Mr. Speaker, this opportunity that I have to address the House today is particularly important for me because of the nature of the debate. When we talk about culture, we are really talking about the very heart and soul of a nation. Therefore, allow me to speak with strong emotion.
The purpose of Bill C-53 is to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to unite under one authority all the policy instruments Ottawa has in the cultural area: the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, museums and national parks and the National Archives of Canada.
The annual budget of this department would be approximately $2.8 billion.
The main objective of this new super-department is to support and promote the canadian cultural policy. This is enough to get all the citizens of Quebec and the one million francophones outside Quebec seriously worried.
Even if in the past the cultural development policy was not so well orchestrated, we could yet see clearly that it was in Ottawa's interest rather than that of the francophones all over the country.
On the strength of the British North America Act and, hence, of the residual powers entrusted to him, and encroaching upon some provincial jurisdictions, education for example, the federal government is about to control more closely than ever what we call Canadian culture.
The desire to take over one of the more essential aspects of our lives is not new. This is nothing but the logical and perfect continuation of actions taken since the first Communications Act of 1932 by which the federal government gave itself exclusive jurisdiction in the area of communications. The events that followed confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction in other areas. This is why the CRTC can declare unilaterally what is good for the provinces, including the only francophone province in this country.
Using its powers to expand its responsibilities and possibly create a new area of activity, Ottawa developed over the years a policy, the bilingualism and multiculturalism policy, based on a central theme.
We can understand that some of our English-speaking fellow citizens had a hard time finding their own identity, but common sense should never have allowed the creation of such a two-headed monster. For humane considerations, my grandfather used to kill two-headed calves at birth. In Ottawa, they are considered as precious as the Golden calf.
Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, where is the cultural difference between Canada and the United States, except for Quebec, of course? Compared to our southern neighbour, Canada is nothing more than a society without any significant distinctive traits. Is there really a Canadian culture or is it merely the creation of a political administration with an over-productive mind? Have we been the victims of too wide or too narrow designs? The future will soon tell us, since Quebec will shortly be an external observer.
However, for the time being, six million francophones have to adapt to this federal creature that many find disturbing. Beyond worn-out official statements and pious wishes, what did Canada's cultural policy give the French-speaking minority of this country?
Our culture distinguishes us from other Canadians; how has this policy contributed to reinforce our own identity? The question begs the answer. This policy did not contribute a thing to our cultural development. What is worse, it actually had a destabilizing effect, limiting the growth and creative potential of its most distinctive and dynamic aspect. Even then it would have to be recognized as such-this is what happens when you have a policy the rationale of which has no bearing on Canadian reality.
Praise it as you may, claim all you want that it is likely to meet the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers and other francophones coast to coast, it does not even manage to impose respect for the most basic element of our identity: the French language. Reports unanimously show hatred for the use of French, coast to coast. Is it two languages on equal footing or one language stomped on with both feet? In what way did passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms benefit francophone communities?
One of its main achievements is the following: Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, NewFoundland and Prince Edward Island have yet to approve a single bill to give effect to plans for French language school management. They examine, they ponder, they hem and haw, as we would say. But so far, no concrete steps have been taken to support these communities who wish to manage their own schools.
Does it come as a surprise that 127 years after the birth of Confederation and 25 years after the passage of the Official Languages Act, the commissioner responsible for ensuring that the linguistic rights of minorities are respected, Mr. Victor Goldbloom, cannot get over the ignorance of the anglophone majority, that goes about completely oblivious of the existence of the francophone minority?
Mr. Goldbloom talks about ignorance when he should be talking about hostility in the case of the 65 Ontario municipalities which declared themselves officially unilingual English, although no law forces them to provide services in French. The Prime Minister of Canada said that his Canada included the 1 million francophones living outside Quebec. He must live in a great country full of respect and dignity. He should try living like little Jean Bilodeau or Jean Leblanc.
In your opinion, Mr. Speaker, should we trust these people who are unable to face up to reality? Do you think that our culture is safe in their hands? Who are these people who, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, want to define our culture and therefore a large part of our lives? Who would benefit from having a say on the way we live, think and entertain ourselves? What would they like to see in our culture?
What about those who recently refused to recognize us as a distinct society? Those who, under the pretext of efficient budget management, merrily slash the amounts allocated to Radio-Canada, which is already unfairly treated compared with the CBC.
There are also those who make it a point of honour, if not a duty, to duplicate the cultural institutions of the Quebec government. We will face those who are against any dialogue, any sharing of responsibilities, any co-operation despite Quebec's repeated calls for joint action.
We should blindly leave essential elements of our collective future in the hands of these people, when all their actions seem designed to neutralize the efforts of another level of government.
Thanks, but no thanks. I, for one, do not trust the supporters of this power, who are now striving to formalize a policy that never was and never will be consistent with our interests and aspirations.
Even Liza Frulla, the former Quebec Liberal minister-who is not a sovereignist-admitted that Ottawa is creating overlap and duplication by interfering in Quebec's cultural affairs.
This government, with its centralizing federalism, knows full well that whoever controls the means of expression of a culture also controls its vitality, energy and creative power. Let us not give Ottawa the privilege of imposing its ideal cultural order.
It has long been proven that no one is in a better position than the Government of Quebec to develop a cultural policy based on the real needs of its people.
Until Quebec has acquired its full political sovereignty, others will decide what should go into our creative endeavours. The Bloc Quebecois, which is waging a continual struggle for the integrity of Quebec culture, cannot support Bill C-53, which is contrary to the legitimate intentions of the Quebec government in this field.
By creating this Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa is proving that it clearly intends to keep and even increase its ability to act in this sector which is crucial for the development of Quebec's cultural identity.
In this country, where francophones start to be assimilated from infancy, I feel nothing positive about creating a Department of Canadian Heritage. It is simply an expression of the federal government's harmful centralizing designs on Quebec.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.