and across Canada and it is doing a fantastic job.

Canadian HeritageGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a small point but it has occurred time and time again that we are not referred to in this House all of the time as hon. members and that is what we are. We are not hon. ladies, girls or anything else. We are hon. members.