Christiane Gagnon

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-53 certainly has given rise to a lot of criticism for a bill that was supposed to be a simple housekeeping measure.

It must have become quite obvious by now that the Official Opposition is dead against this bill. And our reasons for opposing it are far from cosmetic. They have to do mainly with the very essence of our cultural identity as Quebecers as well as the necessity of ensuring the survival of our culture through a sensible handling of the copyright issue.

First of all, after education and postsecondary education, the federal government has now extended its involvement to mass communication, even though this is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the federal government is centralizing more and more, and this bill is but one example. That is why we denounce the deceit in calling the department to be established the "Department of Canadian Heritage", when this is just a disguised way of establishing a department of culture and to invade a provincial jurisdiction. The people of Quebec wonder why they should contribute financially to a scheme to deny that Quebec is different, unique, as a nation, when even the staunchest federalists in Quebec recognize this fact.

My hon. colleagues will be reminded that, equipped with international agreements, English Canada is now in a position to counter cultural invasion from the U.S. This is a totally legitimate concern, seeing how important it is to differentiate oneself from such a powerful neighbour and to manage one's cultural resources. But why can Quebec not have similar concerns? Why would the government not feel the need to also do something to protect the rights of creative artists on its territory?

Following government reorganization, copyright, which used to be with the Department of Communications and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would now come under the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry. Instead of using this restructuring as an opportunity to concentrate copyright responsibilities at the heritage department, which is the only one mandated to protect the work and its creators, the government persists in its paralysing indecision with regard to copyright.

Such dichotomy only leads to divergent political priorities, especially when the officials of the two departments involved see the issue in totally different lights.

For instance, Paul Racine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Development, told the Canadian heritage committee: "-the fact is that the minister and the department set all copyright policies and oversee the drafting work-as was done in the past and will be done in the future with Phase 2. In other words, they do all the work from A to Z. As I told you, this was recognized by previous Prime Ministers through repeated formal ministerial delegation and it is, in my opinion, recognized in law for the first time through this amendment. It is a matter of fact. Whoever gets the ingredients, cooks and serves them may or may not be called a chef, but he or she certainly bears a close resemblance to one".

However, there appears to be several chiefs, as Mr. Von Finckenstein, Deputy Minister at Industry Canada, told the Standing Committee on Industry something quite different. He said: "Before the merger, copyright was in the Department of Communications and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, together with all other intellectual property, be it patent, trademarks or copyright. This whole division has now gone to Industry. It has not been broken up or changed. The people in charge of copyright are the people who once worked for CCA on this matter. As for their mandate, which is to develop copyright policy, the Minister of Industry is indeed ultimately responsible for the application of the law and for amending it, but policy decisions are obviously made at the cabinet level, where the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for instance, can put forward the cultural point of view". That is what Mr. von Finckenstein said.

Therefore it is total confusion, the department of tutti frutti, as my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata calls it. Even the officials do not know who really is responsible for the Copyright Act.

The government is supporting a myth and confusion by letting people believe that the heritage department plays the leading role with respect to copyright, when the real power clearly resides in the industry department.

It must be noted that the deadlock blocking revision of the Copyright Act is partly due to conflict between two ideologies: protecting the creative artist vs. protecting the consumer. Performing artists, creative artists and copyright holders do not benefit from this division; rather it is those whose concerns have nothing to do with cultural development, values and identity.

Furthermore, it is totally unacceptable and far-fetched to put the Copyright Act, which protects the economic and moral rights of creative artists and the holders of these rights, under the Department of Industry. It is ridiculous to put copyrights on the same level as trade-marks, patents, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies, as in paragraph 4(1)( h ) of Bill C-46.

Those who propose that copyrights be under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry are wrong. Such a decision would greatly jeopardize cultural creativity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, the cultural sector is an industry, in the sense that it generates an important economic activity, but it is certainly not an industry like the other ones.

Cultural development depends on the Copyright Act, which allows artists to be associated with the economic life of their works. Consequently, if the current apathy persists, it could seriously hurt a very important cultural industry. The government approves enormous budgets to defend and promote Canadian identity. Is it not high time this government recognized the cultures which are part of that identity and are its very foundations, and show some respect for the artists who shape these cultures?

The government's apathy is all the more incomprehensible considering that the Liberal Party often insisted that even though culture generates economic activity, it cannot be treated like other industries. Moreover, the Liberals pledged, in their red book, to support production, marketing and distribution, so as to promote the circulation of Canadian books, films and recordings on the domestic market, to consider allowing investment tax credits to stimulate the production of such works, and also to consider the possibility of providing income averaging mechanisms in the Income Tax Act, for Canadian artists. However, the Quebec and Canadian cultural industries, and the artists, are still waiting.

Also, in answer to questions from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Liberal Party pledged, during the last election campaign, to review the Copyright Act and ensure above all that authors get their dues, while facilitating access to material protected by copyright. The Liberals claimed to understand the importance of copyright. It made a commitment to restructure the administrative organization and review the Conservative decision to split this jurisdiction between two departments. But again, our artists are still waiting!

These facts and the delayed amendment minister Dupuy put forward when he appeared before the committee show the lack of interest and the total lack of respect of the government for Quebec and Canadian artists and cultures. Allow me to describe the disrespectful attitude shown by Liberal members of the committee. I have already mentioned the last minute amendment put forward by the Minister of Heritage.

One of the committee members, a loyal and faithful Liberal, said that, when the amendment was proposed, everyone in the room applauded and commended the minister's decision. Not so, Madam Speaker! The members of the other parties did not applaud. The people representing the artists did not applaud

either, especially since the same hon. member had just finished saying that these people had "pleaded" with the committee to have the opportunity to present their very legitimate requests. What a respectful attitude for the government members to have!

The artist are, in fact, far from satisfied with the minister's amendment. That is what they told us. Several associations from both Quebec and English Canada, who were able to appear before the Committee on Canadian Heritage because of pressure by members of the Bloc Quebecois, told us they were disappointed with and concerned about the attitude of the government.

Twenty-five Quebec and Canadian associations, representing more than 30,000 writers, creative artists and performers, sent an open letter to the Minister of Heritage asking to complete the review of the Copyright Act, in light of the following nine recommendations: the confirmation of the creative artist as the first holder of the rights to his or her work; the recognition of neighbouring rights; the adjudication of consequential rights to visual artists; the protection of works for the rest of the life of the author or the copyright holder; the use of technologically neutral definitions; compensation through private copy; the establishment of a rental right; the elimination of all exceptions to the protection of works; the adoption of adequate sanctions to protect the rights of creative artists.

These demands are far from being unreasonable since numerous countries have included them in their legislation. Germany, Japan and France have all adhered to the 1961 Rome Convention, but Canada has not. These G-7 countries have recognized the need for royalties on private copy, but Canada has not. France and Germany have legislated on neighbouring rights, but Canada has not; it does not seem to find it appropriate to do so.

In conclusion, I would say that it is through copyright and neighbouring rights that creative artists and copyright holders can ensure the continuity of their creative work by receiving just compensation for the use of their work. The present situation has to change. Not only is this situation unacceptable in the context of a society that claims to respect the people who are the source of its cultural heritage, but its national and international notoriety makes it embarrassing for Quebec and Canada.

This government will soon prove to us that it sees culture only as a symbol that can generate money.

The least we can say is that, with such a policy and such a government, the future is certainly not bright for the pillars of Canada's and Quebec's cultures. Let us be realistic and not mince words: the government is showing once again that it is totally incapable of taking a stand in favour of artists and understanding the interests of creative artists.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the amendments moved by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata and myself concerning Bill C-53, on the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I do so with pleasure, because the amendments proposed by the official opposition well reflect one of Quebec's traditional demands from the government in Ottawa. Indeed, the very essence of the proposed amendments-and we make no mystery of it-is the recognition of Quebec's cultural specificity and identity.

In so doing, we propose that the federal government and the House of Commons at the very least recognize the fields in which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. Once it has recognized them, we ask that it respect them.

Bill C-53 as written is seriously deficient, first of all, because it fails to recognize the existence of more than one national identity on Canadian territory. We refer in particular to clauses 4 and 5 concerning Canadian identity, Canadian values, Canadian culture and Canadian heritage.

I have already had the opportunity several times in this House to express my opinion that no unified Canadian culture exists, since efforts are still being made to define, discover and grasp it. We also note a glaring omission in the bill. Indeed, no mention is made of the Quebec and native cultures and identities. Why? For what secret reason is the government systematically ignoring those very real and important cultures? Is it to eliminate them? Is it to better promote a new product, as though this was a mere marketing strategy? There has to be a reason. Maybe some day we, mere mortals, will be worthy of that knowledge.

The vast majority of Quebecers do not agree with this legislation. Let me quote some testimony heard by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I will quote officials from Quebec organizations which represent a very large number of people, because their opinions carry more weight. I will start with the Mouvement Québec français, whose members are the Montreal Teachers Alliance, the Association québécoise des professeurs de français, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, the Mouvement national des Québécois, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, the Union des artistes, the Union des écrivains québécois and, last but not least, the Union des producteurs agricoles.

Together, these groups represent a very large segment of the Quebec population. Here is what their spokesman, Guy Bouthillier, had to say:

"In this bill, everything related to culture is labelled under the heading Canadian identity. Indeed, nowhere is there any reference to Quebec and its culture. From the federal government's point of view, there are only one culture and one identity: the Canadian ones. This will come as a surprise only to those who still believed that there was some basis-as well as some honesty on the part of those who oppose that notion-for the concept of a distinct society. This bill will at least have the merit of dissipating any lingering illusion. Beyond the fine rhetoric, there is the written word, the legislation, which will prevail in the end".

Needless to say, the Mouvement Québec français rejects this legislation.

François Rocher, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University in Ontario, said this: "The government's approach is part of an unfinished process to build a national identity by denying existing realities in Canada".

He went on to say that the only option that would be both acceptable to Quebec and potentially beneficial to the other

provinces of Canada would be to revert to the duality concept-at least in the case of Quebec-and to accept the political consequences of such a decision.

I may add that Professor Rocher submitted his analysis of the bill in his professional capacity and not as someone representing a nationalist organization from Quebec.

On the other hand, one of the best known organizations in Quebec is the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Montreal, also a member of the Mouvement Québec français, as I mentioned earlier.

In their brief, they said, among other things, that they were firmly opposed to Canadian multiculturalism and to legislation that would enshrine intrusions by the Government of Canada into Quebec's cultural life. The culture of the people of Quebec must not be subordinated to the priorities of the culture of another people, the people of Canada. This bill is centralist in design and a threat to Quebec's distinct identity. It was a bill that would be forced down people's throats, over the almost unanimous objections of Quebecers to a concentration of authority over cultural matters in Ottawa and to a view of national identity that was designed to submerge Quebec's identity, according to the brief. It is all there, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that all intervenors from Quebec who examined this bill condemned the centralist vision underlying the federal government's intentions. The problem is not new. It has been with us for a long time. What surprises me is that these people are still willing to come to Ottawa to express their views as Quebecers. After years of struggle, one would expect them to stop trying. However, they are anxious for their friends in Canada to understand the differences that make Quebec distinct, a distinctness that will soon be expressed in a new status for Quebec, that of a sovereign state.

I want to take this opportunity to thank these people for spending all this time and effort to attend the committee's hearings. I want them to know their efforts were greatly appreciated.

I also want to mention the entirely unacceptable attitude of some committee members who consistently stayed away when witnesses from Quebec testified before the committee, which merely confirms the general lack of interest for Quebec's concerns. This attitude is reflected in the wording of the bill and has always been present in relations between Quebec and Ottawa. It is not just a lack of courtesy. It reflects a complete lack of interest and consideration. This is very sad.

Members from Canada had a chance to become better acquainted with their future neighbour. They did not take advantage of this opportunity and as a result may not understand that the purpose of our amendments is the very basis of our determined opposition on this bill. Another perfect example of the two solitudes, although the Minister of Canadian Heritage denied this when he appeared before our committee.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-53, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 43, on page 2, and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"5.(1) Subject to subsection (2), in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by section 4, the Minister shall initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and the identity of Quebec, Canadian values, cultural development and heritage and the values, cultural development and heritage of Quebec and areas of natural or historical significance to Canada or to Quebec."

(2) The Minister shall not exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions referred to in subsection (1), unless the Minister has received the approval of the government of every province where a ) the government of the province has implemented in the province a policy, project or program referred to in subsection (1); or b ) the government of the province has notified the Minister in writing of its intention to implement a policy, project or program referred to in subsection (1).''

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 24, on page 1, and lines 1 and 2, on page 2, with the following:

"4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), 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 a ) to Canadian identity and the identity of Quebec; b ) to the values, cultural development and heritage of Canada and of Quebec; and c ) to areas of natural or historical significance to Canada or Quebec.

(2) The Minister shall not exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by the Act, unless the Minister has received the approval of the government of every province where a ) the government of the province has enacted legislation or established a provincial program in a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction under subsection (1); or b ) the government of the province has notified the Minister in writing of its intention to enact such legislation or to establish such a program.''

[Multiculturalism, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out to the secretary of state that we received a copy of her statement barely an hour and a half ago. We think that is unreasonably short notice and the government has a strange way of proceeding, to say the least.

Be that as it may, I am pleased to speak today on this important matter. Indeed, it is wrong to minimize the suffering of several Canadian cultural communities caused by Canada's reprehensible behaviour towards them, as was the case in the climate of crisis due to the war.

Canada shamefully deviated from the principles of justice, compassion and generosity which always guided its behaviour towards all its citizens from all over the world who have contributed greatly to its enrichment.

The government's decision not to pay financial compensation to the cultural communities that asked for redress is totally irresponsible. Instead of excusing the past, the government must face the truth. Some members of these communities were incarcerated in makeshift camps, the property of some was seized, others lost their jobs; in short, their most basic rights were literally violated.

What is the government's response to them? We are sorry for the past and we must now get on with the future. What a response.

Does the government realize that many people still live today with the scars from what happened then? What message is the government giving all those affected by what Canada did? That the country does not face up to its responsibilities and hides behind pious platitudes.

On the contrary, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that there should be fair financial compensation for all those citizens who were considered to be outright enemies of Canada. The government must make fair financial restitution to these people and communities. The desire of the leaders of these communities for real

restitution must be respected. The government must immediately go back on its decision.

On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to repeat how important we consider the cultural communities in Canada and Quebec to be; their contribution to our societies points the way to the collective development of us all.

[Communications Security Establishment, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, exactly eight days ago, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development when he would table the five missing technical papers that were to clarify, if possible, the direction that his plan to reform social programs would take.

At that time, the minister answered that he thought the remaining documents would be made public in ten days. I want to tell the minister that he has only two days left to keep his promise, but that is not the main purpose of my statement today.

On this point, I first want to speak out against how the minister is proceeding. In a few days, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development will complete a Canada-wide tour of consultations in which thousands of citizens will have participated. What a mockery has been made of the consultation process!

An incredible amount of energy has been mobilized but the people whom they said they wanted to consult were not provided with the proper information. They were consulted on an indefinite subject, but I suspect that the chosen direction has already been decided and they are being very careful to keep it from the public. All this remains to be confirmed, of course, but the confirmation should come soon.

In the House, on December 5, I also asked the minister to confirm that he had in fact gone blindly into a reform guided only by the cuts imposed by the finance minister. Instead of answering my question, the minister replied that I was completely ignorant, and said: "A large-scale national survey showed that 96 per cent of Canadians believe major changes have to be made in social policy. It may be that the hon. member does not understand but 96 per cent of Canadians are in favour of what we are doing".

The minister was quite right. I do not understand, but not necessarily what he thinks I do not understand. I cannot understand how a minister can interpret in such a shameful demagogic way the results of a poll. Here are the facts. The Decima poll, to which the minister was referring, revealed that 96 per cent of Canadians feel that the time has come to reform social security programs. Some 53 per cent support major changes, while 26 per cent are in favour of a comprehensive reform.

How can the minister distort the facts in such a way and accuse me of not understanding anything? This is a mystery which, I am sure, only the minister can penetrate.

Let me repeat again the results of that poll, just to make sure the minister understands: 96 per cent of Canadians feel that a reform of social programs is necessary. This is not at all the same as saying that 96 per cent of Canadians support the government's approach, far from it!

I also want to tell the minister something he surely knows already: Canadians do not agree at all with the proposal, as introduced by the government. The same poll indicated that 19 per cent of Quebecers strongly supported the idea of a two-tiered UI system, while 56 per cent somewhat agreed with it. This is a far cry from the 96 per cent degree of support of Quebecers that the minister claims.

Finally, I want to take this opportunity to remind the minister that women's groups, including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which alone represents over 80 groups, condemn the proposed changes to the UI system, because they feel these changes are discriminatory. Would the Minister of Human Resources Development go so far as to claim that all these women did not understand anything either?

[Canada Council, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that Quebec artists, too, refuse to support the phony consultation process initiated by the Canada Council.

Several organizations, including the Quebec artists' union, the Quebec theatre council and the Quebec writers' union, have expressed their deep concern and denounced what they see as a lack of respect for artists.

This government, which has decided to slash arts financing, has the nerve to undertake consultations to ask artists where it should cut. Given the improvised and slapdash approach of the Canada Council and the obvious complicity of the Canadian heritage minister, we wonder about this government's respect for culture and the arts community.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to the tabling of Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity. This bill is important for federally regulated work places. It revokes the current Employment Equity Act adopted eight years ago.

Despite the very laudable intentions behind this first Act, it was harshly criticized by informed observers. The present government is now trying to correct some deficiencies. We certainly intend to help it improve its performance.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made three promises on employment equity. First, it promised to extend the scope of the law to federal boards and agencies. It also promised to empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct legal inquiries on issues related to employment equity. Finally, it promised to require firms that are awarded federal government contracts to comply with employment equity provisions.

So what were we presented with yesterday in this House, Madam Speaker? We were presented with a bill that in effect extends the law to the federal public service, its boards and agencies. It seems that this was the government's first objective. Bravo! The Bloc Quebecois applauds any initiative to ensure equal access to employment for all, including native people, the disabled, women and members of visible minorities.

The Bloc Quebecois also supports the principle of legislation forcing employers to comply with the principle of equal opportunity. Since in our opinion the government must set an example for the private sector, any new legislation had to extend the application of employment equity measures to its own departments. I might add, Madam Speaker, that it was high time.

Bill C-64 also empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to determine whether the provisions of the legislation are being complied with and to investigate the enforcement of the law. It also establishes an employment equity tribunal when circumstances warrant it. That is all very good, Madam Speaker.

It appears, however, that the government's third promise, concerning the application of the law to all government contractors, will not be kept. I will return to this point a little later in my speech. As you might expect, we appreciate the government's effort, but everything is not perfect either.

A committee will review the bill, but I would like to raise a few points that struck me. First of all, as I just said, I am disappointed with the lack of provisions concerning government contractors. The bill in no way extends the law to this category of employers, and this is regrettable.

Indeed, at the very beginning of the act, a "private sector employer" is defined as "any person who employs one hundred or more employees". You can understand my disappointment, as well as that of many observers. Why does that act not apply to other private sector employers who win contracts for which they are paid with public money? Should we not ensure that taxpayers' money be used in places where employment equity is valued and respected? I believe so, but this government seems to think otherwise. We will get back to this issue in committee.

I also wonder about the delays in tabling these legislative amendments. Why did the government wait for more than one year after the swearing-in of the new team to amend the act? It is certainly not because of the deficit, since this bill, unlike others, has virtually no financial impact on public money. This legislation is primarily one of a moral nature; it could have been introduced early, to emphasize the importance of the social justice which we seek to establish.

This delay is also unfortunate because, in the current context, the new legislation will definitely not help achieve employment equity. Just think of the hiring freeze, of the fact that employees cannot move on to the next salary step, and the massive reductions in the federal public service. This is unfortunate and we deplore this situation. In spite of its laudable objectives, the new legislative policy will not give results before many years, thus once again hurting the same categories of people.

Previous employment equity policies have had a very limited impact. For example, over a period of six years, the number of promotions for full-time employees in all private sectors of activity improved a mere three per cent in the case of women, 0.49 per cent for aboriginal people, 1.11 per cent for handicapped people, and 3.82 per cent for members of visible minorities. These are, in my opinion, very poor results, considering that the act has already been in effect for eight years.

The figures are not much better when it comes to recruiting. Indeed, the situation improved by 2.4 per cent for women, 1.30 per cent for aboriginal people, 0.98 per cent for handicapped people, and 2.91 per cent for members of visible minorities.

As for the public service, in 1986, Treasury Board adopted a policy reflecting the spirit of this legislation, but as far as representation in management positions is concerned, aboriginal people still represent only 1.1 per cent of the total number of public servants; persons with disabilities, 2.1 per cent; members of visible minorities, 2.1 per cent; and women, 15.8 per cent. The situation is clearly not any better in the federal Public Service than it is in the private sector, hence our conclusion that the measures that have been in place so far have not improved the participation of members of designated groups.

According to the statistics, very few members of these groups are in senior management positions and women still work mostly in office jobs, sales and services. So the situation is far from ideal, as the minister pointed out earlier.

I think we will have to examine the available information very carefully to determine why previous policies did not work.

In concluding, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes a bill that broadens the application of employment equity measures to include the entire public service. However, we believe the bill could be significantly improved so as to obtain better results and meet the objectives of this legislation. We will gladly make suggestions to the government during consideration of the bill in committee.

[Social Program Reform, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Axworthy reform, widely denounced by women's groups and by the Bloc Quebecois, is now raising deep concerns within the Liberal caucus itself.

The hon. member for Brant and chair of the national Liberal caucus fears that the cuts planned by her Minister of Human Resources Development will undermine the gains made by women's groups after long and hard social struggles.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois also believe that the reform of social programs, like the public service cuts being contemplated, must take into account the need to reverse years of discrimination against women.

The minister will have to be quite prudent in the days to come, not only because his reform is more and more widely discredited but also because his initiatives are now stirring up opposition among the Liberal troops themselves.

[Social Program Reform, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when will the minister realize that his reform will make women more financially dependent on their spouses, since their eligibility for UI benefits as well as the level of those benefits will depend on their spouses' income?