Gaston Leroux

[Société Radio-Canada, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in 1990, the voice of Radio-Canada was silenced in the regions, and in 1996, if the government decides to eliminate advertising, as recommended by the Juneau report, the voice of Radio-Canada affiliates in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, eastern Quebec, the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean, the Mauricie and the Eastern Townships will be silenced.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage. Since the recommendations of the Juneau report will likely result in the closure of Radio-Canada affiliates, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage categorically reject these proposals?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As it clearly shows, the hon. member recognizes not only that Quebec is a founding nation but also-although he did not dare say so-that it has played a very active role in and made a major contribution to this country's development.

History demonstrates this strong reluctance to recognize Quebec-and its francophone community-essentially as a people. This was confirmed by recent federal-provincial negotiations that led to the rejection of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. When the Constitution was patriated in 1982 and the issue came to the forefront, where were the groups travelling to Quebec by bus and by plane to tell us that they loved us?

Do not forget that the Quebec National Assembly, composed of both nationalists and federalists, had rejected this unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Where were you when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was leading this kind of action against Quebec and denying that Quebecers were a people? This is the ultimate result of the action taken by your government and your party.

Whoever their new members may be, Liberals must remember that this matter is of the utmost importance for Quebec at a time when Canada is rejecting the concept of Quebec as a people and, according to Canada's cultural policy, relegating it to the status of one of the largest cultural communities. I am sorry but the hon. member must know that we are not a large cultural community. We in Quebec are a French speaking people.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Richmond-Wolfe, I am pleased to rise today in the context of the reply to the speech from the throne, and, more specifically, in the context of my new responsibilities as heritage and cultural industries critic.

The speech from the throne stated that, with culture at the heart of Canada's identity, the government wants to promote a vibrant cultural industry. It therefore reiterates its desire to ensure the viability of the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada.

However, I must remind it that its red book states in black and white, and I quote: "Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial development". The Liberals, who are now in power, were criticizing the Conservatives for their lack of understanding of cultural vitality and development in Canada. What a farce. This government is a big fat joke.

It is an eye opener to look at the facts and realize that this Liberal government is not meeting even one of its commitments and that the speech from the throne is nothing more than window dressing in the area of cultural policy. We should take note that, in the area of cultural and heritage development, funding for programs supporting publishing, museums, sound recording, video production, TV5 and broadcasting in the North has shrunk by $36 million in the past fiscal year.

The French network of the CBC is underfunded compared with the English network. It gets $280 million less, for the same sized audience. In his letter of September 20, 1995 entitled: "Structural Review: the next steps", the President of the CBC, Perrin Beatty, announced that the corporation had to expect significant cuts in government funding, and I quote: "We are working toward the likelihood that, by March 31, 1997, we may have to reduce our budget by some $350 million from the 1994-95 levels". He also indicated that cuts totalling $227 million over an 18-month period starting in September of 1995 were contemplated, which means that nearly $127 million in cuts should be announced in the budget tomorrow.

After the Juneau report was tabled, it was suggested that a new CBC tax be levied through a 7.5 per cent increase in cable fees to support cultural undertakings. Note that a recent survey shows that more than 43 per cent of Canadians oppose the proposed new tax. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, is this the way to go about supporting our cultural industries? I would like this House to tell me what is prompting the Liberal government of Canada to put its leading cultural industries on the line, thereby jeopardizing the vitality of our cultures in Canada and Quebec?

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is objecting to this Liberal government changing the mandates of major cultural institutions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and the CRTC, as recently announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. All this to use these institutions as propaganda tools to promote Canadian unity.

We will recall that already in the early 1960s, culture and communications became key issues, both for Quebec's cultural sovereignty and for Canadian unity. As mentioned on page 5 of the white paper on culture tabled in July 1966, the commitment to developing and maintaining a radio and television broadcasting system in Canada essentially came within the scope of the pursuit of a Canadian identity and of Canadian unity. The kind of Canadian nationalism practised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberals was intended as a counterbalancing force, a weapon against Quebec's nationalism and against the recognition of the Quebec people.

Through its statements and challenges, this government continues to deny there is such a thing as a Quebec culture. The term "ethnicism"-a term to remember-used by the members of the heritage committee, a committee with a very large Liberal majority, in reference to Quebec's culture, is a case in point. As evidenced by history, taking such a view to Canada causes a major clash between Ottawa and Quebec.

With respect to culture, the 17 years of the Trudeau era were characterized by an emphasis on culture as a Canadian identity and unity tool and by the development of a national policy in Canada. This denial of Quebec's cultural identity goes to show how much federal Liberals use double talk.

In these times of communication, new technologies and information, Quebec's culture is claiming its rightful place. At no time will the Bloc Quebecois ever tolerate that Quebec be dealt with by this government like in the days of the British colonial empire. We will keep forcing the federal government to recognize the existence of the people of Quebec. We intend to pester the government until such time as budgets are allocated fairly and equitably amongst cultural institutions.

At present, the average budget for one hour of broadcast production at the CBC is twice what at Radio-Canada. Such unfairness is unacceptable and all the more unjustified that, in 1976 and 1977, the average cost of one hour of broadcasting was shared equally between the French and English networks. But the present

situation is the result of 20 years of the Liberal federal cultural development policy.

In the whole issue of the relationship between Canada and Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the only way to deal with this colonial attitude is to become sovereign. We will continue to strive to ensure that the federal government will never again trivialize Quebec culture by reducing it to a mere Canadian sub-culture. Quebec culture is the culture of a people.

In closing, in my capacity as the official opposition's critic for heritage and cultural industries, I would like to state in this House that Quebec culture is the culture of a people, one of the founding peoples of this country, which was excluded by the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Sovereignty is absolutely essential to the cultural future of Quebec.

[Copyright, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister is the one on a critical path.

Does the minister not realize that, according to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, this regulatory vacuum resulted in losses of $300 million this year because of private copying and that his inaction is sending the message that the future of our artists is a matter of supreme indifference to him?

[Copyright, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

On December 22, 1994, the heritage minister and his industry colleague issued a joint press release stating that a bill to amend the copyright legislation would be tabled in the House as early as possible in the new year.

Could the heritage minister confirm that the copyright bill will indeed be tabled before the December 15 adjournment, that is to say within the next seven days?

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on the Prime Minister's motion to outline Quebec's traditional demands and show that this motion of the Liberal Party of Canada is nothing more than a charade to water down the aspirations of the people of Quebec.

My remarks will be broken down into three parts, covering the last three decades. What happened during each of these three decades?

Thirty years ago, during the quiet revolution, there developed in Quebec a clear movement in favour of Quebec becoming a sovereign state and assuming sole responsibility over its social and economic policies. This prompted the Quebec government to undertake discussions on the patriation of the Constitution, that is to say on a new division of powers and on an amending formula that would be acceptable to Quebec.

In 1964, the Fulton-Favreau formula restricted the federal government's capability to act unilaterally, by requiring a majority of two thirds of the provinces to make substantive changes to federal institutions. This gave rise to widespread protest in Quebec.

In fact, the Fulton-Favreau formula was putting off negotiations on the substantive issue, namely the division of powers, to deal only with the technical aspect of the matter, namely the patriation of the Constitution.

The Quebec government then specified that any agreement concerning the patriation of the Constitution would be subject to a positive and satisfactory redistribution of powers. From then on, this will become a traditional demand. A new Constitution was to give the Government of Quebec the broadest powers possible on the basis of affirming the two-nation status of Canada in the country's social, political and economic structures.

But Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada did not agree. Trudeau objected to policies based on Quebec as a nation. As part of the patriation process, they were intent on doing away with the Quebec rhetoric based on the concept of collective rights and with the fact that the French Canadian nation was becoming identified with the Quebec government.

At this stage of the negotiations to patriate the Canadian Constitution, the political thinking of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is clear: Canadian federalism cannot, without jeopardizing its integrity, tolerate any constitutional asymmetry in the distribution and use of legislative powers.

Moreover, in Mr. Trudeau's mind, there are essentially only citizens and their individual freedoms vis-à-vis the state. Consequently, the Quebec society must blend with the rest of Canada.

The Victoria charter marks the beginning of a second decade of negotiations and discussions to patriate the Constitution. The charter recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction over social policies, but seeks to impose national standards. In a letter to the Prime Minister, in which he states his refusal to accept the Victoria charter, then Quebec premier Robert Bourassa writes: "Canadian federalism must be decentralized to reflect the diversity of the regions, and to allow the Quebec government to preserve the cultural future of its majority".

In March 1976, Pierre Trudeau, who was still Prime Minister, writes in a letter addressed to all provincial premiers that if there is no unanimity, the federal government will have no choice but to decide whether or not to recommend to Parliament the patriation of the 1867 Constitutional Act.

The third decade of discussions and negotiations on the patriation of the BNA Act starts with the failure of the Quebec government to obtain a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association with the rest of Canada, a concept which implies the national

recognition of Quebecers, as well as a major redistribution of constitutional powers, in favour of Quebec. As early as 1981, and in spite of having been re-elected, the Parti Quebecois finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position vis-à-vis the federal government. A scathing answer came from the Liberal Party then in power in Ottawa. The Canadian Prime Minister took advantage of Quebec's vulnerability and proceeded with unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

On December 1, 1981, Quebec's legislature adopted a resolution opposing unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Thus, Quebec reaffirmed its will to entrench in the new Constitution the fundamental equality of the two founding peoples as well as, as a natural consequence of its distinct society status, its extended and exclusive jurisdictions.

The "Canada Act", or the Constitution Act of 1982, was the temporary conclusion of a process which had been going on for over 20 years. The charter of rights and freedoms, enshrined in the new Constitution, is the very basis of the principle of a Canadian nation. It gives the central power unprecedented political influence, an unparalleled power of centralization.

We all know what happened next: the day Pierre Trudeau decided to unilaterally patriate the Constitution, the Liberal Party of Canada lost Quebec; since the 1984 election, it never could obtain more than a third of Quebecer's votes. From then on, it spoke mainly for Canada. The Conservative Party came to power in Ottawa and undertook to have the newly patriated Constitution signed by Quebec. More consultations were held between the premiers, which led to the Meech Lake accord in June 1987. A strong basis for negotiation was then laid out between Canada and Quebec since that accord has forced the courts, from the Supreme Court on down, to interpret the whole Constitution, including the charter of rights and freedoms, in light of the traditional claims of Quebec.

Once again, however, the Liberal Party of Canada was not prepared to accept that and did everything in its power to scuttle the 1987 accord. The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party made every effort, with the assistance of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to water down the recognition of the distinct nature of Quebec. In English Canada, where the Meech Lake accord gave rise to much opposition, his voice was heard as being extremely effective in ruining any political basis needed for the accord to succeed.

The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party then reiterated his party's position: Canadian federalism cannot accept constitutional asymmetry without being substantially weakened, Quebec cannot be regarded as a nation and only individual rights are recognized by the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the only instrument for interpreting the Constitution and the status of the Quebec state.

Last week in the House, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois described the rapprochement that was made in the late 80s between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, a rapprochement which led to the Charest report, where the interpretative clause granted to Quebec in view of its distinct nature, as a state representing a nation, was formally denied.

The beginning of the third decade of talks and negotiations about the status of the province of Quebec in the Canadian Confederation, pursuant to a Constitution which Quebec never agreed on, is marked again by a toughening of Quebec's position. Since it obviously could not expect anything from English Canada, the Quebec government, largely supported by the voters, now favoured a clearly sovereignist option, as shown, first, by the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois and the mass election of its members in Ottawa; second, by the almost total disappearance of the Conservative Party; third, by the failure of the Charlottetown accord; and lastly, by the election of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.

From then on Quebec would no longer get involved in endless and useless rounds of negotiations. The results of the second referendum on the sovereignty issue held in the province of Quebec occurred half-way through this third decade, recognizing the dazzling progress made by the sovereignty option in Quebec since the failure of Meech. Quebec is now heading towards its political sovereignty and nothing can make it go backwards. Certainly not this silly resolution which the Prime Minister of Canada introduced last week to urge the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. This is only a token recognition.

This very day, in the House of Commons, during question period, the Prime Minister himself denied the existence of a Quebec culture although his own resolution aims at recognizing it. He stated that there is only one culture in Canada, and that is the Canadian culture. We will vote against this resolution, which is as hypocritical as it can get.

[Member For Bonaventure-Îles-De-La-Madeleine, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the very loquacious member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine was determined to show that he could take arrogance and absurdity one step further.

Mistaking this place for the defunct youth Parliament of Canada, the gentleman nicknamed "Monsieur 31" confirmed that he had all it takes to hold the part of the leading man in a vaudeville show.

In her editorial, Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir reported that the young MP had launched an all-out attack against the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which he accused of being unable to carry out its mandate, adding that his government could easily deal directly with its partners. Ms. Bissonnette ironically described the member's remarks as follows: ``As we know, out of the mouth of babes-''.

Balzac wrote that power only benefits the powerful. This lesson in humility-

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Pendant des années.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Comme en 1982.

[Irving Whale, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that, now that she has recognized the existence of criminal activities surrounding the refloating operation of the Irving Whale , the only way to give credibility to the process would be to strike a totally independent expert panel, one that has ho connection with her department?