Mr. Speaker, as critic for the Industry, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, particularly since last Monday, exactly a week ago, I also raised, as critic for my Party, to speak on the Department of Industry Act, a piece of legislation aiming at combining former departments which was drafted by the Campbell government and copied by the current government.
At the time, we said that the Department of Industry had so many responsibilities and such a scope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who unfortunately has left, called his minister "superman". We said that we will leave it to the voters to decide whether or not the Prime Minister has made a wise decision.
During the debate, we recognized that the mandate of the Department of Industry was wide-ranging and that there was a lot of duplication with Quebec's regional development programs as well as with other federal institutions dealing with regional development, particularly the NRC.
But the reason I wanted to speak on this bill is that there is also a lot of duplication and overlap, and very little progress, where Canadian heritage and this bill are concerned. Indeed, when it comes to jurisdictions and the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Industry, clause 4(1)(h) of Bill C-46 provides that the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(h) patents, copyrights, trade-marks, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies;
And pursuant to clause 4(1)(k), the powers of the Minister also extend to
(k) telecommunications, except in relation to (i) the planning and coordination of telecommunication services for departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, and (ii) broadcasting, other than in relation to spectrum management and the technical aspects of broadcasting;
Thus, we see two important areas where there is duplication and a little overlapping concerning copyrights and telecommunications.
As for copyrights, it has to be either a chance mishap that should be corrected without delay or a deliberate decision. If it is a deliberate decision, it is very tendentious and significative to entrust the Department of Industry with the whole issue of copyrights.
Everybody knows, since they have their own personal culture, that when you delegate a question like copyrights to the Department of Industry, you are going against a whole culture. Just as a business has a culture, a department has one, and in this case it is a business culture.
Writers were familiar with the Department of Communications which was the organization previously responsible for everything pertaining to "Canadian" culture. These people, in Canada and Quebec, were in the habit-a good habit-of dealing with people who understood their problems and with whom they had probably established relationships.
Now, the government supports the Conservative Party's approach of treating copyrights like any other commercial product; this approach was condemned in English Canada as well as in Quebec. We have information on the subject. The whole situation gives rise to so much unease, discomfort and unfairness that it strains the relationship between the artistic community and the Canadian government, as represented by the Department of Industry.
But even worse, we must know that Industry Canada is beholden to American interests, and this is part of the international problem. That was the case with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, in spite of all its pretensions, is no better. It seems that the arts community feels very affected by the situation. For reasons of efficiency and respect for individuals and organizations in the field, bringing the whole issue of copyrights back under the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage has been suggested.
The other aspect concerns communications and telecommunications. There is a lot of duplication and it is very tendentious and revealing. And again, form is favoured over substance. The tools used in the world of telecommunications today are very sophisticated, whether we are talking about optical fibres or coaxial cables, and it is the tools that are the government's main concern.
The Department of Canadian Heritage deals with communications and telecommunications, but it has to take into account the business concerns of Industry Canada. When we say that Industry Canada is beholden to American interests, it is important to know that, according to the information we have, the situation has completely changed in the United States, which means that the cultural sovereignty of both Canada and Quebec is at stake.
There was a time when the Americans' own market was enough to meet their financial needs. They just had to export part of their output to cover their costs and make profits. Today, they have to export a lot more because production costs have become excessively high, as we can see in the world of sports for example.
That is why the cultural pressures from the United States that we have always felt since the Second World War have become even greater over the past few years. Today, the Americans have no choice. This is very serious for us in Quebec, and maybe even more serious for English Canada.
In Quebec, as far as cultural sovereignty is concerned, we, the sovereignists, are in the process of settling the matter. We are taking steps so that the issue of Quebec cultural sovereignty, as well as its full sovereignty, could be settled in a matter of eight to ten months.
But the situation is not the same as far as the cultural sovereignty of Canada is concerned. Instead of putting sovereignists on trial here in this House, if members opposite do not realize that the cultural sovereignty of Canada itself is threatened because of the overpowering influence of telecommunications, they will soon have to deal with problems of great magnitude.
On the week end-as luck would have it-I was listening to a public affairs program of an economic nature, dealing precisely with cultural development. They were saying that Toronto, which had fallen on hard times because of problems in real estate and because of the recession, seems to be recovering much strength, thanks mostly to the cultural sector. Toronto is indeed regaining its demographic and economic weight because of billion-dollar developments in that area. So much so that Toronto has become the third largest cultural city in North America, after Los Angeles and New York, but it is Toronto, American style.
That is a problem people across the way should be concerned about because they face a giant that will smother whatever is left of the distinct personality Canada claims it has. I hate to think what would happen if Quebec decided to go its own way. We are playing our role as the Official Opposition when we tell Canadians that they should shape their own future the same way Quebecers will, shortly.
Since we are talking about broadcasting, telecommunications and communications, I would be remiss in my duty as the member for Trois-Rivières if I did not mention the recent decision broadcasters in Quebec made, almost arbitrarily, it would appear, or at least without notice or with very little consultation, to close down six AM radio stations overnight. I am dismayed to see this happen, and I want my constituents in Trois-Rivières to know it. I already had an opportunity to comment on those radio station closures.
Such a decision raises two concerns. One is the media concentration in Quebec and the attendant curtailing of freedom of expression through various channels. As a result of that concentration, those who work in the media will have to abide by their code of ethics even more strictly in order to do their work properly.
At noontime, the Minister of Canadian Heritage rejected all responsibility. We could very well blame the CRTC or question its decision to grant too many new FM licences, because those new stations slowly but surely eroded the advertising revenues the AM stations depended on. We now see the results of this laxism.
Lastly, in the communications sector, there is also the electronic highway which, likewise, has a commercial aspect. The vehicle is given much more importance than the content and Quebec is completely excluded. This responsibility is assigned
to Industry Canada. In Quebec, however, Mr. Parizeau recently assigned it to his Minister of Culture. I believe that is the right way to go about it and Canada takes a different approch to government, which is not necessarily sound.
I would like to conclude on the fundamental question of what pertains to Heritage Canada. We can argue that one activity should come under this jurisdiction or that another activity should under that jurisdiction, but for us, as sovereignists, Heritage Canada is a major tool of a supposedly profitable federalism, a major tool for the assimilating Quebecers or attempting to assimilate them and intrude in a field which clearly is in provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec, where it should come under the sole jurisdiction of the Quebec government. All the money for Quebec administered by Heritage Canada should be given to the Government of Quebec, as soon as possible.
Therefore, I support the amendment presented by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata.
