Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak on Bill C-53. Before getting to my opening remarks, I would like to start by giving a definition of bilingualism. This is my own personal definition but one that I believe is shared by many Quebecers. This is for the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester who talked about bilingualism and its importance. He has used this term over and over.
I think that, for a Quebecer, bilingualism simply means that a French-speaking Quebecer learns English. We are not so sure that it works both ways. As far as we are concerned, for us, it means learning English, and for the English, being able to understand us. There are of course exceptions, colleagues whom
I wish to congratulate, in this House, on our committee and around us.
The importance of the multicultural dimension of Canadian unity has been mentioned. Not so long ago, we had the opportunity to travel to western Canada with the environment committee. Much to my surprise, be it in Winnipeg, Edmonton-and I call this to the attention of the hon. member for St. Boniface, champion of the French fact-or Vancouver, we were unable to find French-language newspapers in the hotel, airport or convenience store. Nowhere in Edmonton, Winnipeg and Vancouver was I able to buy Le Devoir or La Presse . But you could get USA Today and magazines from New York City. There were all sorts of magazines and newspapers but none in French. And we are told that the French fact is very well championed just about everywhere. I have my doubts about that.
The amendment to clause 4, presented by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata, would simply recognize Quebec's identity in Bill C-53. It is an essential clause. It is indeed essential to recognize that Canada was built by two founding peoples, a fact that this bill denies. That is why we cannot support it. These two founding peoples are the francophones and anglophones of this country.
I do not think that a single Liberal member would knowingly contest the fact that Canada was built by two founding peoples. This is what the Minister of Canadian Heritage is simply denying with this bill. That is why we are opposed to it.
I therefore urge the minister to recognize the two founding nations and to accept every amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, which recognizes Quebec's identity, so that every motion should include the word "Quebec" or "the identity of Quebec". Otherwise, we cannot approve Bill C-53, as it denies an obvious reality in this country.
If I may, I would like to read from the report of a Canadian royal commission that was written a number of years ago. This is a rather long excerpt, but I will tell you afterwards when it was written and by which royal commission, and you will see that the problem goes back a long way.
Here is the excerpt. The dominant majority in politics-like the federal government and the anglophones-often takes its advantages for granted and does not appreciate the disadvantages suffered by the minority, especially when this minority enjoys or appears to enjoy some degree of cultural freedom. However, the minority, as long as it regards its collective life as an entity, may want control over it and look beyond cultural freedom. It then questions its political status. It feels that its future and cultural development are somewhat precarious and perhaps limited in a political environment dominated by the other group forming the majority. As a result, it leans towards greater constitutional autonomy. Ideally, the minority wants this autonomy for the whole community but, when this objective cannot be reached, it may focus its efforts on a narrower political stage where it would be in the majority.
We think about sovereignty. It is personal. This excerpt is from the 1967 Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism and biculturalism.
The recognition of the French fact, of francophone minority rights goes back to at least 1967. One francophone and one anglophone on the same royal commission signed this report recognizing minority rights. It is therefore imperative to recognize these rights.
According to the brief submitted by the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, it is important to see how this conclusion has evolved over the years, how political parties have learned to live with the findings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I am talking about biculturalism and not multiculturalism.
Twenty-five years later, in 1991, another look at this issue of culture and the French fact in Quebec and Canada led to the following conclusion: The two levels of government also compete on the last element of the analysis, culture, resulting in overspending, conflict and inefficiency.