Mr. Speaker, I already had the opportunity to speak on the amendment by my colleague from Rimouski concerning this bill.
Today, I would like to expand on what I have already said and also remind the hon. members of the context under which I am examining this bill.
First of all, the bill proposes that the Minister of Canadian Heritage be responsible, among other things, for cultural heritage and cultural industries, including performing arts, visual and audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film, video and literature.
Having said that, we must realize that the powers given to the minister extend to all matters not assigned by Parliament to other departments, and I am referring here to clause 4.(1) of the bill.
The last time, this had led me to conclude that, for all intents and purposes, this bill gives the minister of Heritage the power to talk about heritage, but no regulating power, no intervening power, no real power whatsoever to ensure the protection of Quebec and Canada's values at whatever level. However, in the last minutes, I have been listening to my colleagues claiming that this bill will have many benefits for the heritage issue.
Today, I would like to give you a concrete, specific example which illustrates that this bill does not address in any way the potential threats to our heritage. This example came to me after reading a recent article written by Mr. Henri Lamoureux in Le Devoir , entitled ``Indecent Proposals for Artists'':
"Indecent Proposals for Artists". "The HRD minister's plan stems from a desire to make the poor foot the bill for extravagant government spending".
By the way, Mr. Lamoureux is an author, a member of the board of UNEQ and a member of the Quebec social development council. He teaches at the school of social work of the Université de Montréal. He also sits on the federal sectoral council for culture.
You see, Mr. Speaker, now is the time to cultivate, to build tomorrow's heritage. But the minister of Canadian Heritage leaves a number of matters in the hands of his colleagues, the minister of Human Resources Development in particular, the net result being that culture and Canadian talent are in jeopardy.
Author Henri Lamoureux says that the social security reform proposal put forth by the Chrétien government may well affect creative artists at many levels. If it were to be implemented as is, it would make life quite unbearable for a number of us.
Let us try and set this in context. Creative artists are professionals with self-employed worker status. Bear in mind also that some are free lances who lend their services to producers for a fee. Take authors for example. In their trade, they have to sign contracts whereby they assign part of their royalties in exchange for a cut on the sales of their books. The sad reality is that most of them live in conditions that border on poverty and must rely on some other generally insecure and low-paid job to survive, perform their art and build our future heritage.
Allow me to complete this picture by adding that in many cases, more often than not, they have to go on welfare, but this is not of their own free choice.
So, how can the heritage minister ignore this reality? Why does he not have a word with his colleague, the HRD minister?
Allow me again to quote Mr. Lamoureux, who said this: "For example, how can we reconcile the need to be available for work with the requirements of the novel- or poetry-writing process? How can we allow artists to use the resources allocated to job training, when we know that artists will train while practising their art, generally among peers?"
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the heritage minister of some realities he seems to be unfamiliar with. You see, reading, writing, observing, realizing are research activities which to a writer are practical, professional and learning experiences.
The actress learning a role she hopes to play some day, familiarizing herself with an author, paying for dancing or singing lessons, learning while practising her art, is working on her art. To engage in these activities, artists must learn how to negotiate contracts, how to sell their products or services, even how to use computers. Artists must be versatile.
Mr. Speaker, allow me again to quote Mr. Lamoureux for the benefit of the heritage minister: "The Liberal government's narrow economic and strict industrial vision of job training suggests that we as artists can expect little from this government".
That is not all, as the heritage minister should note. As far as their access to social programs is concerned, artists are in dire straits. For instance, a writer who accepts small jobs in order to practice her art will see her eventual UI benefits reduced in proportion to her spouse's salary. This is a totally unacceptable form of supervision not only for artists but for everyone. We know that, unfortunately, this measure would affect mostly women.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Mr. Lamoureux for the benefit of the heritage minister:
"As for artists collecting UI benefits, how will the government manage the requirement to register for job training or retraining programs that the minister wants to impose on those who get so few contracts that they are condemned to precarious employment? Will a famous author who takes three, four or five years to write a novel be penalized because he takes short-term jobs to pay the rent, thus frequently having to rely on social security?"
He goes on to say: "The real motivation behind the proposed reform is to make the poorest pay for government extravagance".
My colleague from Rimouski questioned the heritage minister's ability to play tough with the industry minister. Now we have to add the human resources development minister. With the bill before us, we really do not have to wonder any more: the game is becoming quite illegal. Again, I quote Mr. Lamoureux:
"It is not right. No more so than Jean Chrétien's contemptuous mantra that individual dignity is wholly dependent on work, taken to mean some stable, paid, taxable activity".
I would really like to appeal to the Prime Minister himself to support his heritage minister and revise this bill, but I fear that I would be wasting my time.
In conclusion, I could not do better than to quote Mr. Lamoureux again: "Needless to say, in this field as in others, Quebec artists will massively side with their national government in Quebec City".
