Francine Lalonde

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-77, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15, on page 1, with the following:

""Commission" means a Mediation Commission established under this".

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-77, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36, on page 3, with the following:

"8. (1) During the mediation period,".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-77, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 4, with the following:

"a Mediation Commission shall be".

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 46 to 48, on page 6, with the following:

"11.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall".

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 14, on page 7, with the following:

"was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;".

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21, on page 7, with the following: c ) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of Commons within ten days

(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or

(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agree-ment, submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, once the ten days have expired."

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 30, on page 7.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-77, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 46, on page 7 and lines 1 to 6, on page 8, with the following:

"for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 11(1)( a )(i), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code.''

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-77, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10, on page 11, with the following:

""Commission" means a Mediation Commission established under this".

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-77, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page 13, with the following:

"30. During the mediation period,".

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-77, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 13, with the following:

"a Mediation Commission shall be".

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40, on page 15, with the following:

"33.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall".

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 47, on page 15, and lines 1 to 7, page 16, with the following:

"was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;".

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page 16, with the following:

"(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of Commons within ten days

(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or

(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agreement, submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, once the ten days have expired."

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 23, on page 16.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-77, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 41, on page 16, with the following:

"for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 33(1)( a )(i), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code .''

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-77, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 20, with the following:

""Commission" means a Mediation Commission established under this".

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-77, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31, on page 21, with the following:

"52. During the mediation period,".

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-77, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 22, with the following:

"a Mediation Commission shall be".

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26, on page 24, with the following:

"55.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall".

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 40, on page 24, with the following:

"was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;".

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 46 and 47, on page 24, with the following:

"(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of Commons within ten days

(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or

(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agree-ment, submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code once the ten days have expired."

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 9, on page 25.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-77, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 27, on page 25, with the following:

"for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 55(1)( a )(i), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code.''

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Madam Speaker, it is because the official opposition takes its role seriously that, right on Monday, proposals were made to the government, proposals that would have served a dual purpose: to bring about a speedy resumption of work and also a meaningful settlement, a negotiated settlement to this serious situation that impacts on the Canadian economy.

I should point out that, instead of accepting our offer, the government decided-I call it as I see it-to capitalize on the circumstances, the difficulties created by this strike, as any strike. Strikes are never fun, neither for the strikers-who feel this is something they are forced to do-nor for those who suffer the consequences.

The government took advantage of this situation to sort out its problem, and that is to have working conditions imposed on rail workers.

It is important to remind the House that a two-stage mediation-arbitration process was recommended to the government in the Hope report, and this recommendation was made for the very simple reason that the companies have already tried to obtain concessions in the past.

What is unusual is this statement: their demands are so controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken by the government-the word is mine-who supports the position of the railway companies and because of the tenacity with which the companies have stuck to these demands.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

It is terrible. But that is not all. This is not a simple matter, either, because some of VIA Rail's striking workers belong to the same local as some CN union members. Therefore, if CN resumes operations but not VIA Rail, VIA Rail workers on the same seniority list as their CN colleagues will do what union members do in similar circumstances, that is, engage in picketing. Just think about the consequences.

I can therefore strongly emphasize, once again, that the government has used with malicious intent the dramatic situation that some people are going through. A strike is never a pleasant experience. It is not pleasant for the strikers, who are at the end of their rope, nor for those who must suffer the consequences.

Instead of seeking permanent solutions-even if we take more time, as the Bloc Quebecois recommends-, the government is using the situation to resolve its own problems, which Commissioner Hope refers to as "its partisan problems".

If we, in the Bloc Quebecois, dared to stand up at the risk of being unpopular, it is because we have a high opinion of what politics is, of what a country is, and even of what Canada is, as long as we are part of it.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

But that is not all, it is not just by stripping all power from the mediation-arbitration commissions in clause 12 that the bill completely sabotages the Hope report, on the contrary. It is worse than that because there is a mandate and, instead of doing what is customary and leaving the decision to one arbitrator, who can exercise judgment and refer to the jurisprudence, we teeter on the verge of the ridiculous either by being totally oblivious to the Hope report's contents or by acting in bad faith when we say that we accept the report. That is why I call it the ghost of the Hope report-the two do not even resemble each other.

The second objection is that everything must be settled within 70 days. The Hope report would give 60 days to hammer out an agreement on the difficult basic conditions and 120 days to apply them. But we are saying that the whole agreement should be signed, sealed and delivered in 70 days, just like that! Why the haste? Is it because we absolutely must have negotiated settlements? We are creating conditions which make that impossible. We are creating conditions under which arbitration will be carried out by a commission which has no real power and to which the government will appoint the arbitrator.

The workers would not even be consulted on the choice of arbitrator. So, what other clauses of this bill are utterly unacceptable? Just imagine being so confident that the process will be encouraged and adopted-by the way, a basic condition for even having an arbitration commission is that both management and the union appoint a representative to it-that if the parties neglect to name a representative, the government, the minister will intervene in their stead and name a competent person.

Words fail me to describe such a situation. And that is not all, that is not all. There is the issue of deadlines. I already said this, but I must stress that the commissioner gave 60 days plus 120, and he took care to stipulate that he is limiting it to six months because it will be easier for the parties to come to an agreement once they have agreed on the parameters. In the bill, 70 is the total maximum. This means that the government wants a settlement to be reached quickly, and once again I ask why? I will finish on this note, Mr. Speaker.

Other provisions of this bill are also unacceptable. Among others, there is the fact, and I must stress it, that the three companies are not treated equally and, as a consequence, all of the workers are not treated equally. Why? First, let us try to find out. Take the first party, CN. It gets an arbitration commission, 70 days, a clause 12 which makes no sense, and a concluding clause which says: "This Part- shall come into force on the expiration of the twelfth hour after the time at which this Act is assented to".

What about Canadian Pacific and Via Rail? "This part shall come into force by order". This means that, at CP, where there is a strike and a lockout, more importantly, at this point in time, workers or those who obeyed the picket lines have been laid off temporarily, punished, and the unions are no longer having their dues deducted because workers crossed the picket lines. And there is more: no one is saying that the working conditions will return to normal and that the workers will be rehired. No. No one is saying that.

No one said that because the company arranged to maintain operations. It is working at 80 per cent of its capacity. At 80 per cent. I will read you part of a notice I received today sent by the company to its customers. It thanks them considerably for their patience and understanding. It goes on to say that 12,888 railway workers are working non stop. These railway workers include some 2,888 managers, supervisors and other, non-unionized employees, who were given special training to replace striking workers.

Canada has no anti-strikebreaking legislation. This means that Canadian Pacific, which took steps and is operating at between 60 per cent and 80 per cent capacity-there is no agreement on the exact figure-is not subject to such legislation. There are examples of this in history. In 1987, in a similar situation, 400 workers who had been locked out and were therefore subject to a similar provision, waited four months without being called back to work. This means that the workers who were on strike were called back within 12 or 15 hours, and those who had been locked out were not called back for four or five months, since the company could operate. I have confirmation of this here from the unions concerned. This means that, when we say, by order, we let the company carry on.

As for VIA Rail, the minister says they are close to agreement. No, before looking at VIA Rail, I have other news on Canadian Pacific. Just a few small items.

In 1991 or 1992, when the company closed the Angus shops, there was a serious problem, workers were in danger of losing their jobs. So, in order to shut down the Angus shops, the company promised, in a memorandum that was not part of the collective agreement, but that seemed to be ongoing in application, because otherwise it would have been meaningless, that the workers would indeed be paid but that they would remain in Montreal.

Now, the Canadian auto workers who are negotiating with Canadian Pacific have been told-and I have confirmed this with the company-that if they do not agree to the 250 workers in question being moved to Calgary, first, that these workers will lose their job security, and second, that the company will not sign any agreement with the other workers. The workers in the rest of Canada are being pitted against the workers in Montreal. They want to find a solution to the dispute, but they say they want to restore order in the rail system, and we see what the conditions are.

And finally, VIA Rail. The minister said that everything was fine at VIA Rail, that the negotiations were continuing. The union leaders tell me that there is no more negotiation going on here than anywhere else. They tell me that their biggest worry is that this would be done by order in council, because everyone knows that for reasons that are historic and that are explained in the Hope report, the passenger rail system is operating at a deficit, and that in reality when VIA Rail is not operating, it is losing less money than usual.

So, on the one hand, the government is saying: "This is terrible, we cannot provide service to passengers". But, on the other hand, it does not ensure that the legislation makes it possible to take action when something terrible happens.

All we hear is: "This is terrible, simply terrible! We must bring in legislation". But those who are supposed to make the terrible situation go away are not covered.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

This is because the government is in a hurry, for the reasons mentioned during Question Period. It is in a hurry because it wants to sell CN and can only sell CN if it makes drastic changes in the terms and conditions of employment. And because the government is in a hurry, it will not give the process designed by Commissioner Hope a chance to succeed. First, it says: You as arbitrators will have to ensure that terms and conditions of employment are consistent with employability in the short and long term.

For decades the railways have been allowed to deteriorate, and now in a single collective agreement, as a result of section 12, employees will have to pay for the disorganized approach and irresponsibility of the companies and the government. This is outrageous. Those who would blame us for the impact on small businesses and workers who suffer as a result of this right to strike should realize that the real culprit is a government that uses the situation to deal with problems it created in the first place, at the expense of the workers.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

Real negotiations require that the parties meet. However, for the unions, the situation is the one which I just described. The unions feel threatened and they feel they have been had. They made major concessions in the previous collective agreements to preserve job security, since everything else was in jeopardy. Now, the companies show no regard for that right, acquired quite recently in some cases, and they want to eliminate it. In some cases, this job security, which is said to threaten the survival of the companies, was gained in 1992.

Ultimately, and not just for the workers and the companies but for all Canadians and Quebecers, the claims made by railway companies should be thoroughly examined. They claim that competition is fierce and that they can no longer continue to operate under the current conditions, that something must be done.

The Hope report says that this issue should have been discussed first. Discussions should have taken place first, with an arbitrator, the workers and the employers, on the survival of the companies and on their competitiveness, taking into consideration the workers' demands. In other words, the parties involved should have tried to agree on the information. Again, in the labour relations sector, whether through strike action or through other means, if you cannot agree to share information, you cannot negotiate.

The first phase of the mediation-arbitration process, which commissioner Hope expected to last two months, and which should have included a real debate to allow the workers to make their complaints and claims of waste, lack of organization, and to provide some explanations-because they got all the blame-was totally skipped. Had these discussions taken place, the workers might have agreed that, in some cases, some action was required, thus paving the way for true negotiations.

The second phase proposed in the Hope report provided 120 days to implement, in the various mediation-arbitration commissions, the parameters agreed on. The legislation only retains the second part of the proposal made in the report. It does not provide any means to try to reach a consensus, as proposed in the first part. Certainly not, because what constitutes one of the most serious attacks against the unions, who must feel that the employers and the government are both out to get them, is section 12. For some reason, the minister was very proud of this section, but I think this is just another indication of her lack of experience in labour relations.

I will read it to you. Section 12 says: "Each Commission shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term, taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations". That sounds pretty good, or does it? Anyone with any experience in labour relations knows this provision has at least two major effects. First, it does away with the arbitrator's customary mandate to abide by the jurispru-

dence. Basically, this paragraph is a substitute for the two months of research to clarify the state of the railway system.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we know that we currently bear a heavy responsibility, but it is because the Bloc Quebecois takes its role as the official opposition very seriously that it cannot support a special piece of legislation that denies both the right to strike and the right to negotiate. On Monday, we proposed amendments that would have allowed the employees to go back to work without undermining the ability to negotiate for those who exercised their right under the Canada Labour Code.

Why must this special bill single out the workers and some of the strikers? Why must it undermine negotiated settlements by outlining a general and drastic worsening of working conditions? Why is the government itself not acting on the substance of the report by Commissioner Hope, who was appointed to advise the government and did so by working hard and producing a comprehensive report? Why did the government actually undermine the significance of the Hope report? Why is it satisfied with a hollowed-out Hope report?

The Minister of Labour's position is certainly not impartial and I will show that. Is the minister acting like a sorcerer's apprentice because of inexperience, ignorance or bad faith? Let us at least put the question.

The government is in a hurry, but it has difficulty hiding the fact that it is taking advantage of a serious situation to protect interests which are not the economic interests it is referring to. The government does not care about establishing conditions which would promote co-operation. It imposes a bludgeon law which does not even leave room for mutually agreed settlements. The government also treats differently the three companies, at the expense of the workers affected by the strike and the lockout.

The proposal which we made on Monday seeks to preserve the future: everyone goes back to work; mediation takes place according to the Hope formula; a public report is released and recommendations are made to this House to try to restore a balance which was destroyed for workers by the action and inaction of this government.

Since the strike started, its settlement has become a national issue. We feel that, in the context, the two sides may have a new desire to reach a settlement. Such an example of conditions promoting fair and healthy work relations would be a definite asset for the future of the country that this government claims to want to build. However, in the meantime, what Canadians and Quebecers see, is a government taking advantage of a serious

situation to promote its partisan interests. That is not from me: it is from the Hope report.

We had to protect the interests of Canadian workers who used their right to strike, as provided in the Labour Code. I said it on several occasions:

If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canada Labour Code then it should be said and something should be done in order to avoid the sort of mess we are in. The workers will be the ones who will pay and we know many persons who are not responsible for that. The government and the House cannot have blind eyes on that.

The right to strike is a fundamental right in every democratic society. In the context of labour relations, it plays a major role in bringing about a settlement between the parties, a mutually satisfactory settlement through which the level of productivity sought by companies and workers, and society as a whole, can be achieved.

Never has forced settlement brought about innovative ideas to deal with new situations. Solutions imposed on the parties only repeat patterns that cannot be adapted any more to particular situations. But there are no short cuts when it comes to looking for solutions together. Every time we failed to do so-and, as we know, this has been a problem in the public service-we ended up paying a much higher price in terms of loss of productivity, because it becomes impossible under such circumstances to finds mutually acceptable solutions.

This is not an attack on companies, on the contrary. But businesses worthy of the trust the public puts in them must know that they cannot claim to be reorganizing in order to compete if they do not take their employees into account. There are no short cuts.

It is extremely unfortunate that the new so-called "labour" minister's second move since taking office is to undermine any chance of real corporate reorganization by putting in place mechanisms, traditional mechanisms, that have already proven ineffective in reforming the system. With these mechanisms, the minister condemns Canada to live through situations we had hoped never to live through again.

I am telling you this as a Bloc member, because we take our role of official opposition seriously. After all, we could rejoice over the fact that a position perpetuating problems and making them worse can be put in place this way. But no, we are here to play a positive role as long as we remain in this country and look after the interests of the workers as well as the companies who depend on a satisfactory settlement.

The Hope report contains a wealth of information. I will try to give you a brief outline of the highlights that should have guided the government in preparing its bill, if it had really sought what it claims to be seeking. First of all, I will outline the main elements of the Hope report. The report says this: "In summary, the dispute revolves around extremely complex collective bargaining issues raised under circumstances that do not lend themselves very well to negotiated solutions. Given the circumstances, the purpose of this report is to determine the possibility of initiating an ongoing process that would allow the parties to deal with these very complex issues through binding mediation or arbitration maximizing the parties' involvement in setting the conditions".

Mr. Hope took on the difficult task of defining the conditions in which solutions can be found despite the difficult situation. He reviewed the available literature on labour relations and administration, after stressing the labour department's basic tradition of neutrality and objectivity. That is what Mr. Hope himself said. I think he would be disappointed in the current situation. He noted that, according to the unions, the government, through the Minister of Transport, delayed the collective bargaining process, and that both the employers and the government seem ready to attack the rail employees' working conditions.

It says that, in fact, the companies have already made demands of this kind in the past. They have already tried to obtain similar concessions during past rounds of negotiations. Their demands are so controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken by the government, which supports the position of the railway companies, and because of the tenacity with which the companies have stuck to these demands. And, he says, their points of disagreement are complicated because we are now in a period of economic recovery and in a situation which management, the management of companies, has let fester for several years.

Having said this, what did Mr. Hope propose in his report after reviewing the situation? He said that we could have let the strike go on. Because we find ourselves before two reconcilable parties. The minister says that there have been hours and hours and hours of negotiation, but what she really means is that people have been sitting at the same table for hours and hours and hours. Anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations knows that people can sit down face to face, side by side, yet negotiate nothing, put nothing on the table, because the parties refuse to put anything on the table as long as they are uncertain whether they will come out winners when they play their cards.

It is true that the government has intervened so many times in the railway industry that the employers, and in some cases the unions, are just waiting for the government to step in. This undermines the effectiveness of a strike.

By the way, the Hope report says that a strike cannot be stopped just because of interruptions in service; the right to strike can only be suspended in extremely serious cases. The report states that the worst case scenario for the unions would be if the government found itself forced to impose the railway companies' demands as a prelude to the rationalization process outlined in the reports.

We now find ourselves in this worst case scenario. Why? Once the government decided to intervene, instead of following the recommendations contained in the Hope report, it decided to use a process which has already proven unsuccessful. In fact, what does the Hope report have to say about the government legislating employees back to work? The report indicates that dispute arbitration must be avoided at all cost, because such arbitration cases have prevented us from addressing the problem and often led us to copy old systems instead of looking for new solutions and making progress.

Under what conditions could we allow the parties to break the current deadlock without a strike? We agree that the only means of settling the real issues is the right to strike.

Mr. Hope arrives at the following solution-he says there could be other ones, but this is the one he proposes: first, a mediation-arbitration stage to allow the parties involved to reach a consensus on what he calls the parameters but that I would describe as the overall situation of the companies.

Let me explain. Workers are convinced that the companies make profits, but that they are mismanaged which results in waste, that Paul Tellier's salary does not allow him to teach lessons to others, that the government's plan-they hear about it-to streamline operations is a threat to them, that the Minister of Transport supports the companies and that he made offending comments, to say the least, when he said that railway employees with a grade eight or nine education should not be blamed for negotiating overgenerous collective agreements.

[Rail Transport, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since Monday, we have been proposing conditions which would ensure a quick return to work. Considering that conciliator Hope states in his report that there is collusion between the government and the employers, how can the Prime Minister claim that the arbitration commissions will do justice to the workers, since two of the three members will be appointed by the government and the employers?

[Rail Transport, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Obviously, the government's commercial and financial interests are directly affected by the CN strike. Indeed, in spite of the Prime Minister's claims, with the rapid imposition of less favourable working conditions, CN's market value is much higher in case of an eventual sale.

If the Prime Minister is serious when he claims that the government's commercial interests do not have priority over the rights of workers, why does he still reject the official opposition's proposal, considering that a negotiated settlement is much better than an imposed agreement?

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, that is in fact the underlying basis of my remarks. We must not think that, in this world where the economy plays such an important role, we cannot afford to

invest in culture. Because culture is the very essence of our identity.

More than that, very concretely, the cultural industry is the main showcase for our cultural talents and products. This industry also needs encouragement.

The fact that Quebec cannot sign international agreements, negotiate its own bilateral contracts or participate in regulatory talks, that it is thus often unable to develop direct expertise, that it cannot address some problems such as copyright matters, and that it cannot continue regional and local production, for example, because it cannot afford it and because the resources come from Ottawa, all contribute to its erosion, if we continue with this comparison.

The French, who are the unchallenged champions of culture, invest heavily in their culture, their heritage, their television, their arts community.

We could say that they know how important this industry is, but they also know how closely it is tied to their place as a middle power in the world. They know that culture is the glue that makes people want to live together. They know that it is extremely important to allocate all the resources and all the energy they can to this industry.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion, which I will do from a different perspective. The Bloc was extremely critical of the minister's lack of openness this morning because the announcement made by Michèle Fortin may seriously handicap a powerful instrument for the transmission and production of Quebec culture.

But first of all, I would like to respond to members who wondered why we were defending the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, since it is a federal institution and we want to get out of Canada.

I would like to read a quote from what Pierre Elliott Trudeau said in 1967 in Le fédéralisme et la société canadienne française : ``One way of offsetting the appeal of separatism is by investing tremendous amounts of time, energy, and money in nationalism, at the federal level. A national image must be

created that will have such an appeal as to make any image of a separatist group unattractive. Resources must be diverted into such things as national flags, anthems, education, arts councils, broadcasting corporations, film boards". This is what Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote in Le fédéralisme et la société canadienne française , HMH, 1967.

We are defending the CBC's French network, which we feel is at risk because of imminent cutbacks, because we are aware that despite the mission Pierre Elliott Trudeau wanted to give the network, Radio-Canada has been a very important vehicle for the transmission and production of Quebec culture, although we could have dispensed with some of the bias involved.

Altogether, it is part of our living heritage. This is an institution that belongs to us, and we want to make sure it will not only continue to exist but will be able to improve the quality of its productions. In fact, Radio-Canada is the depository of a collective resource, a collective instrument that is essential to our culture, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has no right to trifle with the future of this powerful collective instrument of Quebec culture.

I may recall what was said by Gérald Leblanc on tv-it was not on Radio-Canada-last Sunday. The following gives some idea of the ratings of French television in Quebec compared with those of Canadian tv productions in the rest of Canada: "When the Royal Air Farce, an excellent comedy program, reaches one million viewers out of a potential 20 million, it celebrates and breaks open the champagne. However, every week, Radio-Canada and TVA together regularly reach a viewership of three million or more out of a potential seven million".

He added: "If we were to obey the dictates of the market, Radio-Canada would be affected, cuts would have to be made, but the CBC could not survive". Far be it from me to suggest that we should take away the CBC's means to survive. We are only too aware of the significance culture holds for the future of a people and a nation. We can state forcefully that no people, no nation, with the exception of the United States perhaps, can let the powerful instrument which creates and conveys its culture become hostage to the marketplace.

I add that the CBC is the only broadcaster that has strong Canadian content during peak hours. All other Canadian television networks have a low domestic content, around 20 to 30 per cent during peak hours, which can seriously affect Canadian culture. As for us, we chose this morning to show how important Radio-Canada is to the Quebec culture and how much we want not only to know what the government is planning but also to block its plans to deprive the SRC of its means. We care because the goals of the SRC are intrinsic goals, they are the collective goals it was created to achieve. That is why we cannot afford to let Radio-Canada be deprived of its means.

Mrs. Fortin, to whom I listened with great pleasure, was defending wholeheartedly in her own energetic way the role of this public television network which she compared to public schools. We never say that public schools are not profitable and must be financed in some other way. Public television has an important role to play. At least, it plays an important role in Quebec and it can play that role even better. We think that our colleagues from English Canada could ponder with us ways of strenghtening Canadian culture.

Being a francophone in North America can be difficult since we represent a little more than 2 per cent of the population and we are surrounded, submerged by English language channels. To remain a country not only with a distinct border but also with a distinct national identity, Canada-which does have its own culture, though sometimes it is not easily differentiated from that of the United States-must protect its public television.

I would like to say a few words about culture. If in fact we attach so much importance to public television and to television in general, it is because television is, along with other audiovisual techniques, the main vehicle of culture nowadays. It is not only a vehicle of that culture which exists and which we shall try to define, it is also an extremely important forum for cultural production.

When one realizes the public reached by Radio-Canada and TVA in Quebec, when one realizes the impact popular programs may have on the people, how these programs can strenghten its cultural identity, give rise to debate, question actions, attitudes and values, one realizes how alive our culture is, nurtured of course by our heritage, our history, the arts and all that cultural production embraces, but digested and distributed in another form, vehicled by the media of our times.

In this era of telecommunications, which is still full of surprises, it is a means, the most important means of distribution, development and production of culture.

Figures alone are not enough when we are talking about such an important instrument, which defines what people will think and are thinking and what affects Canadians' current and future desire to live together. This is what nationalism is all about. This is why we say that there are two countries within this country. We keep seeing it-every day. And what we want is sovereignty, because we think it is better for our people.

At the same time, we are aware that Canadian culture as well warrants clearer definition. It too needs to find expression in a world in which it is perhaps more threatened than francophone culture, because it shares a common language with the United States, which is more than a neighbour; it is the prevailing influence of our time. And if, because of this, Canadian minds

are fed American values, images, references, history, action and activities, I would take the liberty of saying that one must draw one's own conclusions and take no delight in the fact that English Canadian public television reaches such a small portion of the population, quite the contrary.

Of course, there are my hon. colleagues beside me who say that culture does need the help of the state. I would challenge them. The state does not create the cultural product, the artist. However, without a way to live, without sufficient means, few artists, artistic endeavours and cultural productions would survive, particularly in today's world. We must remember, here again, that the CBC is in competition with American productions, which have 20 times the resources.

We have chosen to talk about the CBC because our culture, its life and its evolution, depend in part on the continued availability of resources. Just as in the past, during the Renaissance, people needed patrons, the patrons are now being replaced by the state, by states.

No people, no self-respecting nation can afford not to support this great tool which television has become.

It must be said that the audiovisual medium requires a lot of resources. You and I can make video clips, but to produce programs which can compete with other programs coming from all over the world, we need resources. Otherwise, all the talents available to us will either be under-utilized or not used at all.

Culture is what defines a people, a nation. It is its soul. Its way of being. It is not static. It implies a knowledge of the past. It implies the handing down of the cultural production of previous generations. But it also implies a certain intermixing. It implies that each generation has to embark on the creative process using the same basic tools. But, in the long run, it is culture, this way of being, which guarantees that globalization will not reduce all cultures to the one with the most resources. This is what is really at stake in the present situation when we talk about all these numbers.

In 1992, in a fantastic speech he made in Montreal, Boutros Boutros-Ghali said: "The sound globalization of modern life implies the existence of strong cultural identities, since an excessive or ill-conceived globalization could crush various cultures and melt them down into a uniform one, which would spell nothing good for the world".

He added: "Individuals need an intermediary between a universe too large for them and their solitary status, for the mere fact that, at the start, they need a language to understand and decipher the outside world. What they need are practical alliances and a framework of cultural references, to sum it up, a passport to the world". Television is that passport to the world for most young people. That is why it is a national responsibility. This passport contributes the most to the creation of future societies, because it does not act alone.

I digressed a little, but now return to Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali's speech. "Nation-states, which transcend the physically closer alliances of family, clans or villages, fill these needs. A nation has a common reason for existing, which is the first step towards the universal, towards a universal civilization. An orderly world is a world of independent nations which are open to each other and respect each other's differences and similarities". This is what I call the fruitful logic of nationalities and universality.

To defend the Société Radio-Canada and the CBC, the Bloc Quebecois says "stop". Culture is the soul of the people, and if culture is not given sufficient means, the growth of these little people, these small states, will be stunted in a world overshadowed by the giant we all know well.