Debates of Dec. 14th, 1994

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this reminder. I can assure you that it is rather difficult to keep your cool when your language rights are violated, when you are told that you will no longer be allowed to speak your language, except in the stables or in the privacy of your own home, in the shed or while mowing the lawn. From now on, I would not be allowed to speak French in my province of Ontario that is so dear to me or to request certain services in French when travelling to Calgary. I regret to say that the hon. member is far from kind.

Her third suggestion deals with "recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada". She and her colleagues from the Reform Party, whom I have observed, especially on the official languages committee, do not understand the first thing about the Official Languages Act, nor do they understand what bilingualism is about.

They do not understand what bilingualism is about. They confuse official languages and bilingualism. They are under the impression that laws are made here to force anglophones to speak French for example. That is not it. The hon. member, on the other hand, would like to force me to become, if possible, unilingual and speak English only. There is nothing wrong with being a unilingual English speaking member of Parliament, but personally, as a franco Ontarian, I would rather be francophone,

franco Ontarian and bilingual, and have respect for English Canadians as well as French Canadians.

Bilingualism, dear lady, is for people who put themselves at the service of others.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think it was pointed out at least five times that members should address their remarks to the chair. We would then avoid problems like this. I would ask the hon. member to address his comments to the chair, please.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are right, I will address my remarks to you, but I will refer to the hon. member. I know that to the hon. member, who probably does not understand French and certainly does not speak it, the word "madam" may sound very negative and even derogatory. I wanted to pay her a compliment, but she does not want me to. Perhaps she is not a lady. I do not know, but I do know that she is an elected member.

So from now on I will refer to her as the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, who is against bilingualism and against francophones outside Quebec. Bilingualism is for those who want to serve the country. Bilingualism is for those who want to serve the people of their country. Bilingualism is for those who want to do business with other countries, English speaking countries and French-speaking countries alike.

There are about one billion anglophones and francophones around the globe. One billion. People who become bilingual are an asset to Canada, but dear lady-excuse me, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast-is not interested in principles or in Canadian history. I am sure that she does not spend her evenings reading about Jacques Cartier, Champlain or Montcalm. She thinks that Canadian history started when she was born and that regulations should always be based on financial considerations. She does not give a hoot about anglophone minorities in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec. I find her remarks totally deplorable and un-Canadian.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before the House and discuss the report stage of Bill C-53.

Bill C-53, as I mentioned during the first and second reading, is riddled with problems which are quite evident if we look at the number of motions that have been put forward by the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Because of time constraints, I will attempt to keep my comments extremely brief and focus solely on the motions before us.

Motion No. 2 deals with the removal of clause 4 in section 2(a). While I am in no way against "the promotion of the greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values". I am against the idea of having more than one minister responsible for these issues. In fact I wholeheartedly believe that the Department of Justice is better suited to ensure the noble intentions of this clause.

Passage of Motion No. 3 would result in the elimination of multiculturalism from the bill. I believe that the continued funding of programs like this will ensure a Liberal defeat in the next election. Canadians want less government, not more. They want to see the government manage its allocation of revenues and stop running up astronomical debts and deficits.

In short, what they are looking for is a government to priorize its spending programs to ensure that everyone is maximizing the benefits from his or her tax dollars.

Government funded multiculturalism programs do nothing to address this fundamental attitude toward government spending and programs. In fact, the Liberals seem more content to raise Canadian taxes than they are to control spending. We have a spending problem in Canada, not a revenue problem. Therefore not only is multiculturalism financially unsound but in fact it is politically unsound as well.

As a member of the standing committee on heritage I have had the pleasure of listening to witnesses describe the multicultural funded programs as a poor way to promote culture. Moreover, I have heard and talked to many Canadians who believe that multiculturalism does nothing but make us all hyphenated Canadians focusing on what separates and not what binds us together. Its day has come and gone and it is time that the Liberals face up to this fact.

Motions 5 and 21 deal with an issue that is also of great concern to the Reform Party. I am speaking of overlap and duplication. Why should one department oversee areas which should be under another portfolio such as national parks and marine conservation areas, or even historical canals. It should be our goal as parliamentarians to do everything in our power to decrease the amount of bureaucracy and administer services in each department by themselves.

Motions 5 and 21 will be a step in the right direction. They will allow parks and conservation to go back to the Department of the Environment and historic canals to return to transportation.

Historical canals belong to the department of transportation for the simple reason that they are administered by and are subject to the regulations of the department of transportation. A perfect example would be the Ottawa canal. It is a historical canal yet it is still in use and therefore subject to the rules and regulations of the department of transportation. Therefore why is it in the department of heritage?

Motion No. 6 has been clearly stated and illustrated in the Reform Party's blue book policies. Essentially we believe that there is no need for the official bilingualism policy. We feel there should be a policy based on territorial bilingualism where bilingual services will be maintained and supported where numbers warrant. That is the reason we have recognized the need for bilingualism especially in key federal institutions such

as Parliament and the Supreme Court which are explicitly outlined in Motion No. 6.

Clause 7(a) of Bill C-53 is of extreme concern to me as it allows the ministers to facilitate the implementation of any program and the minister also to provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments to any person. The concern arises from the idea that the minister may at his or her discretion provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments. Where are the checks and balances? Where is the accountability? Where is the financial control? Where is the openness and transparency?

Another concern relates to the fact that the minister could be allowed to implement other programs, such as multicultural programs, unilaterally. This would not only be unacceptable to me, to the Reform Party, my constituents, but also to a majority of Canadians.

Motion No. 12 would alleviate this concern as far as it relates to clause 7. Directly related to clause 7(a), clause 8 should be eliminated. Clause 8 deals directly with the notion that the minister can fix fees and charges which the minister considers appropriate. Again, what happened to accountability and openness or checks and balances?

Prior to the bill the minister was responsible and subject to any regulations that Treasury Board made. After Bill C-53, the minister may or may not be subject to these regulations as set out by Treasury Board. It is unclear and therefore it should be removed.

Although for the most part Treasury Board is no more than a rubber stamp in terms of approval for rate increases or fees or changes, there is still an institutional check on the powers of the ministry.

Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 alleviate the concerns which the Reform Party has outlined in clause 8 regarding the accountability and powers of a minister.

The last motion I would like to discuss briefly is Motion No. 20. It deals with the inclusion of an annual report which would be brought before Parliament outlining the expenditures and revenues of the department of heritage. I speak in support of this motion because I believe in accountability, openness and fairness.

An annual report would help not only parliamentarians but also Canadians to understand where, why and how much funding was allocated to ensure the best accountability possible. Although I have heard that part III of the estimates will be improved to accommodate the lack of an annual report, I believe it is still in the best interests of Canadians to have an annual report simply because it would be more accessible and clearer than the estimates.

I appreciate this opportunity and I hope that all members of the House listened carefully to why these motions should be supported. I look for them to support these motions when the time comes for a vote.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my concern and to basically state that I do not believe this motion should be adopted.

The main reason is, as we have discussed in committee, that the Multiculturalism Act is really a Canadian reality. What we are dealing with here is an opportunity for us as an institution, as a government to ensure that Canadians and those coming from abroad continue to understand the differences that make up this country.

I think multiculturalism helps on the basis of trying to reduce the barriers that exist between us. There are many aspects to multiculturalism that are a new reality in the global sense. That is from an entrepreneurial perspective and business opportunities. I think that when we take into account that the world is becoming smaller with satellites and telecommunications, faxes et cetera, there is an opportunity to encourage our businesses to do more trade which is the fundamental aspect of growth that we in this country are looking forward to.

This act and the Minister of Heritage will continue to increase the understanding of our realism, the Canadian identity as it exists today. We also have to continue to strengthen the cohesion that exists in this country and reduce the lack of understanding that sometimes exists in different regions.

If we take into account the rich human resources and the opportunities that exist for increasing that trade, we will see more Canadians working and we will reduce our deficit problems as the member across stated.

I also believe that multiculturalism policy is an eloquent testimony to our commitment to uphold the values of equity and fairness. It is a visionary statement about the kind of society we are all working to achieve, one in which each Canadian can realize his or her potential, economically, socially, politically and culturally. Multiculturalism is appropriately part of the department of heritage because it is a fundamental characteristic of our Canadian identity.

Therefore I believe the motion should not be adopted.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans-MIL Davie Shipyard; the hon. member for Gaspé-Fisheries; the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for Châteauguay-MIL Davie Shipyard; the hon. member for Chambly-Customs Brokers.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to discuss Motion No. 5, which deals with national parks. According to the amendment the effect would be to drop all references in the legislation to national parks, historic canals and national marine areas.

I suppose the question arises: Why should we include national parks under Canadian heritage? For those of us who have been interested in the park system it is interesting to note that over the years national parks have been located in different ministries.

The first place they were to be found after their creation in the 1880s was in what might be described as the predecessor to the Ministry of Natural Resources. This indicates that parks in those days were seen to have not only a natural component but also an economic component. They were seen as part of Canada's natural resources.

A subsequent reorganization of government meant that parks found themselves suddenly with Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This new vision of parks suggested that they were to be seen somehow as up there, out there, out of sight, out of mind to some degree. That was because they were in remote places often in the north, often in places where the aboriginal populations could be found. Of course that ignored the reality that there were parks close to centres of habitation, such as the Rocky Mountain parks.

After that the parks structures found themselves in the Minister of the Environment which seemed to make sense. The theme there was one of protection rather than human use. It put the stress on not interfering with the parks which took away the notion of an economic connection with parks.

Now finally with Canadian heritage the circle is to some extent complete. This latest reorganization of government recognizes that parks have different characteristics all of which have to be recognized. They are natural preserves and need protection, but they are also cultural sites. They are also economic sites for activity, for tourism for example.

By putting them into a new ministry this bill tries to recognize the complex way in which we now look at parks. In this bill we recognize that history, culture and nature are intertwined in some fundamental way. This is simply to pick up on what is happening internationally under conventions such as that of UNESCO concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. In UNESCO's eyes cultural and natural heritage are inevitably linked and so they are in ours.

Parks are also a crucial element of our national identity. They go with the vision that Canadians have of themselves wherever they live, of being in some close harmony with nature, some respect of nature and some awe of nature. It was Margaret Atwood who once described the common theme of Canadian literature, si c'était en anglais ou en français, as survival in the face of nature, survival in the face of difficult forces.

Those who are concerned that by having parks taken away from the Department of the Environment should rest assured that the environmental concerns will not be diminished by having them in Canadian heritage. They will continue to be respected. It will continue to be the case in our international agreements, such as under UNESCO that parks will be fully protected.

The reason that parks are being put in Canadian heritage is to respect their role as part of our system of values, part of our history, part of our culture, part of what it is to be a Canadian.

As I mentioned earlier, there is an appropriate return to where we first saw parks because there are economic reasons as well to link together national parks and national historic sites. That is because tourism of all sorts is of continuing and indeed growing importance for this government. As members of this House will recall, we have a major $7 billion tourist deficit and parks have their role to play in correcting that, as do national historic sites.

These are terrific assets, our parks and historic sites. It makes sense for them to be kept together. We think that indeed for those who worry about the environment having parks located in the Department of Canadian Heritage simply means there is one more environmental voice at the cabinet table.

It is also the case that it is a commitment of this government to complete the national parks system, that system which was so much expanded in the 1970s by our present Prime Minister. To this we are adding a new kind of park under water parks, the national marine conservation areas which this amendment would have us locate in some other place. These are the parks of the future; these are the parks which respect our complex marine life. They too belong in the same package with the national parks and national historic sites.

Finally, it seems to us that having subjected the national parks system to so many reorganizations and having had it put in so many different places over time that Parks Canada has done well in the new Department of Canadian Heritage. It has found a new place to call home. It would be both counterproductive and extraordinarily disruptive to move it yet again after a mere year and a half.

For those reasons we are opposed to this amendment. We think that national parks and indeed canals and national marine conservation areas belong properly with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That 15 members, three staff and three interpreters from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be allowed to hold hearings in relation to the committee's study on the future of Canadian agriculture in St. Hyacinthe, Victoriaville, Quebec City, Florenceville, Halifax and Charlottetown from January 22 to January 28, 1995; in Kelowna, Camrose, Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, St. Catharines, Brockville and Alfred from February 5 to February 15, 1995.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

No, Mr. Speaker, I will not give unanimous consent. I believe there is some disagreement among the committee as to the benefit of this trip.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

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.

[An hon. member]

Come on.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

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.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the member for Calgary Southeast stated: "We have some of the same concerns expressed by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of some of their earlier criticisms. The member for Winnipeg North suggested that the foundation, referring to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation"-

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is a perfectly legitimate debate and there is time for the member to debate. From what I have heard thus far it is not a point of order. If the member wishes to debate he is perfectly free to sit down and rise again on debate. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North on debate?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The member for Calgary Southeast said: "The member for Winnipeg North suggested that the foundation", referring to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, "should not exist because the responsibility for the program should be accomplished elsewhere".

For the record of the House I would like to state that on May 29, 1990, to which the member was referring, I stated on page 12020 of Hansard with reference to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation:

I support this bill, which is to contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society.

On the following page I said again:

I support this Canadian Race Relations Foundation based on the preamble that we will support and reaffirm our support for the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; that we will henceforth reaffirm our belief and support in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act would assume greater and greater meaning.

The record speaks for itself. What the member for Calgary Southeast did was not only take my statement out of context but misrepresented my statements. Therefore to me it was a dishonourable thing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is having great difficulty. Having ruled that the member was not speaking on a point of order but on debate, the Chair therefore is hoisted on the same petard.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast has already spoken on this matter and does not therefore have the right to speak further.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North called my colleague a dishonourable member. I would ask that he withdraw that statement from the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I listened carefully to the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I think the member said that what was done was a dishonourable thing. The thing was dishonourable, not the member. Perhaps the member for Winnipeg North would like to clarify that.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I said dishonourable member, I would withdraw it. What she did in her speech was dishonourable.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North is insinuating is that the hon. member is dishonourable, and that is wrong. He can couch it in different words but he is actually referring to the member. I would ask that he withdraw that statement.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, never in my mind is the member dishonourable. I regret that she said it but the statement was made and it is with pain that I received the statement. Therefore, to that extent I would like you to consider that the statement lacks honour.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wonder if the hon. whip of the government wishes to make any intervention on this matter.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the cut and thrust of debate we sometimes make references to one another which are unfortunate. I do believe that the hon. member meant that the statements were unacceptable. I hope it was not a reflection on the hon. member. I am sure she is most honourable, as all other members are.