Mr. Speaker, on October 3, I spoke on Bill C-53 in this House and I rise today to denounce the mandate which the Department of Canadian Heritage is about to give itself. It is unacceptable for me and for
all Quebecers that this new department's mandate makes no reference to Quebec as a society or to its cultural and linguistic specificity.
Why does the Liberal government again stubbornly persist in wanting to deny the existence of Quebec, its language rights and its cultural specificity? How can the federal government claim that it wants to promote Canadian identity and intentionally omit from its bill any reference to Quebec culture?
Therefore I will support the amendments moved by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata to include in Bill C-53 references to the specific nature of Quebec's culture, language and identity.
I will continue in the same vein by demonstrating to this House that this new department's mandate is to assimilate Quebec culture, no more or less.
Let us take the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a specific case in point supporting my argument.
The Broadcasting Act says that the CBC's programming should seek to be of equivalent quality in French and in English.
On this subject the law is clear: French and English must be treated as equivalent.
Let me give you another quotation, this time from part of CRTC decision 87-140, in connection with a public hearing of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission on January 21, 1994 concerning the licence renewals of the English and French networks.
Among the long term objectives which the CRTC set for the CBC is the following: to achieve a fair and equitable balance in production, distribution and scheduling of regional and network programs on both networks, English and French.
The CBC's mandate is clear since it is dictated by the CRTC's directives and the Broadcasting Act. The French and English networks must be equally productive and have the same rate of programming.
The two quotes which I just read to you clearly show the federal government's apparent intentions. These views are clearly reflected in the act, as well as in the guidelines published by the Crown corporation responsible for the monitoring and renewal of licences for television and broadcasting in Canada.
The federal government says that it seeks to promote the use of French in Canada. However, the daily reality does not support that claim; in fact, it shows just the opposite.
The government cannot merely tell us about its good intentions: It must also act. It is nice to claim equal status for French and English, but that claim must be supported. These are mere statements of intention with no real basis.
On July 27, 1994, the CRTC approved the budget allocation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in an internal document entitled CRTC Decision 94-437. That document clearly indicates that the CBC allocates 63 per cent of its TV network budget to the English language network, and only 37 per cent to the French language network, this for the term of its next licence.
Moreover, the CRTC feels that the CBC is in the best position to decide how to allocate its funds. Thus, the CRTC is satisfied that the corporation's decisions do not violate the legislation.
If you look at the overall programming costs for the two networks, you will see that the proportion for the French language network is now below 40 per cent, its level of six years ago.
Furthermore, in 1970, there was no difference at all between the two networks. I think this proves that the federal government is gradually limiting the scope of its duties and obligations to accommodate a not so subtle policy of assimilation.
The Broadcasting Act and the CRTC required the corporation to give equal treatment to both networks. Furthermore, both the legislation and the CRTC specify that production of programming should be equivalent for the English and French networks.
However, when it is time to share financial resources, the French network gets half the funding that goes to the English network.
This reduction in financing for the French network reflects Ottawa's lack of vision, which has been very harmful to the development and vitality of the country's francophone communities. This is a typical example of the federal government's policy of ignoring reality.
In fact it reflects the policy of cultural and linguistic assimilation favoured by the federal government: legislate fair and equal treatment for English and French, while this is not followed through in the allocation of financial resources.
I will give a few examples of the corporation's disproportionate allocation of financing.
In 1992 the average investment per hour of programming was $37,496 on the English network and $18,390 on the French network. In other words, half as much.
The average cost of news bulletins was $18,000 on the English network and $7,000 on the French network. Less than half.
The average cost of drama programs was $90,000 on the English network and $68,800 on the French network.
I realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the President of the CBC, Mr. Manera, will try to justify what is being done by his crown corporation by saying that Canada has three times as many anglophones as francophones. However, the tv ratings for the French network are three times as high as for the English network.
In fact, ratings for the English network vary from 11 per cent to 13 per cent during prime time. The Chairman of the CRTC, Keith Spicer, even referred to recent figures below 10 per cent. Ratings for the French network, however vary between 30 per cent and 38 per cent.
In other words, the French network reaches the same number of Canadians as the English network. So why are financial resources not allocated accordingly? Why is the French network at such a disadvantage when it manages to reach the same number of viewers as the English network?
I would like the heritage minister to be able to reply to these questions, because this looks like a policy of assimilation designed to bring about the death of Canada's other cultural community.
Is it the goal of the federal government to destroy the stronghold of the French language in North America? In any event, that is what I think and what the assimilation rate that grows from one census to the next would seem to indicate. Is this the federal government's covert policy of ignoring reality?
This is an unacceptable situation, especially when Canadian legislation stipulates clearly that the treatment must be equivalent. Not more, not less, but equivalent.
How, then, can the federal government continue to claim that it guarantees the equal treatment and use of French in its federal institutions when there are examples such as those of the CBC and the CRTC?
These facts reinforce the findings of the Official Languages Committee. The annual report on official languages demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Canadian heritage organizations are in fact agents for assimilating rather than protecting the French speaking citizens of this country.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage must deliver the goods to the French speaking community in Quebec and elsewhere in this country. The federal Liberal government has the responsibility to guarantee the rights of the cultural minority in this country, especially when they are clearly enshrined in its legislation.
I would like to take the opportunity available to me today to denounce the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the CRTC. This department and these crown corporations are giving credence to decisions that are contrary to the rights of French-speaking communities in Quebec and elsewhere in this country. The federal government has no right to sanction these decisions by the CBC and the CRTC.
The federal government and this new Department of Canadian Heritage deny the cultural identity of Quebec and work against it.
I therefore salute this democratic exercise to which we have been called by the Government of Quebec, in the form of the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty.
This draft bill sets out the political plan that the Government of Quebec recommends in order to resolve, for once and for all, the constitutional problem in which Quebec has been mired for too many years. I think that it is the only way we have left to promote the full development of the people of Quebec.
