Suzanne Tremblay

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite extraordinary, because the previous Minister of Canadian Heritage promised the same guarantee, and it prompted the resignation of Mr. Manera, who felt the government was not keeping its word.

As regards Radio-Québec, Quebec contributes $7.50 per capita to its television, whereas Ontario contributes only $5.50. The minister should compare apples with apples and not with carrots.

Even with four former CBC presidents saying that the Corporation can no longer fulfill its mandate, the minister in her cynicism is promising stable funding, but after additional cuts of $200 million and 4,000 jobs. This is a far cry from Radio-Québec.

What are the government's real intentions in promising stable, insufficient and long term funding to the CBC? Are they to shut down the regions, to run the French network into the ground or simply to shut down the now redundant English and French television networks of the CBC, as her colleague for national defence has suggested?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks she has made a great discovery. I repeat: the CBC needed trimming at head office, and Mr. Beatty closed it. He understood.

For the third time, this government is promising the CBC stable funding. Today it is again making this promise after hitting the CBC with the hardest cuts it has ever faced in its history.

How can the minister think for one second that the people will believe her, when her government has already twice reneged on this promise? Does this new promise signal elections, which will the permit the cock to crow for the third time and the Liberals to deny?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. There are limits to rewriting the red book to reflect the devastation wrought by this government.

Before the 1993 election, we read on page 88 of the English version of the red book, 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".

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can she say this morning, following a cabinet meeting, that, by promising stable funding to the CBC as of 1998, she is fulfilling the commitments of the red book, when for the past three years the Minister of Finance has relentlessly cut more than $500 million from the budgets of the CBC, Telefilm, the National Film Board and the Canada Council?

[One Hundredth Birthday Of Sister Sainte-Hermine, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today the Communauté des filles de Jésus in Rimouski is celebrating the 100th birthday of Sister Marie-Anne Chenel, also known to many as Sister Sainte-Hermine. I would like to add my congratulations to those of her religious family and her relatives.

Over the years, Sister Chenel has followed her chosen path with conviction. She lovingly took up duties as the teacher of young children and, through her presence and involvement, built up lasting ties within her community.

I wish Sister Sainte-Hermine serenity on her journey. May she continue to be, for a good many of us, an example of perseverance and hope.

[Culture, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, really, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is living on another planet. Her government has not created jobs, jobs, jobs in the cultural area. It has cut, cut, cut those jobs, with all the funding it took away from the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC, to name a few. Enough is enough.

When the American secretary likes what the Minister of International Trade is saying, we have a problem.

The heritage minister seems to be the only one in cabinet who thinks that measures are necessary to protect and develop the Canadian and Quebec cultures. Can she guarantee the House that she will give it her full attention?

[Culture, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we were perhaps the first country in the world to set up a CRTC, but we are perhaps also the first country in the world to have sold ourselves down the river, when we look at what happened with Ginn Publishing, Power DirecTv and DMX.

Given what went on in the past, how can the Deputy Prime Minister expect us to believe her when she tells us that her government is defending the cultural sovereignty of Quebec and of Canada?

[Culture, February 7th, 1997]

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

Twenty-two groups from the cultural sector of Canada and of Quebec, representing 900,000 workers, have unanimously petitioned the Canadian government to maintain and strengthen existing cultural protection measures. This request comes on the heels of the statement by the Minister for International Trade that cultural protection measures that have been around for 30 years are going to be scrapped.

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told us that cabinet was unanimous on the cultural question. If that is the case, how can she explain the statements by her colleague at international trade, who said that the rules of Canadian ownership and Canadian content are obstacles to the cultural development of Canada and of Quebec?

[Canadian Census, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion M-277 concerning a proposed change to the next Canadian census.

The member for Beaver River moved: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should return the word "Canadian" among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian Census". And my colleague, the member for Bellechasse, moved an amendment to this motion asking that it "include "Canadian", "Quebecker", "English-Canadian", "French-Canadian" and "Acadian" among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian Census".

This goes back to the last Canadian census. It is truly astonishing that an agency as reliable as Statistics Canada, whose competence is recognized worldwide, produced such erroneous questions.

One of them, question 17, asks to which ethnic or cultural group the respondent's ancestors belong. The choices are: French, English, German, Canadian, Scottish, Jewish, Haitian, Jamaican, Vietnamese, and so on.

Question 19 reads as follows: "Is this person-and here comes the problematical point- white, Chinese, South Asian (for example, Indian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Sri Lankan)-here nations and

regions are being confused, since the Punjab is a region and not a country-black (for example, African, Haitian, Jamaican and Somali)-as if a person could not be white and be born in Africa-Arab, West Asian (for example, Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan), Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean or other?".

It is, I imagine, in this list that the member for Beaver River would like to see the word "Canadian" added.

There is a very definite confusion between race, ethnic group, nationality, language, region and country. Yet these words do have definitions, and there is a capability at Statistics Canada, with all the scientific knowledge possessed by its employees and professionals, to define those concepts very well. There are ways to not confuse the concept of race, a concept that is becoming more and more obsolete anyway, we must admit.

As for ethnicity, this is an item of no scientific value, since the majority of people forget their ethnic group of origin. When I myself answered the questionnaire, I did not say I was French in origin, since my ancestors came to the country in 1657. I have more or less loss sight of that. I am Canadian in origin, born in Canada. For me, that presents no problem.

Except that if someone wants to ask me something more specific, to find out what group I really identify with in Canada, I cannot identify myself with a Canadian; there is no such thing as a Canadian. It is all very fine to spend a lot of money to try and make one exist, but a Canadian does not exist as such, in my opinion. At least not yet. I am of Canadian origin, of course, but I belong to the Quebec nation. My origin is the one I have in common with people who live in the same area and have the same common characteristics.

We are aware of a certain unity that exists among people who live in Quebec and increasingly, "Canadians" are defining themselves as Ontarians, Manitobans or Newfoundlanders. Many people from Newfoundland do not feel any more Canadian than Quebecers do. They are from Newfoundland first. Of course they will say they are from Canada, although they were the last to join Confederation.

So there are certain feelings, a certain commonality that unite us, through history, society, culture and above all through a desire to live together. I think that if they decide to keep this question in the next census questionnaire, it should be clarified to reflect the kind of answer that is desired.

It would be interesting to know with what kind of nationalism we can identify, because as we know each other better, we are more likely to accept each other as we are and understand each other, as long as we live in the same country or when we will live together as good neighbours. So we will know where we are from.

The important thing is that we can talk about our ethnic origin, without mixing up all these concepts as they were in question 19.

Now we can assume that all these people who work at Statistics Canada, with all their knowledge and skills, have a reason for asking the question the way they did. Strictly speaking, both Question No. 17 and question 19 are not a matter of census data or statistics but, in my opinion, purely political questions.

What is the point of these questions? The responses will be tallied, the number of people from France, Germany, Italy, China will be identified-as the questionnaire asks: Are you white, Chinese-you can be Chinese without ever setting foot in China. If you live in Hong Kong, Singapore or Taiwan, you are Chinese, but you can be Chinese without ever going to China.

A lot more precision is required. You can also be Canadian and not identify with English Canada at all. You can be a Canadian of francophone origin, but, because of your family history, be part of another segment of the population or the minority in Quebec. There are francophones, even Tremblays, whose name is given an English pronunciation and who do not speak a word of French anymore, because they belong to the anglophone minority in Quebec.

Perhaps these people do not see themselves as Quebecers anymore. They are more English Canadian, and we must respect their choice.

Why make the question unclear? No doubt in order to emphasize Canada's multiculturalism policy and convince us that Canada exists, that it is the most beautiful country in the world and that ours is a mosaic comprising every country. People are Ukrainian Canadians, Italian Canadians, Chinese Canadians-I could name all of the 200 countries in the world. We probably have people from all these places.

I have no objection to that, but it is the source of Canada's problem. And it is: a lack of Canadian identity. Maintaining multiculturalism within the country means that no one wants to become Canadian and so we end up not defining what it means to be Canadian. In my opinion, if Canada wants to progress and better understand itself-it will be doubtless very useful to us as neighbours some day-there is no reason to be afraid of identifying what one considers one's nationality.

The question must be clarified. There are Acadians in the country, there are French Canadians, there are Quebecers and there are Ontarians. It is vital to know what people consider to be their nationality.

We must open our eyes. We must look at the reality of our differences, learn to live together and respect one another, whether it be within a single country or as good neighbours.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost imperative that every member rise in this House to speak on this bill because, of all the bills and issues examined during the 35th Parliament, the GST will no doubt have been the most momentous.

This government got elected under false pretences and it is a shame that no court exists where ordinary citizens could sue the government for broken promises, failing to keep its word or getting elected under false pretences.

Any which way you read the red book and understand the words written in this magnificent book, one fact cannot be misinterpreted: in the minds of almost every citizen of this country, it was quite clear that this government, which ran under the Liberal banner, was going to rid us of the GST. There was absolutely no doubt about that. Witness how baffled everyone was to hear the Prime Minister say that everyone but him was mistaken and that he had never made such a promise.

Earlier, I heard our colleague from Mississauga South say nobody in this place could consider getting rid of the GST because it generates $18 billion in revenues for the government. I think that, when it was in opposition, there were people with enough sense in the Liberal Party to realize that, once in power, they could not do without $18 billion in revenues.

So, and this would appear to be a conscious process, given what we heard during the election campaign and what was written in the red book, once the Liberal Party took office, it did say: "We will do as always. We fooled Canadians. They were dumb enough to vote for us. Too bad. We will not abolish the GST, because we cannot afford to lose $18 billion in revenues".

I think Canadians are fed up with traditional parties that promise the world but cannot honour their promises once they take office.

People are beginning to understand. This is a very dense bill-I do not want to insult those who wrote it because they are eminent jurists, but I will admit to not having read it through since it is rather dull. One quickly gets bored, unless one is paid to read it, or sits on a committee that will be taking an in-depth look at it. Because it is dense, perhaps even in more ways than one.

This bill was thrown together. One can tell there is an election in the offing, and the government does not want to be reminded, all

through the election campaign, from coast to coast to coast, that it did not fulfil its promise on the GST. So, the government is in a hurry and it has hastily thrown together a bill that has 272 clauses. Over 100 amendments were tabled at second reading. Even on the last day of consultations, that very evening, 13 new amendments were presented.

On February 3, even the French CBC news bulletin-but the Prime Minister does not listen to it, so he may not have been aware that his bill was so hastily thrown together-mentioned the need to make amendments, adding that the government might back down on one major issue, that of hiding the GST in the price.

I clearly remember the statements made by members of this government, when they formed the official opposition and the Mulroney government introduced the GST. They were adamantly opposed to the GST being included in the sales price. The main argument of the Liberal opposition back then was: "We will never let this tax be included in the price, because the government would then be able to increase it without anyone really knowing about it".

However, once in office, the same Liberal Party decided that the tax would be hidden, that it would be included in the price. Today, that tax stands at 7 per cent, but it could go up to 8 or 9 per cent in the next budget and nobody would notice. It would then be reported in newscasts or in the newspapers, for about 24 hours, and the Minister of Finance would say that his document was misread. Indeed, government members often tell people and journalists that they misunderstood a statement or that they misread a document. Liberal members are the only ones who can read. But the fact is that, after about a day, people will forget that the GST actually went up.

One major difficulty with respect to this bill is the following: when the government was in opposition, one of the things it said was that the Conservative government's plan to tax goods and services was a bad one and that no amount of fixing would make it fair to taxpayers.

Here we have their own first fix-up attempt, which has not been too successful because, as I was mentioning earlier, there have been several amendments. It will complicate people's lives considerably. Imagine it is the morning of April 1, the agreement has been signed, the tax is coming into effect, some merchants have done all their work and will display their prices with the tax included, but the merchant next door has not included his tax. He has not harmonized as quickly as his neighbour, so his merchandise will show a lower price. In the opinion of those who are looking at the question of how this wonderful harmonized tax will be implemented, there will be chaos in the maritimes for several months.

The Retail Council of Canada has also condemned inclusion of this tax in the sales price as a policy that will drive up costs and add to confusion among consumers.

Several businesses have appeared before the committee and pointed out that-without wanting to give any of them publicity-companies like Canadian Tire, Sears, and many others with stores in every province in Canada, will have to have separate prices and labelling for the province of Quebec, for the maritimes and for the other provinces, because things are different, the regulations are different.

We were even informed that, in certain cases, there could be a product requiring four labels. One would include the sales tax in the price; another would display the price without the tax; another, the sale price including the tax; and the last, the sale price without the tax. It will be a real headache for consumers.

Our colleague, the member for Mississauga South, said that Quebec was an example to follow. I hope he realized that it is an example to follow across the board, and that, in his province, he will work for the sovereignty of Ontario. It is not enough to harmonize the tax. If we are a model to follow, then he should also work for the sovereignty of Ontario.

At the time of the "beau risque", Quebec agreed to harmonize its tax. In good faith, it sat down with government representatives and organized the thing. This was a deal worked out between Robert Bourassa and Brian Mulroney. In the end, we realized that we had been taken to the cleaners. Two years later, the new government harmonized the tax along the lines of the Quebec model, but handed over one billion in compensation to the maritimes. The Premier of New Brunswick is using $400 million of this compensation to come to Quebec and engage in what I would call an almost obscene recruitment of companies to his province, to the detriment of the Quebec economy.

I hope that we will one day follow Quebec's example throughout Canada and reorganize this country, with its unharmonious tax.

[Business Of The House, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House the usual Thursday question. Can he give us an idea of what is in store for next week?