Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the amendments moved by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata and myself concerning Bill C-53, on the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I do so with pleasure, because the amendments proposed by the official opposition well reflect one of Quebec's traditional demands from the government in Ottawa. Indeed, the very essence of the proposed amendments-and we make no mystery of it-is the recognition of Quebec's cultural specificity and identity.
In so doing, we propose that the federal government and the House of Commons at the very least recognize the fields in which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. Once it has recognized them, we ask that it respect them.
Bill C-53 as written is seriously deficient, first of all, because it fails to recognize the existence of more than one national identity on Canadian territory. We refer in particular to clauses 4 and 5 concerning Canadian identity, Canadian values, Canadian culture and Canadian heritage.
I have already had the opportunity several times in this House to express my opinion that no unified Canadian culture exists, since efforts are still being made to define, discover and grasp it. We also note a glaring omission in the bill. Indeed, no mention is made of the Quebec and native cultures and identities. Why? For what secret reason is the government systematically ignoring those very real and important cultures? Is it to eliminate them? Is it to better promote a new product, as though this was a mere marketing strategy? There has to be a reason. Maybe some day we, mere mortals, will be worthy of that knowledge.
The vast majority of Quebecers do not agree with this legislation. Let me quote some testimony heard by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I will quote officials from Quebec organizations which represent a very large number of people, because their opinions carry more weight. I will start with the Mouvement Québec français, whose members are the Montreal Teachers Alliance, the Association québécoise des professeurs de français, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, the Mouvement national des Québécois, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, the Union des artistes, the Union des écrivains québécois and, last but not least, the Union des producteurs agricoles.
Together, these groups represent a very large segment of the Quebec population. Here is what their spokesman, Guy Bouthillier, had to say:
"In this bill, everything related to culture is labelled under the heading Canadian identity. Indeed, nowhere is there any reference to Quebec and its culture. From the federal government's point of view, there are only one culture and one identity: the Canadian ones. This will come as a surprise only to those who still believed that there was some basis-as well as some honesty on the part of those who oppose that notion-for the concept of a distinct society. This bill will at least have the merit of dissipating any lingering illusion. Beyond the fine rhetoric, there is the written word, the legislation, which will prevail in the end".
Needless to say, the Mouvement Québec français rejects this legislation.
François Rocher, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University in Ontario, said this: "The government's approach is part of an unfinished process to build a national identity by denying existing realities in Canada".
He went on to say that the only option that would be both acceptable to Quebec and potentially beneficial to the other
provinces of Canada would be to revert to the duality concept-at least in the case of Quebec-and to accept the political consequences of such a decision.
I may add that Professor Rocher submitted his analysis of the bill in his professional capacity and not as someone representing a nationalist organization from Quebec.
On the other hand, one of the best known organizations in Quebec is the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal, also a member of the Mouvement Québec français, as I mentioned earlier.
In their brief, they said, among other things, that they were firmly opposed to Canadian multiculturalism and to legislation that would enshrine intrusions by the Government of Canada into Quebec's cultural life. The culture of the people of Quebec must not be subordinated to the priorities of the culture of another people, the people of Canada. This bill is centralist in design and a threat to Quebec's distinct identity. It was a bill that would be forced down people's throats, over the almost unanimous objections of Quebecers to a concentration of authority over cultural matters in Ottawa and to a view of national identity that was designed to submerge Quebec's identity, according to the brief. It is all there, Mr. Speaker.
It is clear that all intervenors from Quebec who examined this bill condemned the centralist vision underlying the federal government's intentions. The problem is not new. It has been with us for a long time. What surprises me is that these people are still willing to come to Ottawa to express their views as Quebecers. After years of struggle, one would expect them to stop trying. However, they are anxious for their friends in Canada to understand the differences that make Quebec distinct, a distinctness that will soon be expressed in a new status for Quebec, that of a sovereign state.
I want to take this opportunity to thank these people for spending all this time and effort to attend the committee's hearings. I want them to know their efforts were greatly appreciated.
I also want to mention the entirely unacceptable attitude of some committee members who consistently stayed away when witnesses from Quebec testified before the committee, which merely confirms the general lack of interest for Quebec's concerns. This attitude is reflected in the wording of the bill and has always been present in relations between Quebec and Ottawa. It is not just a lack of courtesy. It reflects a complete lack of interest and consideration. This is very sad.
Members from Canada had a chance to become better acquainted with their future neighbour. They did not take advantage of this opportunity and as a result may not understand that the purpose of our amendments is the very basis of our determined opposition on this bill. Another perfect example of the two solitudes, although the Minister of Canadian Heritage denied this when he appeared before our committee.