Debates of Dec. 15th, 1994

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oakville-Milton.

On behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage I am pleased to have the occasion to speak on the third reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Our debate has underscored the importance that the legislation be swiftly passed to establish in law the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are marrying programs that have been living together for more than a year. The departmental programs

are working well. The job of Parliament is to formalize its name and its existence, enabling the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the department staff to carry out, in a single ministry, related mandates previously held by a number of separate government departments.

In reference to why the Department of Canadian Heritage is so vital, we like to use the term synergy. We believe the combined impact of the whole of the department exceeds that of its individual parts. We believe the formation of the new department has enhanced and strengthened the effectiveness of many of its programs.

The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together important common elements of the federal government, those elements which define Canada as a multifaceted dynamic nation with a rich cultural and natural heritage.

The department is responsible for everything relating to Canadian identity and values, cultural development, heritage preservation, and areas of natural or historical significance to Canada and to Canadians, values that we share and that unite and define us.

While the discussions concerning Bill C-53 have been interesting, many of the arguments put forward against the formation of the department are fundamentally flawed.

Opposition members have tried to erect roadblocks in what should have been a routine legislative exercise. Those roadblocks were reduced to speed bumps as the necessity for the legislation became clear. It is an important and vital tool for the effective and efficient government Canadians want.

The leader of the Reform Party of Canada has argued against Bill C-53. On December 7 he spoke before the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage. He expressed the view that multiculturalism, one of the components of the new department, is the responsibility of individual private associations and, interestingly enough, where necessary lower levels of government: not the role of the federal government.

Conversely, he also stated or asserted his belief that the federal government should confine itself to combating racial, linguistic and cultural discrimination. While as usual condemning the whole program, he supports most of our multicultural activities. He is the master of contradictions.

Assisting all Canadians to participate in Canadian life and access the same rights helps them to contribute to and ultimately change society so that it reflects the lived experience of all Canadians. Yet there are always going to be individuals who will blame one identifiable group for whatever social or economic ills that disturb them.

As the government and as individual Canadians, we must recognize that understanding and respect between peoples is central to combating racism and other forms of discrimination. We have to build that awareness into our social structure at all levels of society.

At the federal level there is an important and essential leadership role to play. In its 1992 report the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated that "economic hard times and human rights make uneasy bedfellows".

Tolerance for diversity and human difference becomes diminished during times of fiscal difficulty. In times like these the temptation is to make choices: economic over equality issues. If our mandate is to create opportunity then it must be for all and not just for the privileged, well positioned and fortunate.

The criticisms of Bill C-53 voiced by the leader of the Reform Party clearly shows that his party's policies are not rooted in the life and the future of all Canadians.

The minister's multiculturalism programs support a wide variety of activities which promote the integration of first generation Canadians, irrespective of their origin, into the social, cultural, economic and political life of Canada. We all benefit from the contribution of each Canadian to the growth and development of our country.

The contribution of all Canadians is an integral part of the strength and diversity of Canadian culture. Culture is the very basis of Canadian identity and sovereignty. As a whole, the arts and our cultural industries contribute over $24 billion to the gross domestic product, and this is about 4 per cent of the GDP and 660,000 jobs. This is no accident; it is the result of the commitment and determination of successive governments, and of the enormous pool of talent in Canada. The Department of Canadian Heritage will be at the centre of government action in the area of arts and culture.

To help artists and creators even more, the heritage minister announced an amendment to Bill C-53, which would give the department significant responsibilities in matters of copyright. Copyright legislation, which determines the ownership of works of art, is vitally important to artists and the income they derive from their work. This is a most timely measure for artists and creative artists, some among whom earn the lowest wages in the Canadian economy. This is a positive, effective and efficient change.

Change is also part of the life experience of Canada's First Nations. Native culture is part of our history and our heritage, and it enriches the Canadian identity significantly. At the present time, more than a million aboriginal Canadian citizens, members of our First Nations, are at a crossroad. In 1986, Bill Erasmus, then Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said that native people would have a lot to contribute in the next century. "It is our turn", he said.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is a proud partner in this process, administering a number of important programs to support aboriginal citizens in defining and participating in addressing the social, cultural, political and economic issues affecting their lives in Canadian society.

Aboriginal peoples launch and manage the programs which are community based and include such initiatives as the aboriginal friendship centre program, the northern native broadcast access program and the aboriginal women's program, aboriginal representative organization programs.

During the whole debate on this bill, Reform Party members have also expressed their opposition to the official and legislated recognition of both official languages in Canada. Canadians support the notion of two official languages for the very simple reason that these are the languages they speak and they are attached to them. For instance, in spite of the ever present threat of assimilation, minority francophone communities have gone from barely surviving to having their vested rights recognized. There is no way back.

On the contrary, the government recently embarked on a process which is the logical and unavoidable consequence of its vision of linguistic duality and of its action in this area. This process is aimed at involving all federal institutions in the development of minority official language communities, in accordance with section 42 of the Official Languages Act.

Obviously, the Department of Canadian Heritage is not the only institution able to play a critical role in the full development of official language communities. Interdepartmental consultation will help the machinery of government to promote the development of both official language communities, in every field of activity.

Canadians are open to the reality of the country with two official languages. The Reform Party opposition is a view that a majority of Canadians do not share. Sixty-four per cent of Canadians expressed support for the policy in an April 1994 Angus Reid survey. Provincially, support ranges from 88 per cent in Quebec to 73 per cent in the Atlantic region and a solid 59 per cent in Alberta. Over all, the last 10 years have witnessed stable and solid national support which continues both in principle and practice.

In addition, if one considers on the one hand the progress of official language communities in minority situations, thanks to their determination and the commitment of government, and on the other hand the overall support of Canadians for the policy of official languages, it remains imperative to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage in law.

Under its official language promotion programs, the department encourages not only the development of official language communities throughout the country, but also the recognition and use of both official languages in Canadian society as a whole. The strenghthening of our country's linguistic duality promises to improve opportunities for all. The Reform Party members would do well to recognize and accept this reality and join Canadians in the benefits accrued by it.

I commend the member for Calgary Southwest who went to St. Jean last summer to learn French. But the question remains how the member can oppose official language funding but does not mind using official language funding.

We all know that the 1993 reorganization of government was carried out with a view to streamlining the business of government and adapting the structure of government to improve the services it provides to the public. The aim of reorganization was to establish better, more efficient and more effective government. The Department of Canadian Heritage epitomizes that type of government.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the role the Department of Canadian Heritage plays in promoting Canadian values and support the efforts of the public service.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member has about seven to eight minutes.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As a member of the standing committee, I have had an opportunity to review the legislation and to hear firsthand accounts from witnesses. I believe this bill to be an accurate reflection of the mandate, activities and role of the department in fulfilling the mandate of the Government of Canada on several important fronts.

The department's programs have an effect on our day to day lives and their relevance, be it cultural or economic, is felt by each of us. Within this department are the programs that speak to us regarding what it means to be Canadians, that set us apart from the rest of the world and that have helped Canada earn its top ranking by the United Nations for overall quality of life.

The new Department of Canadian Heritage embodies the democratic principles that are inherently Canadian. We are a nation forged on fundamental respect, respect for basic human rights and values, respect for the use and equal treatment of two major official languages, French and English, respect for cultur-

al diversity and respect for the traditions and contributions of our aboriginal peoples.

Today countries throughout the world are trying to discover the formula that will enable them to create a real sense of national identity among groups of different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and racial backgrounds. Many of these countries are now taking a serious interest in the 100 per cent Canadian model we have created which exemplifies respect for each other no matter what our backgrounds.

In the bill creating this department, the government undertakes to advance the equality of all Canadians in their country's social, economic and cultural life. It recognizes the need to eliminate the barriers that divide Canadians and to provide opportunity to establish bonds built on confidence and mutual respect.

We know that social cohesion and a strong national identity can only be accomplished where there is understanding, awareness and respect among all the people who make up our country.

As the Right Hon. Lester Pearson put it: "In a diverse federal state such as Canada it is important that all citizens should have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the national administration and to identify themselves with and feel at home in our national capital".

I am proud to be a member of this Liberal government that believes in tolerance among its citizens and which strives to ensure that people of all origins who come to Canada have an equal opportunity to contribute to its growth, development and an evolving sense of identity.

Our diversity is one of the things that makes us stronger and more competitive in the global economy. The range of languages we speak, the cultures we know and understand provide us as Canadians with a distinct advantage from an international trade perspective. This has been recognized by the president of the Royal Bank who indicated that our future success as a nation depends on our harnessing the richness of diversity within the country so that we can become truly competitive in the global marketplace.

Dr. Barbara Ward, the British economist and writer, described us as the world's first international nation. We are admired abroad for the society we have built together and we can take real national pride in this accomplishment.

This bill provides the government with an opportunity to forge ahead in an area which has proven to be of real importance to Canadians time and time again. They want a government that will lead them forward in building a society that encourages all its citizens to contribute economically, politically, socially and culturally to all aspects of life in this great country of ours.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-53 certainly has given rise to a lot of criticism for a bill that was supposed to be a simple housekeeping measure.

It must have become quite obvious by now that the Official Opposition is dead against this bill. And our reasons for opposing it are far from cosmetic. They have to do mainly with the very essence of our cultural identity as Quebecers as well as the necessity of ensuring the survival of our culture through a sensible handling of the copyright issue.

First of all, after education and postsecondary education, the federal government has now extended its involvement to mass communication, even though this is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the federal government is centralizing more and more, and this bill is but one example. That is why we denounce the deceit in calling the department to be established the "Department of Canadian Heritage", when this is just a disguised way of establishing a department of culture and to invade a provincial jurisdiction. The people of Quebec wonder why they should contribute financially to a scheme to deny that Quebec is different, unique, as a nation, when even the staunchest federalists in Quebec recognize this fact.

My hon. colleagues will be reminded that, equipped with international agreements, English Canada is now in a position to counter cultural invasion from the U.S. This is a totally legitimate concern, seeing how important it is to differentiate oneself from such a powerful neighbour and to manage one's cultural resources. But why can Quebec not have similar concerns? Why would the government not feel the need to also do something to protect the rights of creative artists on its territory?

Following government reorganization, copyright, which used to be with the Department of Communications and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would now come under the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry. Instead of using this restructuring as an opportunity to concentrate copyright responsibilities at the heritage department, which is the only one mandated to protect the work and its creators, the government persists in its paralysing indecision with regard to copyright.

Such dichotomy only leads to divergent political priorities, especially when the officials of the two departments involved see the issue in totally different lights.

For instance, Paul Racine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Development, told the Canadian heritage committee: "-the fact is that the minister and the department set all copyright policies and oversee the drafting work-as was done in the past and will be done in the future with Phase 2. In other words, they do all the work from A to Z. As I told you, this was recognized by previous Prime Ministers through repeated formal ministerial delegation and it is, in my opinion, recognized in law for the first time through this amendment. It is a matter of fact. Whoever gets the ingredients, cooks and serves them may or may not be called a chef, but he or she certainly bears a close resemblance to one".

However, there appears to be several chiefs, as Mr. Von Finckenstein, Deputy Minister at Industry Canada, told the Standing Committee on Industry something quite different. He said: "Before the merger, copyright was in the Department of Communications and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, together with all other intellectual property, be it patent, trademarks or copyright. This whole division has now gone to Industry. It has not been broken up or changed. The people in charge of copyright are the people who once worked for CCA on this matter. As for their mandate, which is to develop copyright policy, the Minister of Industry is indeed ultimately responsible for the application of the law and for amending it, but policy decisions are obviously made at the cabinet level, where the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for instance, can put forward the cultural point of view". That is what Mr. von Finckenstein said.

Therefore it is total confusion, the department of tutti frutti, as my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata calls it. Even the officials do not know who really is responsible for the Copyright Act.

The government is supporting a myth and confusion by letting people believe that the heritage department plays the leading role with respect to copyright, when the real power clearly resides in the industry department.

It must be noted that the deadlock blocking revision of the Copyright Act is partly due to conflict between two ideologies: protecting the creative artist vs. protecting the consumer. Performing artists, creative artists and copyright holders do not benefit from this division; rather it is those whose concerns have nothing to do with cultural development, values and identity.

Furthermore, it is totally unacceptable and far-fetched to put the Copyright Act, which protects the economic and moral rights of creative artists and the holders of these rights, under the Department of Industry. It is ridiculous to put copyrights on the same level as trade-marks, patents, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies, as in paragraph 4(1)( h ) of Bill C-46.

Those who propose that copyrights be under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry are wrong. Such a decision would greatly jeopardize cultural creativity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, the cultural sector is an industry, in the sense that it generates an important economic activity, but it is certainly not an industry like the other ones.

Cultural development depends on the Copyright Act, which allows artists to be associated with the economic life of their works. Consequently, if the current apathy persists, it could seriously hurt a very important cultural industry. The government approves enormous budgets to defend and promote Canadian identity. Is it not high time this government recognized the cultures which are part of that identity and are its very foundations, and show some respect for the artists who shape these cultures?

The government's apathy is all the more incomprehensible considering that the Liberal Party often insisted that even though culture generates economic activity, it cannot be treated like other industries. Moreover, the Liberals pledged, in their red book, to support production, marketing and distribution, so as to promote the circulation of Canadian books, films and recordings on the domestic market, to consider allowing investment tax credits to stimulate the production of such works, and also to consider the possibility of providing income averaging mechanisms in the Income Tax Act, for Canadian artists. However, the Quebec and Canadian cultural industries, and the artists, are still waiting.

Also, in answer to questions from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Liberal Party pledged, during the last election campaign, to review the Copyright Act and ensure above all that authors get their dues, while facilitating access to material protected by copyright. The Liberals claimed to understand the importance of copyright. It made a commitment to restructure the administrative organization and review the Conservative decision to split this jurisdiction between two departments. But again, our artists are still waiting!

These facts and the delayed amendment minister Dupuy put forward when he appeared before the committee show the lack of interest and the total lack of respect of the government for Quebec and Canadian artists and cultures. Allow me to describe the disrespectful attitude shown by Liberal members of the committee. I have already mentioned the last minute amendment put forward by the Minister of Heritage.

One of the committee members, a loyal and faithful Liberal, said that, when the amendment was proposed, everyone in the room applauded and commended the minister's decision. Not so, Madam Speaker! The members of the other parties did not applaud. The people representing the artists did not applaud

either, especially since the same hon. member had just finished saying that these people had "pleaded" with the committee to have the opportunity to present their very legitimate requests. What a respectful attitude for the government members to have!

The artist are, in fact, far from satisfied with the minister's amendment. That is what they told us. Several associations from both Quebec and English Canada, who were able to appear before the Committee on Canadian Heritage because of pressure by members of the Bloc Quebecois, told us they were disappointed with and concerned about the attitude of the government.

Twenty-five Quebec and Canadian associations, representing more than 30,000 writers, creative artists and performers, sent an open letter to the Minister of Heritage asking to complete the review of the Copyright Act, in light of the following nine recommendations: the confirmation of the creative artist as the first holder of the rights to his or her work; the recognition of neighbouring rights; the adjudication of consequential rights to visual artists; the protection of works for the rest of the life of the author or the copyright holder; the use of technologically neutral definitions; compensation through private copy; the establishment of a rental right; the elimination of all exceptions to the protection of works; the adoption of adequate sanctions to protect the rights of creative artists.

These demands are far from being unreasonable since numerous countries have included them in their legislation. Germany, Japan and France have all adhered to the 1961 Rome Convention, but Canada has not. These G-7 countries have recognized the need for royalties on private copy, but Canada has not. France and Germany have legislated on neighbouring rights, but Canada has not; it does not seem to find it appropriate to do so.

In conclusion, I would say that it is through copyright and neighbouring rights that creative artists and copyright holders can ensure the continuity of their creative work by receiving just compensation for the use of their work. The present situation has to change. Not only is this situation unacceptable in the context of a society that claims to respect the people who are the source of its cultural heritage, but its national and international notoriety makes it embarrassing for Quebec and Canada.

This government will soon prove to us that it sees culture only as a symbol that can generate money.

The least we can say is that, with such a policy and such a government, the future is certainly not bright for the pillars of Canada's and Quebec's cultures. Let us be realistic and not mince words: the government is showing once again that it is totally incapable of taking a stand in favour of artists and understanding the interests of creative artists.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Québec.

I would like to know her definition of a Quebecer. I often hear the Quebec nation defined as including the English, the Irish and the Scots. Does it include the Jews and other groups or are we talking about old French Canadian families exclusively? I would appreciate her comments on this definition. How does she see the Quebec nation?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine should ask this question. As a Quebecer himself, he ought to know.

A Quebecer is, first of all, someone who lives in Quebec and is defined as such by his language and culture. I am not going to make a long speech about what it means to be a Quebecer. If the hon. member has trouble explaining what it means to him to be a Quebecer, then he is the one who has a problem.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no trouble defining what I am and explaining who I am.

However, in this debate on Quebec nationalism, which has been going on for some time, there are people who claim that Quebec includes all minorities. But all I keep hearing from the opposition is that there are Quebecers whose ancestors settled here long ago and that the partnership and participation of other cultures has become irrelevant.

I am not asking the hon. member to tell me where I fit in but to tell me whether the English, the Irish and all other minorities are part of Quebec as we know it today. That is all I want to know.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, a Quebecer is someone who believes in Quebec values. He believes he can identify himself as a Quebecer. A Quebecer is someone who travels. I heard Mr. Dupuy say that when he is in Canada, he says he is from Quebec, and when he is in another country, he says he is from Canada.

I have no trouble identifying myself. When I travel throughout the world, and I have had several opportunities to do so, when I am outside my country, outside Quebec, I say I am a Quebecer. When I say I am a Quebecer, people realize I am a francophone, because outside Canada, people know there is a francophone majority living in Canada. This is a way of identifying myself as a Quebecer.

A Quebecer is also someone who believes in his or her values. I think Quebec must have all the tools it needs to be able to decide its future.

Centralizing all decision-making authority and standardizing all programs the way the government is doing today is not going to help Quebec find its identity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Five minutes left for questions and comments. Any more comments?

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, of course I intend to support the government's new proposals for Canada's cultural sector.

When I hear the opposition condemning the very existence of Canada and the fact that Canada has done nothing for the French fact, I think that is absolutely untrue and unacceptable. Some people are looking for a definition of the Canadian nation, and it seems that originally, Canada was a word that meant "village" in one of the aboriginal languages. A village is a community where people live together, and these people have worked together to build a country.

I may remind the opposition that this Canada, this village we have created is the envy of the world. I could refer again to the view shared by the United Nations that Canada still ranks first as the best country to live in.

Consider how Canada developed. The first colonists who came to Canada wanted to make a new life for themselves. My ancestors, as those of the member for Quebec with whom I share the same surname, landed on the île d'Orléans in 1642. My ancestor, Maturin Gagnon, one of the first French settlers, wanted to start a new life. Obviously, through the years, there has been many changes and historical upsets, but I believe that Canada and its very existence as a country, has made it possible for the Canadian Francophonie to thrive.

I believe that this fact must not be ignored. I believe that the nature of Canada, as a state, resides in its linguistic duality, and the generous reception given to the cultures which have contributed to the development and the building of this structure called Canada. Among those who came were the Irish, the Scots, the Jews, the Asians and the Europeans, to name a few. People from 160 countries have contributed, in one way or another, to the creation and the building of the Canadian federation.

There are 6 million francophones in Quebec, more than one million of whom are new Quebecers, and anglophones who also contributed to the development of Quebec, as part of Canada, of course. Everybody was the better for it: Montreal became the first metropolis of the Canadian federation. The river brought people to Montreal, but I do not want to focus on the past, I want to speak of the future. This is the spirit of a true Canadian: someone who looks towards the next century.

And there are over half a million francophones in Ontario. A third of the population of New Brunswick is made up of francophones. There are tens of thousands of francophones in Manitoba and in the western provinces. They are there, they exist, they are counting on the support of francophones in Quebec to keep this country united.

I would go even further. Unfortunately, nationalists never take into account the contributions of francophones outside Quebec. Carmen Roy was not even mentioned. There is Angèle Arsenault, Édith Butler, even Roch Voisine. These are francophones outside Quebec who not only ensure in some way the French presence outside Quebec but could also be considered as some of the greatest figures of French culture in Canada.

I told you about the francophones outside Quebec but not about the success of bilingualism. Some vainly tried to prove quasi scientifically that bilingualism does not work. But there are more than 4.4 million Canadians who master both languages. I had the opportunity to go to Vancouver, where I made a speech to young people who, much to my surprise, spoke a more than proper French. This was music to my ear. I also received well written correspondence in French.

We must not forget that, in 1977, 237 schools offered an immersion program to 37,835 students. In 1988-these are Anglophone students registered in immersion programs-there were 1,500 schools and 241,140 students. Within ten years, bilingual and immersion programs increased by 700 per cent. I think what makes French so vital and attractive is the growing interest of many young English Canadians for the beautiful language of Molière.

Certain people have attempted to minimize and trivialize the efforts made by some provinces, but they overlooked the fact that more than 27,000 students in British Columbia, more than 26,000 in Alberta, 18,000 in Manitoba, and even 115,000 in Ontario go to immersion schools. It is very interesting to travel in English Canada and meet these young people who were able to benefit from this program. And believe me, Madam Speaker, these young people are very grateful for it.

Canada has an international reputation as a leader, for the way it treats its minorities, be they francophones outside Quebec or anglophones in Quebec. Of course, there are other minorities and, to me, this makes the strength of this country. This diversity of cultures, this meeting place of ideas, Madam Speaker, that is what Canada is all about.

[Some hon. members]

They do not even have washrooms.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Well, my friend, let me tell you something about washrooms. In the Magdalen Islands, there is a small English school for which the province of Quebec is responsible but it refuses to grant the money needed to rebuild this school used by English-speaking children. The school has water and electrical problems and the window panes are broken. It no longer meets the needs of the population but unfortunately the Government of Quebec is waiting for the Government of Canada to foot the bill and build a school for these English-speaking children. That is how some minorities are treated in Quebec.

But enough of that. I invite the members of the opposition to go to Grosse-Île, in the Magdalen Islands, and see for themselves in what condition that small English school is today. I am sure the story would make the front page of Quebec newspapers.

We were talking about a meeting place of ideas. We know that English is spoken by more than 800 million people in the world and that there are more than 20 million who speak it right here Canada. That is where this meeting place of ideas, new found solidarity comes from. That is what we find in Canada. When you have a chance to travel, as I have had the privilege of doing for decades, you can always appreciate the bilingualism, the biculturalism, the openness and tolerance of Canada. This is something we must never forget.

When I see how weak the nationalist philosophy, the separatist philosophy is, I find it sad that they do not realize that it is because of the federal presence that Quebec has been able to find its identity. We never hear the opposition talk about the contribution of the Canadian government to Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board, the CBC or independent productions. We never hear the opposition talk about that. All it does is constantly deny the facts and knock what makes this country what it is.

There is much to be done and I think it is interesting that the learning of the second language, as I have said earlier-in survey after survey, we realize that more than 75 per cent of Canadians are in favour of institutional bilingualism.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

You should come to my riding and see if that is the case.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is the hon. member of the opposition who should come to my riding.

I am going to turn to the English language. I have been privileged and I hope I am sharing this with a number of other young Canadians. I have seen here a number of anglophones who have names like McClarty, McPherson, who have names that are of Asian origin, who are now taking the leap toward bilingualism, who are now moving beyond bilingualism because they can now master three and four languages. That is the strength of Canada.

It is a privilege to speak in this forum today in both official languages because bilingualism is not only a tool for our regional and economic development but is also a part of who we are. In doing so we now can pick from the French culture, from the English culture, from the other cultures around the world that have come here to work as one. That is one of the fundamental issues that will be discussed in the upcoming Quebec referendum.

It will be up to the separatists to prove that Canada does not work. I am from the Gaspé peninsula which is 96 per cent French speaking. I attended French schools but I had the opportunity of mingling with English friends. I have had the opportunity of moving on. I have had the opportunity of exchanging with all Canadians from all walks of life. There is not one person in Canada I have met whom I do not like.

I think Canadians are understanding. We are a tolerant society and regrettably the opposition, including some members from the Reform Party, is not aware of the fortitude, of the fact that being a Canadian is more than a privilege, it is something other countries wish they had.

Obviously the opposition will have the opportunity to react, not only following this speech but in the upcoming referendum.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Start with liking Quebecers.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

"Start with liking Quebecers"-Madam Speaker, can you beat that? It bothers them to hear a young person like me identify himself as a Canadian of French origin, a Canadian who went to the trouble of learning the second language, who took the trouble to travel, visit and study with English Canadians. Sometimes it hurts the separatists to hear that. Unfortunately, we live in a changing world and unfortunately the opposition is unable to meet the challenge of Canadian federalism.

I have heard all kinds of speeches from the opposition, on Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, St. Laurent, on real French Canadians, good Canadians who built and implemented programs from which I benefit.

This brings me to an important point on the official languages in Canada. Let us look at the efforts made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau to have the French fact recognized, to be served-yes, maybe not as well as we would like in Bonaventure or Montreal or other places-but I think this recognition of the French fact by the rest of Canada, of the existence of French, and promoting the language-it is an incredible achievement of our Liberal predecessors.

Let us talk about another great Canadian, a great Quebecer-

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

René Lévesque.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

René Lévesque. You have it: René Lévesque, who grew up about 30 kilometres from my home town of New Carlisle, in the Gaspe peninsula.

Like René Lévesque, I come from Gaspe but, unfortunately, none of us can pretend to be Gaspesians first and foremost. This is very interesting. I can tell you that: René Lévesque was among the first to recognize the importance of speaking both French and English. He was open to the world.

I must say, however, that it is thanks to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and those who followed in his footsteps that Canada has become the country that we know today.

I will not talk much long longer because I am anxious to hear the slanderous and malicious criticisms of the opposition throughout the afternoon. I challenge the opposition to find a better country than Canada.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Quebec.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Quebec is part of Canada. No independent country enjoys a reputation such as that of Canada. Unfortunately, we only hear hogwash from the opposition. And that is unfortunate.

I invite opposition members to make a comparison. I am speaking to you as a Quebecer, a Gaspe native, a francophone. I am asking you to take into account the efforts made on this side of the House, to recognize the efforts made by this party, the efforts made by some English-speaking members.

I see the hon. member for Ontario, who is an English-speaking Canadian. I do not always share his views, but here is a young man who went to the trouble of learning French. There are others too. I do not know them all, but several have made the effort. I believe this is the beauty of our country. This is what makes it interesting.

We will overcome each of the obstacles set up by the opposition, starting with the upcoming referendum.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder in what country my colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine lives. It must be a country somewhat different from ours.

I too live in Canada. I must agree with him that, as long as the referendum is not a done deal, I still live in a country called Canada. I think he does not live in the same country as the rest of us, because he may speak English, but he does not read it. Last week-end, there was an article in the Globe and Mail depicting the bilingual situation and the assimilation level of French-speaking Canadians. I referred to it this morning in my speech, and I believe the hon. member was here at the time.

The assimilation rate throughout Canada is 36 per cent. Bilingualism is highly praised and my colleague can be proud to be Canadian as much as he wants to. He has the right to be proud, I do not deny it. But what is surprising is the fact that he does not better understand the country, or the part of the country he comes from.

He told us about a school in the Magdalen Islands which was in bad shape, but he must not forget that Quebec is just getting out of its torpor after nine years under a Liberal government. Liberals were in office for nine years. So, if the people in the Magdalen Islands were not able to fix the windows in their schools or make any renovations, it is because of the Liberal government which has been ousted in Quebec. There is no doubt that Mr. Garon, to whom we will forward your complaints, will hasten to find a way to solve this problem, because he has solved many problems in other small schools.

The hon. member said he had never heard the official opposition make any positive comments about federalism, but I think all my colleagues have heard me say how much we owe to the CBC. That corporation helped us get out of the hole and believe in what we were. It also helped us define what we were and get over the Dark Ages in Quebec, all thanks to a great Liberal federalist, Jean Lesage, who was a federal minister here, in Ottawa, before returning to Quebec to tell us: "Come on, Quebecers! Let us be masters in our own house!"

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to discuss with the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. I think she does have a lot of respect for my region, for the Gaspe peninsula, and for the problems, mainly economic, that we have in my constituency of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with her option, which is legitimate in a way-Quebec's separation. But as a federalist, I will tell you that the CBC's achievements she talked about are precisely the result of co-operation among all Canadians, between anglophones over there, anglophones over here and francophones across the way. That is what has made and will continue to make the strength of Canada.

That is why, with the recognition of the CBC's achievements, and the commitment of the federal government to defend, promote and ensure the development of the French fact in Canada, the next century is most promising for Canadian unity.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me remind the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that we are paying 25 per cent of the CBC budget, but we cannot say that the English network is of much use to us. I would like to go back to the remarks made by the hon. member, who said that all official opposition's comments were hogwash.

I think the hon. member has no respect for the vote of confidence given the elected members of the Bloc Quebecois, for the mandate they were given to come to Ottawa to work after Quebec's interests. That is exactly what we are doing today, defending Quebec's interests. I think the hon. member does not respect our mandate.

After all, we are a majority in Quebec, a majority of Quebec MPs. I hope very many Quebecers will have heard the hon. member say in this House today that our comments are only hogwash and I hope they will draw their own conclusions from his disrespectful remarks.

[An hon. member]

Downright insulting.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

It is not the first time I hear the hon. member speak that way. He talks as if the world revolves around him. He is the centre of the universe and says: "Just look at me; I am well-travelled, I am fantastic."