Sorry, Mr. Speaker, for going on and on about the French fact, but it is important to us, although you may be tired of hearing about it.
The federal government has played a major role in cultural life through several institutions: the National Archives, National Gallery, CBC, Canada Council for arts and research, National Film Board. Some fields of exclusive federal jurisdiction have major repercussions on Quebec's cultural sector, for example, in communications. Given the importance of culture to the development of Quebec's identity, we could not overemphasize the urgency of taking back jurisdiction in this field. Quebec must exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all areas related to culture and communications.
This conclusion comes from the report of the constitutional committee of the Liberal Party of Quebec, not the Parti Quebecois, but the Liberal Party of Quebec, in 1991, on page 32 of the report entitled "a Quebec that is free to make its own choices".
Twenty-five years later, we in Quebec have not deviated very far from the position that Quebec culture, to be well defended, must first of all exist and second be managed solely and exclusively in Quebec.
Does this date from 1967? No. Long before that, royal institutions recognized this distinction between the French fact and the English fact in North America. Let us review some constitutional history. In 1791, the Constitution Act recognized Upper and Lower Canada. Since 1791, a distinct society of French-speaking people in North America has been recognized.
Why did the crown agree to divide the territory then? To please the Loyalists? Why were the Napoleonic Code, the seigneurial system, the French fact and the Catholic religion recognized? Quite simply, because there was a distinct society in North America then. It still exists and it is found mainly in Quebec.
Later, in 1840, they tried to bury that minority with the Union Act. They tried to bury it when anglophones formed a majority. Following the Durham report, they thought that if the two colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, were joined, francophones would be in a minority situation and would quickly disappear. Therefore the problem of the French fact would be solved.
Luckily for us, we are still here to take care of ourselves. In 1867, we managed to create a province, Quebec, primarily to protect our rights. However, this bill would eliminate everything for which we fought in the past.
Throughout their history, francophones have preserved their distinct society in North America, and that must be clearly recognized. As my colleague mentioned earlier, a member of a group represented by the Société nationale des Québécois de l'Outaouais came to talk to us. He gave examples of how francophones were treated unfairly, here in this country. The financing of Radio-Canada is one such example.
As the Société nationale des Québécois de l'Outaouais said, "Radio-Canada is another example of cultural discrimination by the federal government. If the two languages and the two cultures are truly on an equal footing, and if Canada is bilingual and bicultural, the two networks should receive equal financing. Yet, the French language network receives 37 per cent, compared to 63 per cent for the English language network. To justify this discrepancy, the CRTC said, on January 21, 1994, when the TV licences of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were renewed, that if the allocation of money were based on demographics, the ratio would be three to one in favour of the English language network".
The figures support the CRTC decision to allocate 63 and 37 per cent respectively to the two networks. However, if you take the ratings into consideration, you will see that they are comparable. Radio-Canada is indeed treated unfairly.
I conclude with a quote from a great Quebec historian, Denis Monière, who submitted a brief to the committee. I trust I can quote him verbatim in the House. He said: "The establishment of the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is the most thorough and perverse Canadian imposture, follows the numerous attempts made since 1867 to deny the existence of a people which is distinct from the Canadian people and which refuses to be integrated into an alienating entity. This project reflects a Canadian cultural imperialism bent on eradicating Quebec's national identity and following a long tradition inspired by the Durham report. Since that report, all those who believed in a bicultural Canada were proven wrong by Canadian history, and misled French Canadians besides".
For all the reasons which I have tried to express without being put off, we oppose Bill C-53.