Debates of Feb. 17th, 1997

Supply

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Certainly his comment and analysis of how you can promote Canada and disseminate information at a lower cost is a very valid one and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

It is clear in this whole fly a free flag program. A flag is supposed to be a symbol and if you are proud of your country why do you have to get a free one? Why not spend $15 and buy one? One could still be proud to do it. I think that is something we could have achieved for flag day and promoted.

The concept was a good one but it was going to cost $6 million, then actually $17 million and then another program on how to promote Canada, not knowing the cost. The cost could be in excess of what is in her budget, although a $3 billion budget is pretty good and there should some slush in a few places.

She said $6 million. It was finally $17.7 million with $2.2 million coming from the private sector, both corporate and individuals, with donations. That is $11.7 million net cost to the government. That is 195 per cent over budget. Obviously for this minister what is a million, what is a hundred million or what is fifty million?

In this promoting Canada and the failure of it, why when there were two 1-800 phone numbers for drapeau and for flag the rest of Canada subscribed to 89 per cent of the flags whereas in Quebec it was only 11 per cent? Why is it that we cannot wake up Quebecers? Why is it that we cannot wake up those Quebecers who want to stay in Canada and get them to stay in Canada? Part of this education program through the CD ROMs and computers should tell the facts and the truths.

For four years in the in the high schools in the province of Quebec they were teaching their Quebec students that with respect to their contribution to equalization payments, they paid more into Canada than they received when the facts were just the opposite. They took more out of our $8.5 billion equalization payments. The province of Quebec receives over half of that. They misrepresented the facts and this government let them get away with it and that is what I object to. It has the power, the knowledge and all it has to do is make some decisions. It does not cost to fix what is right. It does not cost a whole lot of money to be proud to be Canadian.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-asbestos industry.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the question raised by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe and to have a chance to correct some facts mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois.

The expression the pot calling the kettle black is indeed one that would apply in this instance in my opinion. I have listened to the comments made by opposition members who feel it is a crime if you admit that you are proud to be Canadian and a Quebecer. As a Quebecer I am indeed insulted by the accusations that are being made today.

Through its efforts of promoting Canadian identity the Government of Canada is playing a crucial role in defining its future. We are committed to strengthening Canadians' sense of attachment to this country, as well as the links which unite them from coast to coast. To that end we have given Canadian citizens an increasing number of opportunities to learn more about their country and to communicate among themselves and with the rest of the world.

Through dialogue and understanding we have succeeded in building a society that is enriched by cultural diversity and two official languages, a society that is open to the rest of the world and facing the future head on.

Be it through the Canada information office or the one in a million national flag challenge program, the federal government is proud to promote Canada's richness and diversity both here at home and throughout the world.

If there is a subject on which the Bloc is ill-advised to criticize our government it is that of government propaganda.

The Bloc Quebecois and its brother, the Parti Quebecois, have mastered the art of political propaganda. For those two parties, everything is a good vehicle for the promotion of their separatist views. We could give a few examples of cases where the PQ government and its sovereignist allies used public money to promote their political option. This government and its partners spent large amounts of money promoting their separatist option and trying to obtain a Yes vote in the last referendum. All these expenses, all this money wasted came out of the pockets of Quebec taxpayers.

For the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, propaganda knows no price or age limits. Whether it is producing new history books or replacing students' workbooks with propaganda books, whether it is sending pamphlets to senior citizens and those receiving social assistance, postcards to all households in Quebec, press releases and documentation to schools, material to professional corporations, whether it is by stepping up the number of regional tours, summits, consultations of all sorts, for these two separatist parties, the end justifies the means.

However, when the government decides to respond and to correct the inaccuracies being spread by the separatists, they come out with charges of propaganda and misuse of public funds. When the Government of Canada decides in turn to encourage national pride, the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois charge propaganda and misuse of public funds.

The Bloc Quebecois refuses to accept that the very great majority of Quebecers love Canada and are happy to see the Canadian government finally decide to promote Canada.

In the eyes of the Bloc it has become unthinkable that Quebecers still wish to be considered Canadian. What do I tell the 518 constituents in my riding of Saint-Denis who asked to receive a flag to display their pride in their country?

We received many phone calls for the Canadian flag. People are still proud to display the Canadian flag in the riding of Saint-Denis and all over the province of Quebec.

I will give a few examples of spending on sovereigntist propaganda and, as I have said, the list is not exhaustive. First of all, with respect to the use of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois would be well advised to take a little look at what went on in Quebec during the last two referendums.

In 1980, the entire government machinery was made available for "the cause". Millions of dollars were spent on polls, when the economic situation should have called for tighter control over public spending.

In 1995, the entire government machinery was again put into service, once again for "the cause". But sovereignists will use any excuse to make such behaviour acceptable to the public.

This motion refers to budget cuts to cultural institutions that are unprecedented in Canadian history.

The Government of Canada never dared use artists for political ends as the Parti Quebecois did in the last two referendums. The Government of Canada supports artists without ulterior motives and without asking for their allegiance to any doctrine. For at least 30 years, the Government of Canada has maintained programs to support cultural institutions and all Canadian artists willing to put their talents to contribution in any artistic or cultural activity.

In Quebec, it was not the Parti Quebecois but a Liberal government that introduced the act recognizing the status of the artist. The Bloc Quebecois would be well advised to look closely in the mirror before making accusations like the ones it made today.

I would like to quote Lucien Bouchard, who said in 1994: "I would respect the flag of any country, and especially that of my own country, which has been the flag of my ancestors for hundreds of years. I must respect it". We have numerous quotes fromMr. Bouchard when he was sitting in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite my own personal experience as an example.

My parents arrived from Greece. I have lived for over 37 years in this country. My parents chose Canada. This country has been good to them. They love this country. They are proud Canadians. I am a proud Canadian. Where else in the world would someone with my modest background have had the opportunity to serve their fellow Canadians in this respected institution which we call the House of Commons?

For me and the majority of Canadians of Hellenic origin as well as other Canadians of other origins, and the two are compatible for my friends from the Reform Party, the flag is one symbol that unites us. It is a symbol that tells us of the greatness of this country. Every year I hold a Canada Day celebration in my riding. Over 1,000 proud Canadians of all origins and including French Canadians participate in that event. We celebrate our flag and we celebrate our country.

I will continue to do so every July 1. That is my commitment to my constituents. I will continue to show the flag, to show how proud I am to be a Canadian, how proud I am of a symbol that is respected internationally. Everywhere I travel people talk about the greatness of this country. One of the symbols they have come to know is our flag.

We will continue to live in a society that is tolerant and that respects other opinions, but there is one thing that we will never compromise on, the Canadian flag and the symbols that unite us and the fact that we are and will continue to be proud Canadians.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to our distinguished colleague from the Montreal region, who told us about how her father came from Greece 37 years ago, and how much her family appreciates life in Canada. I respect the feelings she has shared with this House.

I would, however, like to ask her the following: she lives in Quebec, she was brought up in Quebec, she speaks French and English. Could she explain to us how she sees the Quebec culture, how she sees the Canadian culture, and what distinction she makes between the two?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I would need more than one minute to respond to my colleague, if I have to explain my pride in being a Quebecer, my pride at belonging to a distinct culture, to use that term, one which I accept moreover.

I am proud to be a Quebecer, but I find that the two cultures are compatible. There is no difference between being a Quebecer and being a Canadian, for me they are the same thing. I can be a Quebecer, and proud of it, I have lived in Quebec all my life and I hope to continue living in the province of Quebec for the rest of my days, as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian citizen.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

What about culture?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

For me, culture is where the beauty of Canada lies. The beauty of Canada is that we have two cultures, and that we can draw from the richness of both the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture.

What I find a bit odd is that Bloc members cannot appreciate the cultures of Quebec and Canada and be proud to be both Quebecers and Canadians.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member for St. Denis when she referred, in English, to "the pot calling the kettle black". How can Bloc members rise in the House and with a straight face say things like "Denounce the use of public funds"?

They object to our spending $15 million on promoting unity and tolerance in this wonderful country, and they just spent $60 million on a referendum that is divisive and hurts Quebec's economy. Talk about a double standard.

I think that is appalling. I have friends among the First Nations, and they would probably call this speaking with a forked tongue. On one side, millions have been spent. The separatist movement, which the Bloc supports, has infiltrated our schools and the CBC. Millions have been spent. At this very moment, the Government of Quebec is spending millions of dollars of federal money to promote its independence option.

So I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud of my Canadian flag. In recent years, I travelled in many countries, and people recognize the Canadian flag and the symbol it represents. It is not recognized because it has a nice maple leaf and it is red, although I am rather fond of the colour red. This flag is known throughout the world for what it represents: the best country in the world where tolerance is a fact of life. And it is this tolerance, this unity we want to keep in Canada and Quebec, because Quebec is still part of Canada.

I have my roots in Quebec as well. My ancestors arrived in Quebec City in 1634 and 1658, respectively. My francophone culture is not Quebec culture, not Franco-Ontarian but Canadian. When we refer to Canadian culture, we are talking about anglophone culture, francophone culture and the culture of all the ethnic groups in this country.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. In my speech I referred to what the PQ government spent on government propaganda so I will not repeat what I already said.

I believe we are all aware that public money is being spent for purely partisan purposes. I think we saw many examples of this in the last referendum. We can only hope that our Bloc colleagues will think about all this, and I will repeat what I said, that I am proud to be a Quebecer and a Canadian. I am proud to be both.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion by the member for Richmond-Wolfe, I would first like to say that the Government of Canada is taking a whole series of measures to promote Canada's identity.

The Canada Information Office and the one in a million flag campaign are only two of a multitude of measures the government has taken to enable Canadians to express their pride and sense of belonging to Canada.

Culture is the collection of ways we see ourselves belonging to a group, a society and a country. It is not an abstraction outside reality, but, rather, the vital link binding us each to the other. It is therefore to be found at the heart of Canada's culture.

As Canada's ninth largest industry, the cultural sector involves some 670,000 jobs and creates revenues of $16 billion annually. By promoting our cultural industries, we are achieving a twofold objective: helping Canada's identity grow and Canada's economy expand.

Like all the other sectors in society, the cultural sector has had to do its part and come up with innovative solutions to meet the challenges posed by the state of the economy.

Even in times of cutbacks, the present government has taken direct and indirect measures to strengthen the cultural sector and promote cultural growth.

I am thinking of the television and cable fund for the distribution of Canadian programs announced last September, among others. Television is a unique vehicle for cultural programming and occupies a large space in our lives. No other medium is so much a part of our daily lives and has such sway over our leisure time than television.

Television allows francophones, especially those who live outside Quebec, to have direct access to French culture in this country and to follow what is happening in the community and in French Canada in general.

Television is a means of conveying values and realities specific to francophones, even to promote the growth of the French language. For minority francophones, the access to French programming is, in some cases, a matter of survival.

Despite the need to have French-language Canadian content on the air, only 30 per cent of French television dramas are produced in Canada. Furthermore, it is estimated that about half of Quebec children's programming is produced abroad.

We must expand our capacity to communicate our views on the world to others in Canada and abroad in both official languages. We must broadcast more television programs produced by Canadians about Canadians for Canadians and the entire world. In a multi-channel television world, it is also a matter of survival. Without competitive quality Canadian programming, the Canadian presence on the air will diminish gradually.

It is essential for Canadians to be able to watch programs which they like and which reflect their reality. It is in this perspective that the Government of Canada announced the creation of the Canadian television and cable production fund for the production of Canadian programs, which amounts to $200 million per year. This fund is expected to produce $650 million worth of investments and to create some 10,000 new jobs. As was announced a few days ago, in addition to this new fund, the government will now provide stable funding for the CBC.

These two measures will help boost the broadcasting industry in Canada. They will generate new dramas, new variety programs, new programs for children, new documentaries and new cultural programs.

We are committed to supporting culture, and we will continue to implement measures to promote it. These measures demonstrate without a doubt that we are committed to supporting every aspect of arts and culture, which is the cornerstone of our collective identity.

Whether we are francophones or anglophones, whether we come from Gaspé or Vancouver, we all have the same desires and the same goals: we all want our culture to reflect what we are. The measures taken by the government to support the cultural sector are a direct contribution to the vitality of the two large linguistic communities in this country.

Mr. Speaker, there are several ways to promote the development of the Canadian identity. The Government of Canada may not have all the answers but, even in a period of financial restraint, it is taking critical steps to strengthen our identity and reaffirm our presence within the international community, because the future of our country is at stake.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I believe he overlooked several facts. He concealed some figures.

He did not mention the fact that his government has cut $20 million from the French radio network of the CBC, nor that it has also cut $7.5 million from the Canadian centre for magnetic fusion in Varennes. However, this same government found $23 million for its heritage minister's flags. It also found $550,000 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Canadian citizenship and passport. I could quote more figures in other areas where it failed to mention how it is going about its propaganda activities.

In Canada and Quebec, we have artistic creators. Current guidelines from Heritage Canada require that people wanting to deal with Canada in that area do so not on the basis of their artistic talents, in every aspect of artistic life, but on the basis of whether or not their work promotes Canadian unity.

Their talents are evaluated according to their capacity to strengthen Canadian unity. I ask my colleague if he believes that using artists to promote Canadian unity is a good way to meet this objective?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I agree that, in the present context, some cuts are necessary.

I would like to remind my colleague that the funding for Télé-Québec, the corporation which replaced Radio-Québec, has been cut nearly by half.

On the other hand, we in this government did not impose such drastic cuts on Radio-Canada. We did make some cuts, but their purpose was to ensure the survival and financial well-being of the corporation. I refuse to say that we are not protecting our cultural institutions.

When I look at what the Quebec government, Mr. Bouchard's government did, when I see the extent of the cutbacks in the cultural institutions' budgets, a 50 per cent cutback, I think there is something seriously wrong with the system.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before anything else, I would like you to ask if we have unanimous consent to put this motion to a vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

We do not have unanimous consent.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

I am truly sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had to check the interest of my Liberal colleagues in this matter.

From a legal point of view, I am a Canadian; from a constitutional point of view, I am a Canadian. But in my heart, I am a Quebecer. This is the crux of the matter. How much money, how many flags will Heritage Canada have to distribute to change the deep feelings I have?

I travelled in a number of countries; I travelled in the rest of Canada. When I am outside Quebec I see the cultural differences, I see the difference in values, I see the difference in standards and benchmarks. When I am outside Quebec I know that I am not home, in the very deep sense of the term.

Yes, when I travel in Canada I am legally in that country given to me by the Constitution, but it is a country where people speak and think in English. The values are excellent, but different in their form and substance from the ones we have in Quebec.

There is an Anglo-Canadian culture, different from the American culture. I know, I have been on both sides of the border, but this culture is not the culture found in Quebec. To tell you the truth, I would be hard-pressed to name movie stars, singers, actors, etc. from English Canada. I would not have the same problem with Quebec artists. Why? Because I listen to radio programs from Quebec, and they introduce us to artists from Quebec and the rest of the French-speaking world; because I read in French and I soak up what happens in the environment where I was raised and educated, which is Quebec.

When I am on this side of the Quebec border, I certainly find a friendly environment, with people with whom I can develop some friendships, but who are not from my culture. These are people with their own culture, and I am pleased to share in, to know and to appreciate their culture, but it is not mine. How much money will the minister of heritage have to spend to entice me to adopt a new culture?

You understand that Canada does not have enough money to change this culture that is deeply rooted in me. And if this is true for me, it is also true for millions of Quebecers. No amount of money will ever change this people and assimilate them into another people. This is why the minister of heritage's work is doomed to failure and this is in fact a waste of public money.

What I am saying is my case and the case of millions of Quebecers, but not the case of all Quebecers. Earlier, the member for Saint-Denis expressed an opposite opinion: she feels comfortable in this English Canadian culture.

This is what she feels and I cannot blame her for it. But the opposite is also true. I cannot be blamed for my own feeling, millions of Quebecers cannot be blamed for sharing this feeling.

On this side of the border, the culture is different and, consequently, attitudes are different. A week ago today, I had the opportunity to attend, in the Lester B. Pearson building, at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a presentation by a panel of American experts on the second mandate policies of the American president, Mr. Clinton.

The masters of ceremony, of course an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs, opened the meeting exclusively in English. But at the registration table, we were welcomed in both official languages. The documents handed out were bilingual, and interpretation services were available in seven or eight languages. French was naturally among these languages.

This meeting ran all morning and into the afternoon. There was a question period scheduled for members of the audience. I was the only one who got up and went to the mike to put a question in French to our American guests, who were provided with interpretation services of course. In fact, of the 75 or 100 Canadians in the room, I was the only one who questioned these eminent panellists on the policy thrusts for Mr. Clinton's second mandate regarding cultural issues in Canada.

You will understand that there are serious matters at issue here. Take the matter of Sports Illustrated for instance. There is also the dispute between the Minister of Industry and Telesat Canada, on the one hand, and the American FCC, on the other hand, over who will acquire two American satellites to be used for television broadcast.

Nobody but me raised this cultural question. It is important to all of Canada, but I was the only one to raise it, and I did so in French. I was not in my own country.

You will understand that the differences I perceive as I travel across Canada are important enough to make me feel like anyone who travels to a foreign country. Of course, I use the same currency, Canadian money. Of course, I do not need a passport. But I do not find myself among people who share my values, feelings and nationality.

A little more than a century ago, Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe Routhier composed the music and the lyrics of "O Canada", in French. These lyrics referred to their francophone ancestors. The translation in English came only later, and it does not render the notions and the feelings of the original, but is rather a transposition reflecting the values and the feelings of those of British ancestry.

In so doing, already 150 years ago, they created two Canadas, one of which is now called Quebec. How much more will the Minister of Canadian Heritage have to spend to change this reality which persists after 400 years, of which the first 150 were totally French? The Minister of Canadian Heritage has invested a lot a money to influence my heart.

For the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, 300 of the 600 billboards were put up in Quebec, while the other 300 were scattered throughout Canada. In that sense, we were already distinct.

An amount of $1.1 million was allocated to heritage moments, or heritage minutes, designed by the Charles Bronfman Foundation, but $2.2 million was paid. For the Canadian identity, we are talking about $3 million; for the operation unity, during the referendum campaign, the Privy Council was allocated $11 million; the Council for Canadian Unity received $8.4 million, while the Canada Information Office, which was funded by Heritage Canada, got $19.5 million. The one million flag operation cost $23 million; operation unity cost $5 million; the Attractions Canada spots currently shown on the TVA and CTV networks cost $1.5 million. All these figures add up to $100 million. And let me tell you this: even after spending $100 million, the heritage minister has not managed to change one bit the feelings that make me a Quebecer.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that, in my opinion, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is using all these resources to deny Quebec's specificity and to make it a Canadian region like any other. You will understand that, after spending $100 million, the minister still has not succeeded in her attempt.

As for the language issue, the government is trying to hide its failed Canadian policy. All the key federalist players deny the fact that francophones outside Quebec are being assimilated-thank goodness there are some left, thank goodness they are taking their destiny into their own hands, and thank goodness Quebec will always support them. However, the fact is there were many more 10, 20 or 100 years ago.

The goal of the Canadian language policy is no longer to preserve and promote the linguistic duality but, it seems, to make Canada a bilingual country for francophones, which will eventually lead to their assimilation.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for culture and communications. She is in charge of official languages, national parks, historic monuments and sports. Parliament created that department to put together all the areas relating to the promotion of the Canadian identity, to which I do not relate and never will.

Here are four examples of Ottawa's attitude toward Quebec culture, a culture which, as far as the federal government is concerned, does not seem to exist. First of all, the passage of the Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, which provides that the Department of Canadian Heritage shall initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and values, cultural development and heritage.

On both sides, existing values are excellent and impressive, but they are different and consequently should be treated differently and distinctly with all due respect, through appropriate mechanisms developed by the people who espouse these values.

After the referendum, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage held hearings to help promote Canadian unity and Canadian identity. The committee invited major Canadian cultural institutions to testify about their activities to promote Canadian unity and asked citizens to suggest activities that would reinforce Canadian identity and unity.

Merging these two cultures is sheer fantasy. Quebec culture is fundamentally distinct from the culture of the rest of Canada. And perhaps there are a number of cultures in the rest of Canada that are just as distinct, if we consider the aboriginal people.

A third example: the director of the National Gallery in Ottawa, Shirley Thomson, made a submission to the committee without a single reference to the visual arts of Quebec. Believe it or not, John Harvard, who chaired the committee and only speaks English, commended her for remaining silent on the subject.

My fourth and last point is this. The director general of the Canada Council, Roch Carrier, was scolded by committee members

because the council awarded a grant to Marie Laberge, a sovereignist artist who co-wrote the preamble to the sovereignty bill.

My point is that as far as culture and values are concerned, it is impossible-and history has shown this to be the case with even the smallest groups on this planet- to change the values by which we live, to assimilate a population and especially a population like Quebec, which has been around for 400 years and is developing by leaps and bounds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your attention, and I hope that what I just said will help my colleagues in this House understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is wasting public funds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Timiskaming-French River.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, which were, in my opinion, at times, anecdotal and personal.

I would like the member to tell us what these values are. He talks of Quebec values, of Canadian values. Canadian values are universal: those of tolerance, sharing, equality among Canadians. I think this has given the country its strength for these many years.

I agree that Canada is in a league of its own. The member opposite will agree with me, as do most people on this planet, that Canada is nevertheless a success. I recognize that the program of the department of cultural affairs cost nearly $20 million.

I would ask the member to explain the dramatic costs of Quebec's separation from Canada and the divisions it would create. Walls are tumbling down these days. The focus is on unifying and sharing in every respect, not only in terms of trade, but in terms of values as well. These Canadian values are part of our daily lives.

We hear international commentators saying that they would like to have lived in Canada. Our standard of living, our economic successes are the envy of many.

It is sad to hear people criticizing Canadian values. Canada is a success compared to other countries. The United Nations has said so on a number of occasions. We can go as far back as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said, a little over 100 years ago, that the overriding thought in his life was to reconcile the various elements of this extraordinary country. The combining of these various forces is what made Canada into what it is today.

I hope the member opposite will remember that these values are universal and that they have served not only all of Canada, but Quebecers especially.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I have never, ever, put down Canadian values. They deserve respect, but these are values that belong to the rest of Canada. Quebec has its own cultural values, as every nation has. There are no values with a capital V that are universal. Even the French have values that are different from ours. The fact that we speak the same language does not necessarily mean that we share the same values.

The Americans speak English and so do English Canadians. Do they have exactly the same values? No, there are some differences, just as there are similarities, I am sure. There are, of course, values that transcend cultures. Tolerance is one value that we share, I agree.

But when I discuss our cultural foundations and our vision with my English speaking colleagues, given their cultural baggage, they sometimes see certain values differently than I do. This difference is normal and natural, and I respect it.

What I ask is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to show the same respect and stop stubbornly spending tens of millions of dollars on eliminating these differences. The richness of our respective cultures would suffer. These differences must remain. We must remain who we are. We must develop a new co-operative approach and partnership. Sovereign states sharing certain responsibilities seems like a modern alternative to the old approach that does not work.

Earlier, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine indicated how prosperous a country Canada was. You must agree with me that, for a time, Canada did seem to be a prosperous country, but that was only because of endless borrowing, resulting in this accumulated debt we have today, totalling approximately $600 billion. Any country ill-advised enough to accumulate such a huge debt would become the best place in the world to live in.

At present, in all our ridings, and I am sure this situation exists in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine as well, some people can barely afford three square meals a day. There are children who go to school hungry. This country we call Canada is not the best place in the world to live in for these people. Such situations should not exist.

During that time, approximately $100 million was spent on trying to swallow up Quebec's culture. That is a waste of time and money and, more importantly, it is money that would be better spent helping the most disadvantaged in our society.

I think I have made my point. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will certainly agree with me that there are people in his riding who could use this money.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf is right when he says that Canada's current prosperity is largely the result of loans we have a hard time paying back.

I want to tell my colleague, and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, that this prosperity was generated by the work of Canadians and Quebecers; it is not related to the confederation. Canada's prosperity should not be used as an argument in favour of the federation. We all know other federations which are definitely not prosperous, such as Russia or the former Yugoslavia.

There is no causal link between the political system of this country and its prosperity. It is work, the work of the people, that generated this prosperity. So, let us stop raving about this prosperity and use it as an argument in favour of federalism.

If you cut a cake into two pieces, the pieces are as good after as they were before the cake was cut. If we split Canada into two parts, will Quebec and the rest of the country be less prosperous? The answer is no. So, let us cut the cake into two pieces, let each one have a piece, let us remain friends, and let us stop raving about how good the cake was before it was shared. It will be just as good after it is shared.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the hon. member for Portneuf talked about wasting time and money. The biggest waste of time and money for Quebecers was to elect 50 some members from the Bloc Quebecois.

These members have been sitting here for about three and a half years. I did some quick calculations. I figured that, over the last three years, they collectively spent, in salaries, budgets for their ridings and transportation, some $100 million, all this on purely separatist propaganda.

The only motion which I could support today in this House would be: "That this House condemn the use of public funds by the Bloc Quebecois on purely separatist propaganda activities".

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whatever amount we cost the public purse, each of us costs exactly the same as any member of this House.

However, the money used to pay for my salary and for the operation of my office comes from my constituents who elected me with 54 per cent of the votes. That is democracy. If my hon. colleague opposite cannot respect the fact that 53 members of the Bloc were democratically elected according to the rules of this Parliament and of this Canada to whom we belong legally and constitutionally and which also govern the way he was elected himself, if there is a double standard allowing him to sit here because the rules are good for him whereas they are not good for us and we are not entitled to sit here, then he should say so and assume that Quebec would be better off forming a country of its own.

In any case, that is what we want. We are asking for it, we are waiting for you to grant it to us, and if you refuse to do so, then the people, by way of a referendum, will demand it.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too was elected by 60 percent of my constituents to serve Canada in this House. That is what I intend to do.

I would like to address the House today to set the record straight. I want to talk about the exceptional measures taken recently to help francophones in this country develop culturally. It is true that the arts and culture sector in Canada has suffered cutbacks, on both the anglophone and francophone sides. You know this better than anyone: the economic situation in which we find ourselves requires that the government reduce spending. It has no other choice. This is the case for Canada and it is the case for all other countries in the world, including Quebec, more about which, which is now up against new international stakes.

All sectors in society, including the cultural sector, must look at the situation and carry their share of the load. Canada's prosperity depends on it. But let us be clear: there is no question of the economic development of our country moving ahead to the detriment of our culture and our collective identity.

Above all, the Government of Canada has no intention of weakening without due cause a sector as important as culture, which alone contributes $30 billion to the Canadian economy and represents almost 900,000 direct jobs, even less so in this time of expanding markets and borders when the cultural vitality of a country is a key to success and to the future.

Francophones share in this cultural wealth that makes Canada so unique and so successful. One quarter of the population speaks, sings, writes and lives in French, including my community in northern Ontario. From our earliest history, francophones have constituted an influential force that has contributed to the growth of this country, culturally, socially and economically.

In this context, the government's commitment to francophone communities in minority situations takes on its full significance. The government wants to help its communities meet the challenges of their situation so that they can continue to take part in Canada's development and help strengthen its cultural identity.

Francophones outside Quebec recently expressed their concerns regarding government cuts to the CBC. They were worried that these cuts would have adverse effects on regional programming.

We know how important it is for these communities to have access to French language broadcasting that reflects their values, presents their perspective on the world and enables them to communicate with each other. For those who are most isolated, it is nothing less than a matter of survival.

Aware of this reality, the CBC and the government took the necessary decisions. Last January, the CBC announced a series of measures to reduce the impact of these cuts on French language programming outside Quebec.

First, the four western television stations will give up the news cast Ce soir . In addition, regional stations will continue to produce children's, news and special broadcasts focusing on events of importance to these communities.

Second, the CBC will make available to independent producers and community groups of the Acadian community in the maritimes a mobile T.V. unit to cover cultural and community events. It will also provide a $500,000 line of credit.

Third, the sum of $500,000 will be set aside for the most affected radio stations outside Quebec, those in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Windsor, in order to augment the content of local broadcasting.

I remind everyone that radio stations serving minority francophone communities were less affected by the cuts than other CBC radio stations on the average throughout the country.

In a press release dated January 30, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, a national coalition of nine provincial and two territorial francophone associations, praised the efforts of the CBC. It said: "This reorganization demonstrates that the CBC is becoming increasingly attuned to the needs of the communities in the various provinces, as well as to its mandate to those communities".

Subsequent to this, the Government of Canada also made two major decisions which will help the CBC fulfil this mandate. It announced that it would be giving an additional $10 million to the French and English language services of CBC radio.

According to Marcel Pépin, Vice-President CBC French language radio, this will enable radio to better fulfil its primary missions: to support talent, maintain information systems which are strongly anchored in the regions, and properly reflect regional voices on the AM and FM networks.

One piece of good news follows another. Starting April 1, 1998, the government will guarantee stable financing to the CBC for the next 5 years, in keeping with the announcement it made less than a week ago.

In addition, a new television and cable production fund has been created for the production of Canadian programs, totalling $200 million yearly, and now accessible to the CBC.

I hardly need to point out that these announcements were received with a great deal of joy by the francophone communities in this country. Canada's cultural vitality must of necessity include the cultural development of its francophe population. French speaking Canadians have shaped the history of this country, and they lend a singular face and a special voice to Canada. That is why, despite the financial restrictions facing it, the government has intervened to strengthen the cultural foundations of the francophone communities outside Quebec.

To touch the culture of a country is to touch its very soul. On the eve of a new millennium, we are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity of using every possible means to strengthen the soul of this country. All of these measures, and those the government plans to take in future to safeguard Canadian culture, are paving the way to the Canada of tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague, the member from northern Ontario.

In this country, there are two founding nations; it is a little bit like a couple. You cannot buy love. I recall that on October 27, 1995, people in the party opposite spent an inordinate amount of money on a sudden show of love for the Quebec people. Tens of thousands of people from Ontario and New Brunswick converged on Place Canada, downtown Montreal. Even the airlines were asked to do their share. People were supposed to suddenly show their love.

Twelve month later, there was an attempt to repeat the performance, but this time the airlines and the Liberal Party of Canada were not asked to contribute. The result: hardly 225 people showed up to profess their love for the Quebec people.

Was it love for one day or love for ever? Quebecers will not be bought with flags, biased information, information that sounds like the kind of propaganda that could be heard on the airwaves in Europe at a certain time.

I must commend my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond-Wolfe, for his motion. I would like to read the part I am interested in. As he said so rightly a little while ago, the government must reduce its expenditures. It has been cutting everywhere except in the area of propaganda.

The member for Richmond-Wolfe wrote:

That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and the One Million Flags Operation-

Finally, I would like the member to tell me how it is that his government has been had by Robert Gillet? While on the air on his Quebec radio show, he dialled the infamous number 1-800-DRAPEAU and said he was Bob Sweater. He ordered thousands of flags to fly on every cottage on both sides of the Saint Lawrence River, from Quebec City to Gaspé. Thousands of flags were actually shipped.

They had to give get rid of these infamous flags; the magic number was one million and there are 30 million of us. This means that one Canadian in 30 had to receive a flag. Robert Gillet, alias Bob Sweater, received several thousands of them. Sirs, you have become the laughing stock of Quebecers.

We are in the thick of budget cuts. Try to explain to your government that it is currently squandering public funds on propaganda activities that are underhanded, disgusting and verging on the ridiculous.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed one of those Canadians who travelled to Montreal in 1995. I did it with pride, and I would gladly do it again tomorrow. I went back there afterwards too. It has not been just a one day love affair, as you say. I do not believe in the love of one night, also called a one night stand.

I went back to beautiful Quebec City. And I have to tell you I visit Quebec City with the same pride I feel when I visit the Rockies, Vancouver or the maritimes. Each summer, I spend a week down there visiting my Acadian brothers and cousins. Incidentally, I met the hon. member there.

Let me say just this. We did not go to Montreal just to tell Quebecers we love them, but also to undo some of the misinformation by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. I visited Jonquière, not far from Mr. Bouchard's riding. I asked about 200 people how many French speaking Canadians they thought we have in Ontario: 5,000, 10,000, or 50,000?

When I told them 50,000, they were amazed and would not believe there were more than 10,000, because that is what they had been told by the separatist propaganda. When I told them there were 600,000 francophones in Ontario, and that 400,000 anglophones had learned French, they would not believe me. One million people speak French in Ontario, and they are not even aware we exist, and they want to make an informed decision on the future of this country. This is the problem we have in Canada. There is a lack of communication.

Quebecers are ill-informed by the media which are very often separatist but work with federal money. That is why it is so important that the federal government should make sure Quebecers and all Canadians are proud of their flag and have all the information they need if another referendum is ever held, so that Quebecers can make an informed decision. This time you will be soundly beaten.