GOVERNMENT ORDERS

SUPPLY

ALLOTTED DAY-HERITAGE CANADA

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, more than 30 countries presently have in place a private copying regime or similar legislation. It should be noted that the United States has a similar regime but that it differs from Canada's in that it only applies to digital audio support and recording devices.

The proposed Canadian legislation allows the government to extend reciprocal treatment to any country that grants or has undertaken to grant similar benefits to Canadian creators of sound recordings.

The member for Kootenay East, who has worked very hard on the heritage committee with the rest of us, spoke earlier today. I was listening to his speech and believe I am quoting him correctly when he said that no constituency in Quebec had ordered more than 400 flags. I would like to make it clear to everybody so that wrong information is not on the record. There is no constituency in Quebec which ordered fewer than 400 flags.

(1515)

There have also been comments today about the flag program being disastrous to stores that sell flags, flag poles, et cetera. Here is a quote from a citizen who has a store in Peterborough, Mr. Rick Johnson: ``My flag sales are a little down, but the sales of poles are way up. The other thing is, flags are not made to last. Once these flags wear out, people will know where to come to buy a new one''.

Another gentleman from Peterborough, Warren Davis, also sells flags. He said: ``I think it is a great idea. I really do not see how this could have an adverse effect on my business. People are still going to buy flags''. He feels that many people simply love to criticize government initiatives and look long and hard for negatives. He said: ``Great innovative projects like this get stifled by naysayers. If people would work together as human beings, they would have a positive outlook. I think this project does just that. In fact, they might find that their business will prosper. Sure it costs money, but it has not affected my business one iota''. He goes on to say: ``This should get people thinking more about flying flags. It is very patriotic. I have been printing flags for 16 years and I think people are thinking more about it this year''.

Another woman who owns a flag store said that her flag sales are also down a bit but everything should be all right in the long run. She said: ``This business is basically just a hobby for me, but I have noticed an increase in pole sales. I am getting more and more inquiries these days. People are going to need new flags next year. Hopefully they will continue to purchase them. This should not hurt business in the long run, but I hope it does not continue as an annual thing''.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the separatists. The motion denounces the activities sponsored by Heritage Canada such as the Canada Information Office and the one in a million flags operation.

We are now debating the amendment which was put forward by the Reformers who are supporting the separatist motion. They say that all the words after ``Heritage Canada'' should be deleted, such as the $20 million spent on the Canada Information Office, the $15.5 million spent on the one in a million flags operation and unprecedented cuts to the CBC. Of course, we know their policy is to get rid of the CBC. I am somewhat shocked that the Reform Party is supporting the separatists.

I was pleased, as I am sure all Canadians were, this weekend to see Ed Mirvish on television getting the one millionth flag. I was very proud when that happened. He is one of Canada's biggest supporters of the cultural industries.

That flag program was a success. The people of Haldimand-Norfolk were very supportive of the program. When I went down the country roads, I saw that people were proud to be flying the Canadian flag. They were proud to show other Canadians that they love their country.

I am not surprised the Bloc members presented this motion. They want to break up and destroy the country. However, I am surprised that the Reform Party joined them. Canadians are proud to stand up for this country, as they are in my riding. I know that it is ideal for the separatists to try to do that, but it is somewhat surprising that the Reform Party would do it. I am sorry that the Reform Party has fallen for this trick of the separatists.

The Liberal Party will not apologize for promoting Canada. Liberal members will not apologize for setting up these programs which get individual Canadians together, get them excited and give them more information about their country. We are working with different community groups, different programs and young people throughout Canada so they will know more about the country. How can that be called propaganda?

The Reform Party has joined the Bloc in saying it is propaganda; that it is nothing but the Liberal Party spending millions of dollars to promote itself. Is it propaganda for the Deputy Prime Minister who today is in Moncton, New Brunswick to set up a new program with 800 different community leaders across the country, from 120 towns and villages, small communities in rural Canada and in the urban centres? They will come together in an exchange program across Canada. Is it propaganda to get Canadians to travel across the country?

(1520)

I know the hon. member beside me here will remember the Canada 125 program. It was an incredible program that was brought out just before the last election for Canada's 125th birthday. We got Canadians talking to each other. Young Canadians got to know more about their country. This is what we should be doing as parliamentarians. Part of our role is to enable Canadians to know more about their country.

What about a town in western Canada which is planning a cultural event? Is it propaganda to let Quebecers know and to get in touch with towns in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba or Saskatchewan? Is that propaganda? I do not think so and I do not think the Liberal Party or the government thinks so.

Is it wrong to promote mutual co-operation and understanding on economic and social issues, on the cultural development of Canadians? I do not think so. It is not wrong to do that. It is important that we learn more about the cultural diversities of this country, that we learn more about some of the economic problems in this country. Somebody sitting in downtown Calgary or in downtown Vancouver who has never left their community or their province may not know some of the issues facing somebody living in a fishing community or a remote community in Newfoundland or in Tuktoyaktuk or in my riding in southwestern Ontario.

One of the largest inland fisheries in the world is in my riding. We have a lot in common with people in Newfoundland or British Columbia, people on the coasts who rely on the fishing industry. Is it wrong for the Government of Canada to promote that these people get together to talk about their common concerns? I do not think so. I think it is right and it is an important role this government has.

I guess in Quebec it is wrong to promote Canada. This is what these federal members of Parliament seem to be saying, that somehow to promote Canada in Quebec and to show people around Canada the good things in Quebec are somehow wrong and the government should not be able to play a role in that. I do not agree.

TVA and CTV are major partners in Attractions Canada. It is surprising to think that these major networks in Canada would somehow be hoodwinked by the Government of Canada to be used in some sort of propaganda in Quebec or outside.

It is ironic that a Quebec member would bring forward this motion when in fact Attractions Canada's hotline had 9,200 Canadians call it this past week and 5,640 calls, 61 per cent of them, came from the province of Quebec. Simply put, a great number of people within the province of Quebec want to know more about their country. They want to know more about what is happening outside the boundaries of Quebec. In their present role the members across the way or the Government of Quebec certainly will not be the ones that will inform Quebecers about what is happening in the rest of Canada.

If we are going to bring this country together, if we are going to move forward into the next century, we are going to need to know more about each other. We are going to need to know more about some of the problems faced by Quebecers, some of the problems faced by rural Canadians or by people in downtown Calgary. TVA and CTV in joining this program and promoting it are doing what they should be doing as networks.

We need to be serious about the challenges that lie ahead for Canada. We need to ask ourselves going into the next century how we will build Canada and what will be the Canada of the next century. We as parliamentarians going into the next election, if we happen to win the next election, will be the ones over the next millennium who will be making the early decisions as to what Canada will look like. The government is building a Canada for the 21st century.

(1525)

Information and knowledge empowers Canadians. It lets them chart their own future and destiny. It must be a disappointment for the opposition members that Canadians want to know more about their history, that they want to know more about their institutions, their social and cultural fabric and their achievements. We have had achievements. It is important that this government remind Canadians about these achievements.

We need to understand the diversity. It is strange that this motion would come from a member from a province that is diverse, a province that is unique in Canada. To somehow challenge us on trying to promote Canada in that province is wrong. It shows that their heart really is not in their country. We need to understand our duality. We need to have a country that acknowledges, supports and protects our two official languages and our diversities. We need to work together to build knowledge about Canada and Canadians.

It must be a disappointment to the opposition that we want to know more about our symbols and about our heritage. The more we know about our heritage, the more we know about our culture, about our environment, the better we can understand the challenges we all face and the hopes and dreams of Canadians. We need to build on this. We need to know this before we move into the next millennium.

Canadians share some very fundamental human values. There is our value about having a compassionate and a caring society. We value fairness. We value integrity in our institutions and our practices. We value equality and we value knowing that our differences can strengthen us.

We have learned. What we have learned over our 100 years of history has made us one of the best countries in the world as wide groups like the United Nations look to Canada for leadership.

I appreciate this time and I would not mind being given one minute more.

The Deputy Speaker: My apologies to the member and to all hon. members when I fail to give them a one-minute signal. Questions and comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite defend Canada and its symbols. In principle, I have no objection to that.

We must, however, look at the expenses incurred by the Heritage Minister to promote Canada in light of the living conditions of real people. Would the 1.2 million children living below the poverty line in Canada be happy to wave the Canadian flag?

Would the millions of unemployed Canadians, whose number has not decreased since this government came to power, be proud enough to wave the Canadian flag? Are the millions of Canadians on welfare, whose number has actually increased since this government started making drastic cuts to social programs, ready to wave the Canadian flag?

The hon. member asks if it is wrong to promote Canada in Quebec. It is not wrong but it is rather pointless. If Quebecers were proud of the Government of Canada, we would not have to distribute flags. Pride is not based on symbols but on realities.

I will conclude by asking the following question to the hon. member: If Canadians are so proud of their country, why then did we have to give them flags to wave?

(1530)

[English]

Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I will never apologize for the Canadian flag, nor will I apologize for trying to promote Canada not only in Quebec but throughout this country. We have a wonderful country, as has been expressed by many people around the world. By flying our flag we are in no way taking away from the other, more serious problems we have across this country.

The government recognizes, as do all Canadians, that as we go into the next century, even though we have moved ahead in many areas, there are still many areas we have not resolved. The hon. member mentioned some. Obviously child poverty and jobs are areas that are very important to the Government of Canada, and we are moving in those areas.

Unless we stay together as a country, unless Canadians realize the importance of staying together and working together, and the importance of being Canadian, we will not last into the next century very long. It is important in the scheme of things to look at the bigger picture, to make sure that when we are resolving some of these fundamental problems we also look at the make-up of the country and what the country is about. It is important that we work toward resolving some of those problems, which is what we have tried to do.

We have tried to use the flag. We have tried to show Canadians the importance of the flag. We have also tried to show Canadians the importance of each other, to teach Canadians more about other parts of the country. We have a large country. It is the second largest country in the world. It is difficult for somebody in downtown Hagersville, where I was born, to go into Quebec. We have a language problem. It is important and it should be a priority for the Government of Canada to take it upon itself to help in that area.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, we are discussing a motion condemning the use of public funds squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and the One Million Flags Operation, at a time when unprecedented cuts have been imposed on cultural institutions in Canada and Quebec.

When I got back to my riding, I went, as I do every week, to buy a number of magazines. One of these was Le Point, whose cover this week read L'unité canadienne se crée-t-elle?, or ``Is Canadian Unity Developing?'' This issue contains a very comprehensive report on the situation in Canada. The government members would be well advised to read this report in order to understand what is happening in Canada and what a foreign observer is thinking of it. The author comments on Winnipeg, for instance. Apparently, it is the coldest place in the world. He also mentions St. Boniface, which has been amalgamated to Winnipeg and where, unfortunately, 70 per cent of the people now speak English.

This is a statement of fact made by a total stranger having to describe our country in an international magazine. He must describe to his fellow countrymen what is happening in another country.

When the Conservative Party was in office, with Mrs. Campbell at its head, it was decided to drastically reduce the number of ministers. The government then thought of establishing a department called Canadian Heritage, which would contain everything that could fit nowhere else. Responsibilities were gathered from all over the place to form a tutti frutti department.

Amateur sports, parks, historic sites and the Department of the Secretary of State were included in its mandate. The department is also responsible for the Queen's visits to Canada, the choice of olympic athletes, etc., as well as funding for these activities. It does a bit of everything, but mostly propaganda. It has become a propaganda specialist.

(1535)

The creation of this department was a problem for the Liberal Party when they were in opposition. I remember that the first time I went to the Department of Canadian Heritage to meet the then Deputy Minister, he told me he had recommended to the new government that it divide up the Department of Canadian Heritage, instead of using it as a grab bag as intended, and remove Communications from Canadian Heritage, leaving it with only those elements having to do with heritage. If the mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage had really been to reflect what this

country is all about, it would have been told not to forget that in this country, there are two peoples, two languages and two cultures.

But that is not what happened. Once in power, the Liberals, as usual, found things already prepared by senior bureaucrats who are ready to operate regardless of who is in power. The only visible change, when a new government is elected, is the colour of the CBC, which is red or blue depending on the party in power.

When this government came to power, they had to act and ensure passage of a bill creating the Department of Canadian Heritage. They created exactly what Ms. Campbell wanted, and asked it to promote Canadian identity. We then tried to make Canadians understand that they had to take Quebec into account, that in this country there are two cultures and two languages.

It is true that, when we debated the issue, we did not know what the Prime Minister was really thinking. One day, the Prime Minister answering a question happened to say in the House, and I quote: ``Mr. Speaker, there is a French culture in Canada, which is Canadian. It is in Quebec primarily, but I think the culture of the Acadians and Antonine Maillet forms part of the French culture, and this culture is not necessarily Quebec culture. So, when we talk about a Canadian culture, it may be of French or English expression''. The entire quote can be found in the December 6, 1995 issue of Hansard.

Shortly after the referendum the Prime Minister confirmed that, although a Quebecer, the little guy from Shawinigan had forgotten his roots and had made his another culture, the Canadian culture, renouncing his own, the Quebec culture, for ever. He made this statement on behalf of all his colleagues, confirming that in his view, Québec and the distinct society did not exist, as we saw later with the passing of his phoney motion on the distinct society, this empty shell devoid of any meaning.

Therefore, in the opinion of Canadians, Quebec culture does not exist. Yesterday, while listening to ``Le Point'', on Radio-Canada, I understood that for many Canadians, the Canadian culture does not exist either. We were shown Saskatchewan francophones, like Carmen Champagne. Since there are only 50,000 people who speak French in that province she opted for moving to Quebec to be able do grow, and make a fortune while selling her records, audio and video tapes, video clips and all the excellent material she produces for children. She was looking for a market and she found one in Quebec; she could not have found one in Saskatchewan.

I also saw other people who spoke English, but I felt they were more Ukrainian that Canadian. They extolled the beauty and the wealth of their culture, but they sounded more like Ukrainians talking to a Quebecer than Canadians. I felt how great their need was to cling to their Ukrainian roots. I believe that the notion of multiculturalism Mr. Trudeau put in the heads of Canadians is probably the single biggest obstacle to the creation of a Canadian identity.

(1540)

The Prime Minister is looking for ways to have people identify with Canada; I think he could simply abolish multiculturalism tomorrow morning, as they did in several countries like Brazil, and he would find that, tomorrow morning, all the people in Canada would be Canadians.

Except, of course, for Quebecers, who have already made up their minds, at least 50 per cent of them, and know they belong to a culture, they form a people, they have a territory. They still need a country before they can develop fully, but that threshold will soon be crossed and we will have the patience to wait for the next referendum to really fulfil ourselves.

Meanwhile, we observe what is going on in Canada. There is a subculture, the Quebec subculture, and a larger one, the Canadian culture. What happened until 1976, at the CBC for example? Those who governed our country respected both cultures, both people, and the CBC and the SRC received equal funding. The French network and the English network received the same amounts.

After the election of Mr. Lévesque, the surprise of 1976, Mr. Trudeau decided there was a separatist clique at Radio-Canada. He ordered an inquiry, which was considered to be almost an inquisition, to finally find out that it was not so, that there was no such thing as a separatist clique at Radio-Canada. There were only people doing an honest job who, in the news, showed what was happening in Quebec.

In 1995, after the referendum, the Trudeau heir adopted the same attitude. He also said that the CBC had not done its job properly. The French network of the CBC was, once again, hit by funding cuts. Clearly, it will be more and more difficult for the journalists of the corporation to do their jobs in the professional manner they are known for, if the government keeps casting doubt on the quality of the programming, which is excellent. The reason is that the government does not like the way what is happening in our society is presented.

The CBC suffered extensive cuts. The National Film Board lost 20 per cent of its budget. Funding for Telefilm Canada was reduced by $50 million, over and above the cuts already announced, in order to create a fund, with headquarters and decision making in Toronto, for the production of television programs.

This fund will be made up of $50 million from the cable distributors, $50 million from Telefilm Canada and $100 from

Heritage Canada. Directors of the fund have been advised to be careful and to finance programs with a Canadian flavour, programs which promote Canadian culture, in other words they should try to avoid films like ``Octobre''.

We saw after the referendum the way the heritage committee went on a witch hunt, how the chairman was given the mandate to try to see what was going on, and to promote Canada.

Today, we have reached a stage where we embarked on this campaign to give away a million flags. Not very long ago, a Liberal senator was telling me: ``I do not understand you, in Quebec. We have given you bilingual stamps, bilingual bank notes, a flag, a national anthem''. I could agree with the bank notes and the stamps, but it was the late great Réal Caouette, with the complicity of a minority government under Mr. Pearson, who felt, on the eve of the universal exhibition of 1967, that it would be shameful to receive the world without a flag which would identify us all. That is when the war to introduce the flag started.

(1545)

Consequently, I even wonder if English Canadians ever wanted the flag, since the government still feels forced to promote this flag 30 years later. There are limits to thinking that it can impose something to people through propaganda.

As for the national anthem, the government took the one that we used to sing when we were kids and that was called O Canada. The words and the music were composed by two francophones from Quebec. The anglophones translated it, changed it here and there so it would fit their purposes, but the national anthem was not invented by an anglophone of this country; the government took the words and music that two francophones from Quebec had composed.

There are limits to trying to make us believe that we resist that. It is true that we resist because this was another era. The government took the name, the flag, the national anthem; it can have them, but we are somewhat disenchanted with the whole propaganda campaign it is conducting to try to impose these things.

My colleagues have also said it: almost $100 million have been spent on propaganda at a time when the government tells us it has no money, for example, for programming, for small and medium size business, for job creation, for the destitute, for poor children. According to what the Prime Minister told us, some gifts for poor children will be announced in the budget tomorrow. They we made poor and now we are being told: ``Thanks to the federal government, we will save poor children.'' It should have saved them four years ago, instead of waiting until the eve of an election to present us with a budget containing measures to save poor children. Consequently, until now, it is an appalling failure on all counts.

The official languages policy, which is another failure in Canada, is a responsibility of Heritage Canada. Most of the money went to anglophone minorities in Quebec or was spent on teaching English in the other provinces.

They give lip service to bilingualism, but what they really want to do is bilingualize Quebecers to better assimilate them, given that the anglophone minority in Quebec represents only 9 per cent of the population, whereas 54 per cent of civil servants are bilingual. The francophone minority in New Brunswick accounts for 38 per cent of the population, yet only 42 per cent of civil servants are bilingual. And this great government's latest cost-cutting innovation was to create only one 1-800 line for all francophones in Canada having problems with the child benefit.

So, the Official Languages Act has also been a pitiful failure in the public service. According to a study, in the Ottawa-Hull area, where the law provides that French and English are the languages of work, 76 per cent of francophones say that English is the language spoken at meetings. So, the public service is also a tool for anglicizing francophones.

Another innovation is the information highway, where the federal government is interfering again in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Here, as in other areas, the federal government intends to exert its leadership, regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction or its culture. We also find Canadian cultural content in the information society. They never miss an opportunity to express their contempt for the people of Quebec.

This morning, I read in detail about the minister's plans for schools. No one in Quebec can enrol in a school without asking for authorization. In her paper, the minister says that the great values in Canada are tolerance, mutual respect, compassion, and acceptance.

(1550)

You have to see it on paper to believe it. It is unbelievable. There is no tolerance, no compassion, no respect, no acceptance for the people of Quebec. They talk about values, but they do not believe in them.

What does the minister put in her propaganda kit? She is providing a teacher's guide. This teacher's guide is not authorized by the Quebec Minister of Education. This is unacceptable; this cannot be done in Quebec. There are videos, an audiocassette, a CD-ROM, and a box one can check off to order a flag.

How much does each of these kits cost? There are various kits for various age groups. There is one kit for children between four and seven. The propaganda is adjusted to the children's chronological and psychological age. There is another kit for children between eight and eleven, and another one for children aged twelve and up. They are available in French or in English.

I think the Minister should substantially change her approach if she does not want to see the number of sovereignists keep rising in this country. At the rate she is going now, we thank her very sincerely because she is helping the cause of a sovereign Quebec.

Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take the floor once again this afternoon to give the Bloc Quebecois, to the sovereignists, to those hard line separatists who spend most of their time rewriting Canadian history a real history lesson.

Bloc members should realize one thing: they do not represent a majority of Quebecers. I challenge them to make a survey asking this simple question: Do you want to have a sovereign country, yes or no? We all know only 25 to 30 percent of Quebecers would support the separation of the province from the rest of the country.

When numbers are quoted, all kinds of examples are used. This morning, I asked a Bloc Quebecois member why the National Film Board spends 73 percent of its budget in Quebec. Why does Telefilm Canada spend 62 percent of its budget in Quebec? Why does the CBC spend 40 percent of its budget in Quebec when the Quebec population is about 24 or 25 percent of the Canadian population? It is obvious that Quebecers can draw concrete benefits, financial, political and cultural benefits from being a part of the Canadian federation.

Cases of demagogy and propaganda have also been raised. I did a little research this morning, and I found a few cases of propaganda. We will play the role of opposition to the Bloc majority in Quebec. I have questions to ask and my constituents do too.

The majority of Quebecers wonder why almost $4 million in public money has been spent on the secret activities of the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec. Why does Quebec have a 1-800 line, which costs $300,000 to Quebec taxpayers, to promote the independence of Quebec? Why did the presentation in the Grand Théâtre de Québec launching the referendum campaign cost $175,000. I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata on this.

Lobbyists have been hired at a cost of $531,000 to promote sovereignty in Washington. There have been mailings and all kinds of commissions at a cost of $2.5 million. Some $8.5 million was spent on this happening, on this survey and this referendum. Ir cost $8.5 million. So, to bring up-

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I am ready to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, but I would rather he would not put Quebec on trial, because we are not in Quebec, we are in Canada. Let him deal with the motion before us and stop his rambling.

(1555)

Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it is simple. The Bloc Quebecois is interested in only one thing, making Quebec a sovereign country. It is clear; we know that. But nothing is ever said about the propaganda campaign in Quebec.

Yes, $20 million was spent on flags, and I am proud of it. Of course, I would have liked that money to be spent elsewhere. However, there is a $80 million fund, and there is also the fact that an amount of $20 billion was withdrawn from the Caisse de dépôt to bolster the Canadian dollar in case of sovereignty.

I am a Quebecer. The opposition is in no position to tell me who I am and whom I represent. However, as a Canadian and Quebec taxpayer, I have a right to know where that money is going in Quebec City. Let them phone their finance minister and let them give us an answer in the House.

Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to answer on behalf of the Government of Quebec. We are not in Quebec here, we are in Canada. So the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will lose his riding; he should think of being a candidate in Quebec. Indeed, Mr. Johnson would be quite happy to count on a new recruit because there is not much of a future for him in Canada and Bonaventure-Gaspé-Les Îles-Pabok with the kind of things he is saying here.

It is absolutely absurd not to recognize that the government has spent $100 million on propaganda. If only it were done for interesting reasons, such as information. The CIO is supposed to be an information bureau. The minister told me: ``Go on the Internet, you will see what is there''. There is nothing interesting on the Internet, nothing that will inform us on Canada.

If money is being spent to inform people, it should be information, interesting information on the Internet instead of propaganda. It is a waste of time to try to force people to love a country that has not earned their love. That is the problem. The country must be lovable. How can you love someone who is not lovable? The country must be lovable, it must really put its values into practice. It must be tolerant, it must accept things: ``If you can't beat them, join them''.

So, reach out to us if you want to keep us with you. Otherwise, we will go, and faster than you think because we are fed up with the kind of speeches we have just heard.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question and say a little about the comment that this is not a lovable country. Surely the member did not wish to

convey the message that this country, Canada, and Canadians are not lovable. I request a clarification, please.

Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to love a country, you have to feel loved by it, not rejected. When you do not feel loved, you cannot find the situation or the people lovable. You feel rejected.

I made an attempt in this House that I thought would be a step toward unity between our two nations. But the Louis Riel bill was defeated in this House, something that should never have happened if there had been the slightest consideration for who Louis Riel was. The vote was against the Bloc Quebecois.

In this country, people are always voting against something; people vote against someone. People never really show their acceptance.

If that had happened, I would have said this country was lovable, but now I know that you are rejecting us with all your being.

Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I simply want to say that for people of my generation, from my country-I was born in Europe-the money spent on flags brings to mind some unpleasant memories and unpleasant names like that of Goebbels in Germany.

(1600)

When a country defends itself with flags, and I saw them all over the place, I saw thousands of them. I do not want to equate the maple leaf with the swastika-

Mr. Gagnon: The maple leaf liberated you.

Mr. Mercier: I want to compare, if hon. members would show me the courtesy of letting me speak, I want to compare two policies. When you want to promote a people with thousands of flags-

Mr. Gagnon: In Holland and Belgium, the first to get there was the Canadian army.

Mr. Mercier: What does that have to do with it? Obviously we are very grateful to Canadians. Let us use our common sense and see the problems for what they are. I am comparing two policies which use the same means, which is to fly flags everywhere, and this reminds me of Goebbels. Although the flags are not comparable, the policies are.

Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think we should get hold of ourselves. We must not confuse issues. This whole flag issue has a very negative impact on our country. I hope the government will think about it. We are not in a country where propaganda is acceptable.

We must appreciate the people, be open-minded and accept them. The Deputy Prime Minister's papers must not be the only place where we find that attitude. It must be present in everyday life and for everybody.

We should stop spending money on propaganda. This measure is perceived as propaganda, it is regarded as propaganda and we all know what the results of propaganda are.

We must pull away from this situation we are in. The government must understand that the $100 million must be spent elsewhere than on propaganda.

[English]

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn.

[Translation]

I am very pleased to take part in this debate and I hope it will enrich the reflection brought about in the House by the motion presented by the member for Richmond-Wolfe. I am happy to see that my opposition friend is concerned about the future of Canadian culture and to have this opportunity to present our own vision on the issue.

To start with, if I may, I would like to remind everybody that when we talk about Canada, when we promote Canada, we are promoting Quebec as well, recognizing it as a distinct society with its unique language, culture and institutions.

When we are promoting ourselves, we get richer. I would like us to see the debate from this angle, at least for a few minutes. I was shocked when I was told that Canada was not a friendly country. This is not true. Of course, Canadians are not all the same. Their experience is different, but the vast majority of them love and respect their fellow citizens in Quebec. I believe the reverse to be true also.

I have learned over the year that what we do not know well, we do not understand well, and when we do not know well and do not understand well, we cannot appreciate of course. It is very difficult to love.

[English]

I often hear some of my English speaking colleagues who are less, at times, than totally generous toward their Quebec colleagues. I would maintain that is a minority.

Very often when that happens, they know very little about Quebec. They know very little about its language, its culture, its institutions, the unique place. The reverse is also true. When someone knows very little about the other, when they do not understand, how can they appreciate, how can they care?

Unfortunately that is one of the problems that exist at times in Canada, not just in Quebec but in every single province and territory.

(1605)

[Translation]

The world has never been so easily accessible. New communications technologies have made it possible to develop a greater awareness of the world around us and to have direct access to an ever increasing volume of information and knowledge. Through the Canada information office, the government wants to provide Canadians across the country with accurate, factual and pertinent information about our country, its institutions, its regions and its people. It wants to give a Canadian slant to the mass of data and information we receive.

But this slant is not only Canadian, it is also a Quebec slant, something that affects, for example, my community in my Franco-Manitoban riding. We just had the Festival du voyageur, we even had artists from Quebec who came to our region and were warmly welcomed. We have artists, writers, all kinds of people who go to Quebec and are appreciated there. That is today's world. There is this huge sharing, not only in Canada, but also throughout the world.

Culture is first and foremost an outlook on the world. In this sense, it is important to have instruments such as the Canada information office and Canadian symbols to convey this typically Canadian outlook not only to Canadians but also to people in other countries.

When we talk about the flag, some may say this is propaganda, but we can also appreciate that it is a powerful symbol that affects all of us. This is what some people fail to understand sometimes.

With the advent of the information highway, content communication is becoming vital for cultural expression. When I talk about content on the information highway, of course I am referring to Canadian content. It expresses and reflects the values, the ideals and the knowledge shared by all Canadians.

In this context, because of the importance of communicating our cultural heritage for the strengthening of both the national identity and the economy, the Canadian government had to take major steps recently.

The government made many efforts to ensure access to cultural content on the digital information highway. It has become an international leader in this area.

At the G-7 conference on the information based society and development held in South Africa, the government stressed how very important it is to have a diversity of views expressed and languages used on the information highway. In the area of heritage for instance, the government participates in pilot projects put forward by the G-7 to promote the most democratic access possible to world culture while respecting individual national identities. It takes part for example in a project called multimedia access to world cultural heritage and, through the National Library of Canada, in the Bibliotheca universalis project.

At home, the Canadian government has worked on setting up a task force on digitizing collections of cultural and scientific value. National institutions involved in heritage take an active part in integrating and developing new technologies. They are digitizing their collections and making them accessible to the public.

The government will explore many avenues to develop new ways of helping produce digitized Canadian content of heritage value. It also plans to promote conservation, distribution and access to this digitized content.

At the same time, the Canadian Heritage Information Network supports its institutions' efforts to make their collections available to a broader public. It provides, among other things, an Internet directory of Canadian museums and heritage sites. To date, the network has generated a total of 22 reference databases in both official languages and a few other information products available on Internet. More than 1.5 million netsurfers have visited its site.

This is an exceptional showcase for Canada and its culture, history and heritage. In addition, the Government of Canada has worked together with CultureNet and the Canadian Conference of the Arts to develop the cultural electronic network of Canada. This network will be a window on Canadian culture for people in Canada and throughout the world.

(1610)

The government is committed to promoting the establishment of a Canadian information highway that would provide goods and services in both official languages. As it indicated at the round table conference on culture, a few days ago, the government will take every necessary step to promote the creation of Canadian content.

The federal government also adopted, and is currently reviewing, a number of measures designed to increase access to traditional markets, to promote greater dissemination of Canadian culture abroad, and to penetrate specialized markets for the arts, heritage and cultural industries. Among the initiatives taken, the government organized, in December, a national round table on the marketing of Canadian heritage goods and services abroad.

Given their mandate, museums as well as cultural and heritage institutions play a prominent role in the preservation, the promotion and the sharing of our heritage. Some 2,000 museums and institutions dedicated to preserving our heritage are important cultural tools, not only because of their number, but also because of their popularity with Canadians and foreign visitors. It is estimated that 56 per cent of those who visit our institutions are Canadians. It is also estimated that Canada's museums welcomed over 55 million visitors.

Through its museums assistance program, the Government of Canada provides direct support to these institutions, so as to increase access to collections, to manage these collections efficiently, and to ensure their preservation, for the benefit of current and future generations.

This summer, the government will provide more than 800 young Canadian students with an opportunity to work in institutions dedicated to our heritage, such as libraries and museums. This will be done through the Young Canada Works program, which will include Quebec students. This summer job initiative will not only help young people earn money, but also help them gain better knowledge of their country, their province, their territory, their history and their culture.

We must make sure that our tools to promote culture, and our heritage institutions, are at the service of Canadians, and we must also make sure they offer a typically Canadian content. Our cultural productions and our own perspective on events should also be shown on tomorrow's networks.

The Government of Canada wants to give Canadians as many opportunities as possible to undertake initiatives in order to express their own identity. As we move into the 21st century, we need to be able to express Canada's uniqueness.

Before concluding, I want to say a few words about my own province and francophones outside Quebec. There are around a million of them and people sometimes try to forget about them. In my riding, close to 20 per cent of the people speak French. A high percentage of English speaking citizens have also learned to speak French and taken up the French culture in our province.

There is also a solid core of francophones in other provinces. Need I remind the House that a third of the New-Brunswick population speaks French? For the million people outside Quebec who still speak French, their language and their culture are very dear to them. When they travel to the province of Quebec, they feel very at ease. When Quebecers come to our region, they feel comfortable.

When I travel to France, I feel at ease. I have friends who went over there and they felt the same way. Yesterday, I had friends over from France and we went to the Festival du voyageur, and they really liked it. They had spent some time in Quebec City and had felt also very welcome over there. They felt very at ease in our area too. Do not forget that strong ties bind us together.

(1615)

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that the Canadian government was scared by the results of the referendum and that it wants to try, with great difficulty, considering the limited budgets available, a sense of belonging in all Canadian provinces including, for the purpose in hand, in the ``province'' of Quebec, where most Quebecers are to be found.

But one should never forget, first, that for each dollar invested in such propaganda, 25 cents comes from Quebec. Thus, there should be some form of ethics, some respect, a gentleness and a sense of democracy in the spending of these funds, since they come in a large part from Quebecers, including sovereignists.

Also, when one wants to create a sense of belonging, one should be aware, as we have seen earlier, that the line is very fine between the will to create that feeling and mere propaganda. Approximately one year ago, Chantal Hébert wrote something in La Presse and I would like to know how the hon. member for St. Boniface responds to that. Mrs. Hébert who, as far as we know, is not a sovereignist does good work as a daily columnist for La Presse.

She wrote: ``Since 1995, all departments have been instructed to celebrate the Canadian flag. A survey was made of their efforts. For example, on February 15, 1995, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation presented its employees with a cake in the form of the Canadian flag, and its cafeteria provided a ``Canadian'' menu. Even the Canadian spies were in on it. That same week, all the employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service found the story of the Canadian flag in their electronic mail. All public service managers were urged to circulate a questionnaire on Canada to their staff through the electronic mail. Consideration was given to the possibility of asking public servants' children to participate in drawing contests on their love of Canada. Public servants were encouraged to wear red and white on the anniversary of the flag''.

One can promote Canadian patriotism but I think that the very fine line between patriotism and propaganda was just crossed, and I would like to hear what my colleague for St. Boniface has to say about this.

Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment and his question. I wonder why they are so afraid of promoting Canada. Why that fear? When we promote Canada, we promote Quebec, Manitoba and all the other provinces and territories.

They do not understand and they do not want to understand. As for those spies, I do not know exactly what they did. I know Mrs. Hébert and she is a good writer. I respect her very much. But be serious. Every day I listen to a number of Bloc members. I accept them and I even like some of them a lot. They promote Quebec in many ways even though they have a tendency to exaggerate. They can go very far.

But can we call it propaganda? Some would speak of lies. Not me. They just do their work. They do it as best they can. They are promoting their province, their distinct society, their language, their culture, and their own special institutions. I commend them

for that but they should do the same for Canada, the country that is theirs as much as it is mine.

[English]

Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address the opposition motion today. The achievements of this government in support of Canadian culture and identity are significant.

Canada's culture has evolved through the contributions of our creative artists, our cultural institutions and the individual and collective expressions of who we are as Canadians. It is not one voice but many represented through the rich diversity of our regions and our varied ethnic roots.

(1620)

In 1993 this government took over from a Conservative regime that failed to appreciate the importance of cultural development. The Liberal government has stayed true to our vision of creating a stronger, more unified country while strengthening the Canadian economy. In that vision, we place great importance on the need to support and strengthen Canadian cultural and identity and to celebrate Canada's heritage.

The practical side is clear. We want to strengthen the economy and provide more jobs for Canadians. We are doing that. We are also creating a stronger, more unified Canada where Canadian culture and identity thrive and where jobs and growth are a given. Let me give a couple of examples of how well it is going.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is an active partner in the federal government's job strategy. A great deal has been happening. The young Canada works program is putting young people to work and nurturing their understanding of Canada.

In 1996 the young Canada works program provided interesting summer job experiences for over 2,000 young Canadian. This involved four key areas of Canada's diverse cultural and natural heritage, specifically our national parks and national historic sites, aboriginal urban youth, Canada's two official languages and our heritage institutions.

The young Canada works program is unique, providing the chance for many of its participants to travel to other parts of this country. I am pleased to say that it will run again this coming summer.

As a government we are proud that young Canadians have this chance to connect with other Canadians, people from different backgrounds and regions of Canada.

Young Canadians have a sense of passion and commitment about Canada; like the country they call home, their future is ahead of them. Through young Canada works we are helping young people to finance their education, gain invaluable work experience and learn more about Canada.

This year we are adding two more components, providing graduate students with internship opportunities that will build their skill sets and increase their future employment prospects. Putting young people to work is important for all of us. The pride and passion they feel for Canada touches each and every one of us deeply at the very core of our being. Our Canadian identity is something we can share and celebrate. Young Canada works is helping Canadians do just that.

Another area where this government is working hard to build Canadian identity and culture while strengthening the economy is the arts. The arts in Canada have grown rapidly over the last decade. They contribute to Canada in many ways. They serve as the human talent pool for all the cultural industries and broadcasting. They touch on other areas of the cultural sector such as heritage, architecture and advertising.

The cultural sector contributes overall over $29 billion worth of economic activity to Canada's gross domestic product and supports more than 900,000 jobs. The Government of Canada knows that investing in the arts is a win-win situation. It is an investment in Canada. It makes good economic sense and it makes good sense for Canada's cultural identity as well as for Canadian unity.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is a success story in supporting the creation, production and distribution of the arts in Canada. For example, the performing arts are burgeoning in Canada. Over the last decade the number of live performances increased by 33 per cent. Attendance grew from 10 million in 1985 to over 13.5 million in 1995. Earned revenues, mostly box office receipts, grew 87 per cent to $187 million.

In 1994 alone Canadians bought more than 13 million tickets to performances by not for profit professional dance, music, opera and theatre companies, most of which the Department of Canadian Heritage supports through the Canada Council.

The Stratford Festival receives almost $790,000 from the Canada Council. In return Stratford generates $25 million in taxes and a further $100 million in economic activity.

(1625 )

The young Canada works program and support to the creation, production and distribution of the arts in Canada are just two mechanisms through which this government is building a stronger country.

Our commitment is clear. We will continue to lead the way in promoting the excellence of our artists and the success of our

cultural institutions and industries. We will continue to lead the way in engaging all Canadians in the life of Canada, including our youth who will take up our torch and create Canada's future.

Much remains to be done but our commitment remains. It is vital to ensuring Canada's strength and prosperity today and in the future.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. colleague opposite that he neglected to address the issue raised in the Bloc Quebecois motion. He did not speak to the motion, he drew us a picture that has nothing to do with the motion. The motion put forward by one of my hon. colleagues this morning reads as follows:

That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and the One Million Flags Operation, at a time when cuts unprecedented in the history of Canada have been imposed on cultural institutions in Canada and Quebec.

Today, February 17, the Canadian Flag Day, is indeed a sad day for Canada. How sad it is to see such a waste of money, when the unemployment level keeps rising, the number of jobs keeps decreasing, more and more people are out of work and more than 1 million children are currently living below the poverty line.

Could we not have used this $98 million to better ends, to support better programs? Let me give you some examples: the celebrations surrounding the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, which cost $1.1 million; the 600 billboards, 300 of which were put up in Quebec; the production of TV segments like the Heritage Minutes, a $2.2 million expenditure which was pointless.

My question is the following: Could we not have used this money to help the children living in poverty? Why did the government not choose this option instead of undertaking propaganda activities for Canada?

[English]

Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the member speaking about the spending of money on flags, on the pride that we should take in this country and on keeping this country together which, I take it he has already heard, is the best country in the world to live in. But he fails to mention all the money that was wasted on the last referendum in Quebec, the wasted money on posters that were printed in Quebec. Why was that money not put into Quebec's economy to help the children of the province of Quebec?

He indicates that the unemployment level is going up. That is not so. The unemployment level has come down, not as much as we would like, and we are trying to get it lower and we will get it lower, but it has not been going up, as has been mentioned.

(1630 )

It is very sad when a member refers to flag day as being a sad day for Canada. It is very sad that any member of the House of Parliament of Canada would say that in the democratically elected Chamber of Canada. That attitude is not understandable. A strong country leads to employment for all, including youth.

Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn speak about the programs which are funded by the heritage department and the heritage minister. Coming from Saskatchewan as well, I know that the average person who walks on the streets of Saskatoon or in rural Saskatchewan is not very impressed with most of the programs and projects funded by Heritage Canada. There are a few things that need to be funded, such as discrimination against racism and so on and so forth.

The provincial government has withdrawn funding for health care and the federal government has followed suit and withdrawn billions of dollars from health care. How can the member stand in the House to defend the third or fourth rate priority funding of Heritage Canada when funding for health care has been so drastically reduced? It is certainly not going over well in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member mentioned that the ordinary citizens of Saskatoon do not support what Heritage Canada is doing. He must be walking on different streets from the ones I walk on.

The member is critical of what he referred to as cuts in spending. It is interesting to look at the Reform budget and the cuts which it suggested. The cuts are very interesting. The Reform Party suggested cuts to post-secondary education, cuts in health, cuts in the Canada assistance plan and cuts in equalization. Equalization cuts of 35 per cent. Cuts to the Canada assistance plan of 34 per cent.

Reformers are critical of what has been done to get the finances of the country in order. They would have butchered the system and destroyed it but all of a sudden, lo and behold, now that it is almost election time, they are the saviours. Three years ago when it was not election time they were the ones who would have destroyed the system.

Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by saying that those statements are absolute fiction.

We have said that we need to restore the fiscal situation in this country. Any of the cuts which were suggested in the taxpayers budget have been far superseded by Liberal cuts. The cuts which

have been made by the Liberals have been deep. They have been painful for people right across the country.

When we look at health care especially just to sum up the member's statements, this government has cut more in the area of health care than any Reformer would ever think of doing. Every hospital closure in the country ought to have a sign over its door which reads: The closure of this hospital has been brought to you by the Liberal Government of Canada.

Probably some of the acrimony which we have seen is what gave rise to this debate today. I cannot agree with Bloc members on how they feel about our flag, but I can understand their sense of disappointment with the status quo, the way the country has gone. In fact, that is why I am here too, because I cannot go along with the status quo.

On the one side we have a government which says status quo; Liberal or Tory, it really does not matter. That certainly was proved today by Guy St-Julien, the former member for Abitibi, an old Tory who used to scream from that side of the House across to this side. He is now going to run as a federal Liberal. What is the difference between a federal Liberal and a Tory? I do not think there is a difference. They are just flip sides of the same loonie.

Beyond that the other choice is out and out separation, which is what the Bloc Quebecois offers. Even though it has been proved wrong twice in province-wide referenda, it is still here squawking about it.

This debate today is in fact round two of the flag debate. I was a teenager when this debate was in the House in the sixties. It was a pretty painful process to watch. It took about six months because the government of the day did not bring in closure quite so much as it does now.

(1635)

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): I was not born yet.

Miss Grey: That explains a lot of things also. Nonetheless, that flag debate was one of the most acrimonious debates in this House.

We went to the Canadian flag in 1965 and this maple leaf is one of the proudest symbols worldwide. I am glad to be a member of a Canadian society where my flag is held to be so special to us in this country and internationally as well. That is so important.

It bothers me and upsets me that a group of people in the House of Commons wants to leave this country. They are out and out separatists. They try to dress it up with all kinds of fancy names but they want to pull out of this country. And they are calling our flag propaganda. We have heard it several times today. It is unfortunate that the context of that could not be ruled unparliamentary because I certainly think it is unparliamentary. It is shameful that there would be people in this place who call our flag propaganda.

Unfortunately the Minister of Canadian Heritage has tried to offer this free flag program. It is a symbolic thing which, if times were great, would be appreciated. If we had a great surplus of extra cash lying around, it would be a great project. But we are $600 billion in debt. The government is spending $70 million a day more than it is bringing in. It has cut health care. It has cut transfers to the provinces incredibly, $7 billion with the Canada health and social transfer.

However this minister wields so much power that she can go into cabinet and demand $20 million, $50 million, $100 million for these special projects. That is probably the nub of the issue right now. It is not whether or not we celebrate our flag, or whether or not we should have a flag program. She said at the beginning that this would come from donations from people across the country and that it might cost $6 million. Guess what? It has come from donations but it has come directly out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers and they did not have any say in how that cash was going to be spent. It was another one of those voluntary-involuntary programs that we as Canadian taxpayers get stuck with over and over again.

The idea was a good one: to generate patriotism and drive Canadian unity. That is a noble aspiration and a good thing to do, but again the cost was exorbitant and the minister had no idea where the cash was coming from. She was able to get her elbows sharpened up and make some way at the cabinet table. She scared the Minister of Finance off so that he bought this thing: peace at any price; the Minister of Canadian Heritage will get some cash to keep her quiet. It is unfortunate when so many other priorities have had to be put aside, yet the minister has been able to get her way.

There is another thing that bothers me about this. It is not just the cost of it but this seems to me to be the government's idea of a national unity program. Is that all there is? Free flags to say that this is going to solve our national unity problem?

We do have a crisis in the country, which is that members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are separatists. They do not like this place and they do not like Her Majesty. They have made that very clear. Is this the government's response in total? Is that all there is, my friend? Here is a free flag. This is our new national unity program. What a tragedy and only a year and a little bit after a referendum that saw us come so close to falling over the edge. The Prime Minister says: ``We won that referendum''.

It is like the Stanley Cup. We won. I have news for him and his seatmate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, and news for everyone on the government side and for everyone who is watching today. Unfortunately, that referendum was not the end of the Stanley Cup. This thing is going into overtime because Lucien Bouchard is at the helm in Quebec. Members know only too well that he was my seatmate for three and

a half years in the back row. Although I disagree vehemently with his politics, and I am a Canadian through and through, I learned to understand what a masterful strategist he is. I also know that if he gets his way and has another referendum in Quebec, he does not have any intention of losing.

(1640)

Surely there must be something better that this government can offer those of us who are federalists and passionate Canadians. Surely there has to be more to offer than just a Canadian flag.

The minister criticized me one time in question period saying that people in Beaver River ordered flags, as if this was some terrible thing or some wonderful thing that she had discovered. The people in the Beav are proud and passionate Canadians as well and many of them did order a flag. They are not ashamed to fly the Canadian flag. When these things were being offered to them, many of them did write in and ask for a flag. And what happened? They each got three, four or five flags in an envelope. What in the world is going on in that office where they cannot even count to one? There is something sad about it.

There has to be something better than national unity just by a free flag. It has got to be deeper than that.

Our 20-20 plan addresses this so well. We have said that we understand that there are very real concerns of the people in Quebec. What we need to do is give back to the provinces what was originally in their jurisdiction.

We see so much overlap. There is so much incredible lust for power from the federal government. It has all that power to organize and administer everything and it simply cannot relinquish it. There still must be federal powers: defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulating financial institutions, the Criminal Code, facilitating national standards, equalization, international trade, domestic trade. Those are things the federal government should do well and does do well.

We are always told that we are going to have to decentralize and there will be no federal powers left, but that is not true. The provinces still must have the jurisdiction they were originally designed to have. I think many Quebecers would be happy with that.

On the flip side of that are 20 reasons why you might want to stay in Canada, 20 realities about the cost of seceding-or the cost of separating, let us call it what it is-and those are not pleasant to think about. I think you should think twice before you decide to go away.

When anyone sits close to me here and is a separatist and says that my flag is propaganda, it really bothers me. I want to take them on and challenge them by saying: When you criticize my flag or Canada Day, you criticize me because I was born on July 1 in 1952 and nobody is going to mess with my flag or Canada Day, or Dominion Day as I still like to call it.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from now on, for me, July 1 will not only be Canada Day but my hon. colleague's birthday.

I would like to point out to my colleague that the issue here is not the flag itself but the propaganda it serves. I have the utmost respect for national flags, for the Canadian flag, as have, I am sure, all members of this House and all my colleagues in the Bloc. But I do not like the way the flag has been used. It has been used for what we call propaganda. The issue is not the flag but the ends to which it has been used, the intent behind it.

I would ask my Reform colleague whether she is appalled by the fact that no ceremony celebrated the Canadian Flag Day this year and that there was only a small ceremony last year. Is this not in some way reducing the role played by the flag in representing Canada?

(1645)

I love the Quebec flag and I understand why Canadians love their own flag, as it is legitimate and respectable to do. But when the government on the other side is unable to celebrate Flag Day as fervently as it denounces our speeches, I am puzzled. What we take issue with is the use this government has made of the Canadian flag. Do you not agree, dear colleague?

[English]

Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it fairly clear in my speech that I have a problem with the way the government went about it, first, in terms of the cost of the flag program, for which we do not have the money, and second, in terms of the fact the Liberals think this is their only national unity scheme.

The member said that he has respect for the flag and I appreciate that. He said he has a great love for his flag, the fleur de lis, the Quebec flag. I also have the same love for my provincial flag of Alberta. Over arching that is my citizenship as a Canadian. I celebrate the Canadian flag first and foremost and after that come the family of provinces and there I celebrate the Alberta flag.

He said that there was no great ceremony for flag day. Could it have something to do with the way flag day went last year? Members will remember what happened last year. The remembrance I have of flag day was not so much the celebration of the flag but watching my Prime Minister take a guy out because he got in his way at the flag day ceremonies. What a disgrace, what an embarrassment for a national leader.

He did not follow the RCMP who celebrate the flag and who were looking after the Prime Minister that day. He just bulldozed out into the crowd to be the great hero. Some protester got in his way and the Prime Minister said: ``So I had to take him out''. He just turned him around and threw him to the ground. Is this what we are to celebrate under our flag? Is this what other countries see when they look at our flag? Is this the way Canadians behave? I do not think so.

I appreciate what the member said about the flag. I was not sure I heard that earlier from his colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata when she said it hard to love a country that is not lovable. That is shameful. It is absolutely shameful that someone would holler that out in the shouting match between two Quebecers. She said: ``If you want us to stay, come and get us''. For generations the rest of Canada has been coming to get Quebecers.

Quebec is in this family. There are days when we are not happy to be part of a particular family. I know that. There were four teenage sisters growing up in my family and lots of days I am sure we all wished we had another family, as is only normal. But love is not conditional. This is the family. These people are part of this family and family life is not conditional.

The flag is ours. And whether some days or some years the people in this separatist camp think they want to run away from home, they are part of the family. I think it is shameful to say: ``It is hard to love a country that is not lovable'' and ``If you want us to stay, come and get us''. You are here. We love you. Please stay.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Beaver River for an excellent and rational point of view on this whole issue.

The motion before the House today, an accusation from Bloc members of funds being squandered on propaganda, is a bit of a narrow-minded, hypocritical motion. I would like to point that out.

The balance of the motion states that instead of spending money on free flags and the Canada Information Office and in light of the cuts to the cultural institutions that more money should be spent on health care and education, et cetera.

I would like to point out to Bloc members that their former fearless leader who sat in this House, that same Lucien Bouchard who is now running and guiding the province of Quebec, in his next budget and the budgets in the ensuing years will cut spending on health care and education. He will have to make cuts and eliminate the waste in those areas because that is where savings can be had and that is where, even in welfare and other social programs, he is going to have to revisit.

(1650)

This party, which claims it can do all and be all for everybody, will have to face the stark reality of what governments are all about. Governments are all about taking tax dollars and reinvesting them back into the country, for natural infrastructure and for human infrastructure. The group of people that best knows how to do this is the group that should be running this country.

For 30 years we have had politicians who have mismanaged these finances. They have mismanaged them so badly that they have had to borrow close to $600 billion to cover everything they wanted to do for the people of Canada. They would not live within their means.

The stark reality for everybody, no matter to what political party you belong, is that we are in a time of fiscal restraint. We are in a time of having to balance budgets. We are in a time of not squandering and wasting taxpayers' dollars.

When talking about this motion that attacks the Department of Canadian Heritage we must ask what is its purpose. Why do we have a Department of Canadian Heritage? The purpose of the department is to promote Canada. The purpose of the Department of Canadian Heritage is to invest in Canada so we can be proud of ourselves and our country.

Let me point out what the department currently does in dollar terms. According to the public accounts, the Canadian identity program costs half a billion dollars. We spend over $300 million on Parks Canada. We spend $1.171 billion on the CBC. We spend $95 million on the Canada Council which promotes Canadian arts and artists. We spend $190 million on Canadian film development and the National Film Board combined. We spend $91 million on museums of heritage, civilization, science and technology. We even spend $4.45 million to protect the battlefields of Quebec. We spend $23 million on the Canadian radio, television and telecommunications, plus an additional $10 million this year because the Liberal government now wants to give stable multi-year funding to the CBC for the next five years. We spend $19.6 million on the National Arts Centre which is right down the street.

We spend $98 million on the National Capital Commission, the fourth level of government in this area of Ottawa-Hull. I have a hard time with that. Is there a need for four levels of government in the city of Ottawa? There is the federal government, provincial government, municipal government and a National Capital Commission on top of that.

Nobody gives you a ticket around here because they are afraid to. If they do give you a ticket they do not force you to pay for it because nobody knows whose jurisdiction it is. If there was ever a city that needed to be cleaned up, it is Ottawa. Toronto is a megacity. Why do they not make this a megacity, combine

everybody and kick the National Capital Commission people out of here. Let us just have one city and be proud of the city called the capital of Canada?

Across the bridge, Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau are thinking about getting together and forming one city. It is a great idea and there will be savings. We will have fewer politicians to boot which is what we need in this House and all across Canada, fewer politicians.

The National Gallery of Canada, the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada add up to $129 million. That is $2.9 billion, close to $3 billion, which is recorded in the public accounts, that we spend through Heritage Canada to promote Canadian identity. That is to promote Canadian human infrastructure and to communicate information about Canada through the telecommunications medium.

Is that not enough? Should we not now be proud Canadians? Should we not now be able to show all across Canada, across the 10 provinces with $3 billion that we are together and that we have it together? No, it is not.

This government throws money at every problem, from Indians to separatists to oil and gas people. It just throws money at everything. It does not throw what is really important at the Canadian public. What it does not throw is pride and the idea of being proud to be Canadian. There are better commercials from the private sector on being proud to be Canadian than what comes from this government.

We have to start promoting Canadians. One thing this government could do, which it does not have the guts to do-I know that is a parliamentary word, I know I can use it because it was used today in question period. This government and its Prime Minister do not have the guts, they have the power. But the heritage minister does not have the guts-yet she has the power-to do one thing on our census form. One simple little thing that would shut the separatists up. One simple little thing would bring us altogether from coast to coast to coast and that is to allow us on our census to put down Canadian, not Hungarian Canadian like I might have to put down, not French Canadian, not English Canadian, not Ukrainian Canadian, not German Canadian, not Polish Canadian but Canadian. Why do we not do that? Why is it that the government, with all its power, is too lazy and too stupid to do something so simple and so common sense?

(1655)

We are all, first and foremost, Canadians, not French Canadian or English Canadian or Canadians from Quebec. We can be proud of the region we come from. We can be proud of our cultural distinctions and our differences but we are Canadian. Why do we not just put down Canadian? What would be wrong with that? How much would that cost? Very, very little and this government will not do it.

I have said that Heritage Canada spends close to $3 billion on Canada, on Canadian identity and promoting this country. What about bilingualism? The separatists sit here and say we are not giving them enough. The Official Languages Commissioner claims we spend at least $600 million, but that is ridiculous. We know the cost of bilingualism is a lot higher. The cost is probably more like 5 per cent of the gross expenditures of the government which is about $120 billion.

Therefore, it is safe to say that we spend a great deal on bilingualism, on having everything in two languages and on promoting French outside of Quebec and English inside of Quebec, which the separatists do not want. The separatists believe in democracy, freedom and respect. You can take Quebec out of Canada but you cannot take anything out of Quebec. You can protect language as long as it is French. You do not protect English. That is hypocritical of this party. The cost of bilingualism promotes Canadianism and Canada and is another expenditure that we have.

My main point is that the government has not done enough. It has spent $3 billion in Heritage Canada. It has spent anywhere from $600 million to $6 billion on enforcing official bilingualism.

In conclusion, national unity cannot be legislated. This fly a free flag program was a disaster. Where was the Prime Minister on Saturday? Where was the leader of this country? Where was his pride? Was there nobody to strangle this weekend? Was there nobody to get his hands on this weekend? Where was he? The papers state he was out grocery shopping. Yes, right. Why was he not proud of what his minister was doing?

National unity cannot be legislated. It cannot be done. You cannot make the separatists happy. They have it in their minds that they would be better off by themselves. They are not correct in that assumption. We have to do more for Canadians in Quebec. Why does the government, which has a lot of bilingual ministers, not go in there and do more for Canadians in Quebec, more for the anglophones and more for the francophones who want to stay in Canada? Just to fly a flag is not enough. It is a failure. It was empty rhetoric.

I would like to see Canada come together and stay together. The start would be with the census where we would mark down our origins as being Canadian. Everyone who is born here is Canadian no matter from which province.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister today made one of many announcements, specifically about the fact that she is putting together a program for schools.

I must say that I agree with my colleague from Beaver River, as I do with my colleague from Calgary Centre, that we are proud Canadians and that these symbols, these flags, these crests and all of the information about the provinces are a very important part of Canada. I applaud the minister for the intent that she is exhibiting in making this kit available.

However, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on this. In our so-called paperless society, it is rather interesting that all of the information is currently available from Industry Canada by way of Internet. Probably the majority of schools at all levels in Canada now have access to the World Wide Web, the Internet.

(1700)

They can retrieve from the Internet all the graphic material which would include the flags, the coat of arms, all the provincial crests and provincial flags, and all the background and data that the teachers would require as teaching aids to tell our Canadian children more about Canada. However, while that is at no cost, this kit that the minister is putting together just by coincidence happens to include a CD ROM and a video. Very clearly there is going to be additional information on that.

I wonder if the member would agree that the probability is that once again our heritage minister is going to be giving to the students and teachers of Canada her own tiny perfect little vision of what Canada is really about rather than simply providing the information so that the people, the teachers and the students can come to their own judgment and inform themselves accordingly.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Certainly his comment and analysis of how you can promote Canada and disseminate information at a lower cost is a very valid one and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

It is clear in this whole fly a free flag program. A flag is supposed to be a symbol and if you are proud of your country why do you have to get a free one? Why not spend $15 and buy one? One could still be proud to do it. I think that is something we could have achieved for flag day and promoted.

The concept was a good one but it was going to cost $6 million, then actually $17 million and then another program on how to promote Canada, not knowing the cost. The cost could be in excess of what is in her budget, although a $3 billion budget is pretty good and there should some slush in a few places.

She said $6 million. It was finally $17.7 million with $2.2 million coming from the private sector, both corporate and individuals, with donations. That is $11.7 million net cost to the government. That is 195 per cent over budget. Obviously for this minister what is a million, what is a hundred million or what is fifty million?

In this promoting Canada and the failure of it, why when there were two 1-800 phone numbers for drapeau and for flag the rest of Canada subscribed to 89 per cent of the flags whereas in Quebec it was only 11 per cent? Why is it that we cannot wake up Quebecers? Why is it that we cannot wake up those Quebecers who want to stay in Canada and get them to stay in Canada? Part of this education program through the CD ROMs and computers should tell the facts and the truths.

For four years in the in the high schools in the province of Quebec they were teaching their Quebec students that with respect to their contribution to equalization payments, they paid more into Canada than they received when the facts were just the opposite. They took more out of our $8.5 billion equalization payments. The province of Quebec receives over half of that. They misrepresented the facts and this government let them get away with it and that is what I object to. It has the power, the knowledge and all it has to do is make some decisions. It does not cost to fix what is right. It does not cost a whole lot of money to be proud to be Canadian.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-asbestos industry.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the question raised by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe and to have a chance to correct some facts mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois.

[English]

The expression the pot calling the kettle black is indeed one that would apply in this instance in my opinion. I have listened to the comments made by opposition members who feel it is a crime if you admit that you are proud to be Canadian and a Quebecer. As a Quebecer I am indeed insulted by the accusations that are being made today.

Through its efforts of promoting Canadian identity the Government of Canada is playing a crucial role in defining its future. We are committed to strengthening Canadians' sense of attachment to this country, as well as the links which unite them from coast to coast. To that end we have given Canadian citizens an increasing number of opportunities to learn more about their country and to communicate among themselves and with the rest of the world.

(1705)

Through dialogue and understanding we have succeeded in building a society that is enriched by cultural diversity and two official languages, a society that is open to the rest of the world and facing the future head on.

Be it through the Canada information office or the one in a million national flag challenge program, the federal government is proud to promote Canada's richness and diversity both here at home and throughout the world.

[Translation]

If there is a subject on which the Bloc is ill-advised to criticize our government it is that of government propaganda.

The Bloc Quebecois and its brother, the Parti Quebecois, have mastered the art of political propaganda. For those two parties, everything is a good vehicle for the promotion of their separatist views. We could give a few examples of cases where the PQ government and its sovereignist allies used public money to promote their political option. This government and its partners spent large amounts of money promoting their separatist option and trying to obtain a Yes vote in the last referendum. All these expenses, all this money wasted came out of the pockets of Quebec taxpayers.

For the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, propaganda knows no price or age limits. Whether it is producing new history books or replacing students' workbooks with propaganda books, whether it is sending pamphlets to senior citizens and those receiving social assistance, postcards to all households in Quebec, press releases and documentation to schools, material to professional corporations, whether it is by stepping up the number of regional tours, summits, consultations of all sorts, for these two separatist parties, the end justifies the means.

However, when the government decides to respond and to correct the inaccuracies being spread by the separatists, they come out with charges of propaganda and misuse of public funds. When the Government of Canada decides in turn to encourage national pride, the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois charge propaganda and misuse of public funds.

The Bloc Quebecois refuses to accept that the very great majority of Quebecers love Canada and are happy to see the Canadian government finally decide to promote Canada.

[English]

In the eyes of the Bloc it has become unthinkable that Quebecers still wish to be considered Canadian. What do I tell the 518 constituents in my riding of Saint-Denis who asked to receive a flag to display their pride in their country?

We received many phone calls for the Canadian flag. People are still proud to display the Canadian flag in the riding of Saint-Denis and all over the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

I will give a few examples of spending on sovereigntist propaganda and, as I have said, the list is not exhaustive. First of all, with respect to the use of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois would be well advised to take a little look at what went on in Quebec during the last two referendums.

In 1980, the entire government machinery was made available for ``the cause''. Millions of dollars were spent on polls, when the economic situation should have called for tighter control over public spending.

In 1995, the entire government machinery was again put into service, once again for ``the cause''. But sovereignists will use any excuse to make such behaviour acceptable to the public.

This motion refers to budget cuts to cultural institutions that are unprecedented in Canadian history.

The Government of Canada never dared use artists for political ends as the Parti Quebecois did in the last two referendums. The Government of Canada supports artists without ulterior motives and without asking for their allegiance to any doctrine. For at least 30 years, the Government of Canada has maintained programs to support cultural institutions and all Canadian artists willing to put their talents to contribution in any artistic or cultural activity.

(1710)

In Quebec, it was not the Parti Quebecois but a Liberal government that introduced the act recognizing the status of the artist. The Bloc Quebecois would be well advised to look closely in the mirror before making accusations like the ones it made today.

I would like to quote Lucien Bouchard, who said in 1994: ``I would respect the flag of any country, and especially that of my own country, which has been the flag of my ancestors for hundreds of years. I must respect it''. We have numerous quotes fromMr. Bouchard when he was sitting in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite my own personal experience as an example.

[English]

My parents arrived from Greece. I have lived for over 37 years in this country. My parents chose Canada. This country has been good to them. They love this country. They are proud Canadians. I am a proud Canadian. Where else in the world would someone with my modest background have had the opportunity to serve their fellow Canadians in this respected institution which we call the House of Commons?

For me and the majority of Canadians of Hellenic origin as well as other Canadians of other origins, and the two are compatible for my friends from the Reform Party, the flag is one symbol that unites us. It is a symbol that tells us of the greatness of this country. Every year I hold a Canada Day celebration in my riding. Over 1,000 proud Canadians of all origins and including French Canadians participate in that event. We celebrate our flag and we celebrate our country.

I will continue to do so every July 1. That is my commitment to my constituents. I will continue to show the flag, to show how proud I am to be a Canadian, how proud I am of a symbol that is respected internationally. Everywhere I travel people talk about the greatness of this country. One of the symbols they have come to know is our flag.

We will continue to live in a society that is tolerant and that respects other opinions, but there is one thing that we will never compromise on, the Canadian flag and the symbols that unite us and the fact that we are and will continue to be proud Canadians.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to our distinguished colleague from the Montreal region, who told us about how her father came from Greece 37 years ago, and how much her family appreciates life in Canada. I respect the feelings she has shared with this House.

I would, however, like to ask her the following: she lives in Quebec, she was brought up in Quebec, she speaks French and English. Could she explain to us how she sees the Quebec culture, how she sees the Canadian culture, and what distinction she makes between the two?

Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I think I would need more than one minute to respond to my colleague, if I have to explain my pride in being a Quebecer, my pride at belonging to a distinct culture, to use that term, one which I accept moreover.

I am proud to be a Quebecer, but I find that the two cultures are compatible. There is no difference between being a Quebecer and being a Canadian, for me they are the same thing. I can be a Quebecer, and proud of it, I have lived in Quebec all my life and I hope to continue living in the province of Quebec for the rest of my days, as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian citizen.

Mr. de Savoye: What about culture?

Mrs. Bakopanos: For me, culture is where the beauty of Canada lies. The beauty of Canada is that we have two cultures, and that we can draw from the richness of both the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture.

(1715)

What I find a bit odd is that Bloc members cannot appreciate the cultures of Quebec and Canada and be proud to be both Quebecers and Canadians.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member for St. Denis when she referred, in English, to ``the pot calling the kettle black''. How can Bloc members rise in the House and with a straight face say things like ``Denounce the use of public funds''?

They object to our spending $15 million on promoting unity and tolerance in this wonderful country, and they just spent $60 million on a referendum that is divisive and hurts Quebec's economy. Talk about a double standard.

I think that is appalling. I have friends among the First Nations, and they would probably call this speaking with a forked tongue. On one side, millions have been spent. The separatist movement, which the Bloc supports, has infiltrated our schools and the CBC. Millions have been spent. At this very moment, the Government of Quebec is spending millions of dollars of federal money to promote its independence option.

So I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud of my Canadian flag. In recent years, I travelled in many countries, and people recognize the Canadian flag and the symbol it represents. It is not recognized because it has a nice maple leaf and it is red, although I am rather fond of the colour red. This flag is known throughout the world for what it represents: the best country in the world where tolerance is a fact of life. And it is this tolerance, this unity we want to keep in Canada and Quebec, because Quebec is still part of Canada.

I have my roots in Quebec as well. My ancestors arrived in Quebec City in 1634 and 1658, respectively. My francophone culture is not Quebec culture, not Franco-Ontarian but Canadian. When we refer to Canadian culture, we are talking about anglophone culture, francophone culture and the culture of all the ethnic groups in this country.

Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. In my speech I referred to what the PQ government spent on government propaganda so I will not repeat what I already said.

I believe we are all aware that public money is being spent for purely partisan purposes. I think we saw many examples of this in the last referendum. We can only hope that our Bloc colleagues will think about all this, and I will repeat what I said, that I am proud to be a Quebecer and a Canadian. I am proud to be both.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion by the member for Richmond-Wolfe, I would first like to say that the Government of Canada is taking a whole series of measures to promote Canada's identity.

The Canada Information Office and the one in a million flag campaign are only two of a multitude of measures the government has taken to enable Canadians to express their pride and sense of belonging to Canada.

Culture is the collection of ways we see ourselves belonging to a group, a society and a country. It is not an abstraction outside reality, but, rather, the vital link binding us each to the other. It is therefore to be found at the heart of Canada's culture.

As Canada's ninth largest industry, the cultural sector involves some 670,000 jobs and creates revenues of $16 billion annually. By promoting our cultural industries, we are achieving a twofold objective: helping Canada's identity grow and Canada's economy expand.

Like all the other sectors in society, the cultural sector has had to do its part and come up with innovative solutions to meet the challenges posed by the state of the economy.

(1720)

Even in times of cutbacks, the present government has taken direct and indirect measures to strengthen the cultural sector and promote cultural growth.

I am thinking of the television and cable fund for the distribution of Canadian programs announced last September, among others. Television is a unique vehicle for cultural programming and occupies a large space in our lives. No other medium is so much a part of our daily lives and has such sway over our leisure time than television.

Television allows francophones, especially those who live outside Quebec, to have direct access to French culture in this country and to follow what is happening in the community and in French Canada in general.

Television is a means of conveying values and realities specific to francophones, even to promote the growth of the French language. For minority francophones, the access to French programming is, in some cases, a matter of survival.

Despite the need to have French-language Canadian content on the air, only 30 per cent of French television dramas are produced in Canada. Furthermore, it is estimated that about half of Quebec children's programming is produced abroad.

We must expand our capacity to communicate our views on the world to others in Canada and abroad in both official languages. We must broadcast more television programs produced by Canadians about Canadians for Canadians and the entire world. In a multi-channel television world, it is also a matter of survival. Without competitive quality Canadian programming, the Canadian presence on the air will diminish gradually.

It is essential for Canadians to be able to watch programs which they like and which reflect their reality. It is in this perspective that the Government of Canada announced the creation of the Canadian television and cable production fund for the production of Canadian programs, which amounts to $200 million per year. This fund is expected to produce $650 million worth of investments and to create some 10,000 new jobs. As was announced a few days ago, in addition to this new fund, the government will now provide stable funding for the CBC.

These two measures will help boost the broadcasting industry in Canada. They will generate new dramas, new variety programs, new programs for children, new documentaries and new cultural programs.

We are committed to supporting culture, and we will continue to implement measures to promote it. These measures demonstrate without a doubt that we are committed to supporting every aspect of arts and culture, which is the cornerstone of our collective identity.

Whether we are francophones or anglophones, whether we come from Gaspé or Vancouver, we all have the same desires and the same goals: we all want our culture to reflect what we are. The measures taken by the government to support the cultural sector are a direct contribution to the vitality of the two large linguistic communities in this country.

Mr. Speaker, there are several ways to promote the development of the Canadian identity. The Government of Canada may not have all the answers but, even in a period of financial restraint, it is taking critical steps to strengthen our identity and reaffirm our presence within the international community, because the future of our country is at stake.

(1725)

Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I believe he overlooked several facts. He concealed some figures.

He did not mention the fact that his government has cut $20 million from the French radio network of the CBC, nor that it has also cut $7.5 million from the Canadian centre for magnetic fusion in Varennes. However, this same government found $23 million for its heritage minister's flags. It also found $550,000 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Canadian citizenship and passport. I could quote more figures in other areas where it failed to mention how it is going about its propaganda activities.

In Canada and Quebec, we have artistic creators. Current guidelines from Heritage Canada require that people wanting to deal with Canada in that area do so not on the basis of their artistic talents, in every aspect of artistic life, but on the basis of whether or not their work promotes Canadian unity.

Their talents are evaluated according to their capacity to strengthen Canadian unity. I ask my colleague if he believes that using artists to promote Canadian unity is a good way to meet this objective?

Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I agree that, in the present context, some cuts are necessary.

I would like to remind my colleague that the funding for Télé-Québec, the corporation which replaced Radio-Québec, has been cut nearly by half.

On the other hand, we in this government did not impose such drastic cuts on Radio-Canada. We did make some cuts, but their purpose was to ensure the survival and financial well-being of the corporation. I refuse to say that we are not protecting our cultural institutions.

When I look at what the Quebec government, Mr. Bouchard's government did, when I see the extent of the cutbacks in the cultural institutions' budgets, a 50 per cent cutback, I think there is something seriously wrong with the system.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before anything else, I would like you to ask if we have unanimous consent to put this motion to a vote.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We do not have unanimous consent.

(1730)

Mr. de Savoye: I am truly sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had to check the interest of my Liberal colleagues in this matter.

From a legal point of view, I am a Canadian; from a constitutional point of view, I am a Canadian. But in my heart, I am a Quebecer. This is the crux of the matter. How much money, how many flags will Heritage Canada have to distribute to change the deep feelings I have?

I travelled in a number of countries; I travelled in the rest of Canada. When I am outside Quebec I see the cultural differences, I see the difference in values, I see the difference in standards and benchmarks. When I am outside Quebec I know that I am not home, in the very deep sense of the term.

Yes, when I travel in Canada I am legally in that country given to me by the Constitution, but it is a country where people speak and think in English. The values are excellent, but different in their form and substance from the ones we have in Quebec.

There is an Anglo-Canadian culture, different from the American culture. I know, I have been on both sides of the border, but this culture is not the culture found in Quebec. To tell you the truth, I would be hard-pressed to name movie stars, singers, actors, etc. from English Canada. I would not have the same problem with Quebec artists. Why? Because I listen to radio programs from Quebec, and they introduce us to artists from Quebec and the rest of the French-speaking world; because I read in French and I soak up what happens in the environment where I was raised and educated, which is Quebec.

When I am on this side of the Quebec border, I certainly find a friendly environment, with people with whom I can develop some friendships, but who are not from my culture. These are people with their own culture, and I am pleased to share in, to know and to appreciate their culture, but it is not mine. How much money will the minister of heritage have to spend to entice me to adopt a new culture?

You understand that Canada does not have enough money to change this culture that is deeply rooted in me. And if this is true for me, it is also true for millions of Quebecers. No amount of money will ever change this people and assimilate them into another people. This is why the minister of heritage's work is doomed to failure and this is in fact a waste of public money.

What I am saying is my case and the case of millions of Quebecers, but not the case of all Quebecers. Earlier, the member for Saint-Denis expressed an opposite opinion: she feels comfortable in this English Canadian culture.

(1735)

This is what she feels and I cannot blame her for it. But the opposite is also true. I cannot be blamed for my own feeling, millions of Quebecers cannot be blamed for sharing this feeling.

On this side of the border, the culture is different and, consequently, attitudes are different. A week ago today, I had the opportunity to attend, in the Lester B. Pearson building, at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a presentation by a panel of American experts on the second mandate policies of the American president, Mr. Clinton.

The masters of ceremony, of course an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs, opened the meeting exclusively in English. But at the registration table, we were welcomed in both official languages. The documents handed out were bilingual, and interpretation services were available in seven or eight languages. French was naturally among these languages.

This meeting ran all morning and into the afternoon. There was a question period scheduled for members of the audience. I was the only one who got up and went to the mike to put a question in French to our American guests, who were provided with interpretation services of course. In fact, of the 75 or 100 Canadians in the room, I was the only one who questioned these eminent panellists on the policy thrusts for Mr. Clinton's second mandate regarding cultural issues in Canada.

You will understand that there are serious matters at issue here. Take the matter of Sports Illustrated for instance. There is also the dispute between the Minister of Industry and Telesat Canada, on the one hand, and the American FCC, on the other hand, over who will acquire two American satellites to be used for television broadcast.

Nobody but me raised this cultural question. It is important to all of Canada, but I was the only one to raise it, and I did so in French. I was not in my own country.

You will understand that the differences I perceive as I travel across Canada are important enough to make me feel like anyone who travels to a foreign country. Of course, I use the same currency, Canadian money. Of course, I do not need a passport. But I do not find myself among people who share my values, feelings and nationality.

A little more than a century ago, Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe Routhier composed the music and the lyrics of ``O Canada'', in French. These lyrics referred to their francophone ancestors. The translation in English came only later, and it does not render the notions and the feelings of the original, but is rather a transposition reflecting the values and the feelings of those of British ancestry.

(1740)

In so doing, already 150 years ago, they created two Canadas, one of which is now called Quebec. How much more will the Minister of Canadian Heritage have to spend to change this reality which persists after 400 years, of which the first 150 were totally French? The Minister of Canadian Heritage has invested a lot a money to influence my heart.

For the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, 300 of the 600 billboards were put up in Quebec, while the other 300 were scattered throughout Canada. In that sense, we were already distinct.

An amount of $1.1 million was allocated to heritage moments, or heritage minutes, designed by the Charles Bronfman Foundation, but $2.2 million was paid. For the Canadian identity, we are talking about $3 million; for the operation unity, during the referendum campaign, the Privy Council was allocated $11 million; the Council for Canadian Unity received $8.4 million, while the Canada Information Office, which was funded by Heritage Canada, got $19.5 million. The one million flag operation cost $23 million; operation unity cost $5 million; the Attractions Canada spots currently shown on the TVA and CTV networks cost $1.5 million. All these figures add up to $100 million. And let me tell you this: even after spending $100 million, the heritage minister has not managed to change one bit the feelings that make me a Quebecer.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that, in my opinion, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is using all these resources to deny Quebec's specificity and to make it a Canadian region like any other. You will understand that, after spending $100 million, the minister still has not succeeded in her attempt.

As for the language issue, the government is trying to hide its failed Canadian policy. All the key federalist players deny the fact that francophones outside Quebec are being assimilated-thank goodness there are some left, thank goodness they are taking their destiny into their own hands, and thank goodness Quebec will always support them. However, the fact is there were many more 10, 20 or 100 years ago.

The goal of the Canadian language policy is no longer to preserve and promote the linguistic duality but, it seems, to make Canada a bilingual country for francophones, which will eventually lead to their assimilation.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for culture and communications. She is in charge of official languages, national parks, historic monuments and sports. Parliament created that department to put together all the areas relating to the promotion of the Canadian identity, to which I do not relate and never will.

(1745)

Here are four examples of Ottawa's attitude toward Quebec culture, a culture which, as far as the federal government is concerned, does not seem to exist. First of all, the passage of the Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, which provides that the Department of Canadian Heritage shall initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and values, cultural development and heritage.

On both sides, existing values are excellent and impressive, but they are different and consequently should be treated differently and distinctly with all due respect, through appropriate mechanisms developed by the people who espouse these values.

After the referendum, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage held hearings to help promote Canadian unity and Canadian identity. The committee invited major Canadian cultural institutions to testify about their activities to promote Canadian unity and asked citizens to suggest activities that would reinforce Canadian identity and unity.

Merging these two cultures is sheer fantasy. Quebec culture is fundamentally distinct from the culture of the rest of Canada. And perhaps there are a number of cultures in the rest of Canada that are just as distinct, if we consider the aboriginal people.

A third example: the director of the National Gallery in Ottawa, Shirley Thomson, made a submission to the committee without a single reference to the visual arts of Quebec. Believe it or not, John Harvard, who chaired the committee and only speaks English, commended her for remaining silent on the subject.

My fourth and last point is this. The director general of the Canada Council, Roch Carrier, was scolded by committee members

because the council awarded a grant to Marie Laberge, a sovereignist artist who co-wrote the preamble to the sovereignty bill.

My point is that as far as culture and values are concerned, it is impossible-and history has shown this to be the case with even the smallest groups on this planet- to change the values by which we live, to assimilate a population and especially a population like Quebec, which has been around for 400 years and is developing by leaps and bounds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your attention, and I hope that what I just said will help my colleagues in this House understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is wasting public funds.

Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Timiskaming-French River.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, which were, in my opinion, at times, anecdotal and personal.

(1750)

I would like the member to tell us what these values are. He talks of Quebec values, of Canadian values. Canadian values are universal: those of tolerance, sharing, equality among Canadians. I think this has given the country its strength for these many years.

I agree that Canada is in a league of its own. The member opposite will agree with me, as do most people on this planet, that Canada is nevertheless a success. I recognize that the program of the department of cultural affairs cost nearly $20 million.

I would ask the member to explain the dramatic costs of Quebec's separation from Canada and the divisions it would create. Walls are tumbling down these days. The focus is on unifying and sharing in every respect, not only in terms of trade, but in terms of values as well. These Canadian values are part of our daily lives.

We hear international commentators saying that they would like to have lived in Canada. Our standard of living, our economic successes are the envy of many.

It is sad to hear people criticizing Canadian values. Canada is a success compared to other countries. The United Nations has said so on a number of occasions. We can go as far back as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said, a little over 100 years ago, that the overriding thought in his life was to reconcile the various elements of this extraordinary country. The combining of these various forces is what made Canada into what it is today.

I hope the member opposite will remember that these values are universal and that they have served not only all of Canada, but Quebecers especially.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I have never, ever, put down Canadian values. They deserve respect, but these are values that belong to the rest of Canada. Quebec has its own cultural values, as every nation has. There are no values with a capital V that are universal. Even the French have values that are different from ours. The fact that we speak the same language does not necessarily mean that we share the same values.

The Americans speak English and so do English Canadians. Do they have exactly the same values? No, there are some differences, just as there are similarities, I am sure. There are, of course, values that transcend cultures. Tolerance is one value that we share, I agree.

But when I discuss our cultural foundations and our vision with my English speaking colleagues, given their cultural baggage, they sometimes see certain values differently than I do. This difference is normal and natural, and I respect it.

What I ask is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to show the same respect and stop stubbornly spending tens of millions of dollars on eliminating these differences. The richness of our respective cultures would suffer. These differences must remain. We must remain who we are. We must develop a new co-operative approach and partnership. Sovereign states sharing certain responsibilities seems like a modern alternative to the old approach that does not work.

(1755)

Earlier, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine indicated how prosperous a country Canada was. You must agree with me that, for a time, Canada did seem to be a prosperous country, but that was only because of endless borrowing, resulting in this accumulated debt we have today, totalling approximately $600 billion. Any country ill-advised enough to accumulate such a huge debt would become the best place in the world to live in.

At present, in all our ridings, and I am sure this situation exists in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine as well, some people can barely afford three square meals a day. There are children who go to school hungry. This country we call Canada is not the best place in the world to live in for these people. Such situations should not exist.

During that time, approximately $100 million was spent on trying to swallow up Quebec's culture. That is a waste of time and money and, more importantly, it is money that would be better spent helping the most disadvantaged in our society.

I think I have made my point. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will certainly agree with me that there are people in his riding who could use this money.

Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf is right when he says that Canada's current prosperity is largely the result of loans we have a hard time paying back.

I want to tell my colleague, and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, that this prosperity was generated by the work of Canadians and Quebecers; it is not related to the confederation. Canada's prosperity should not be used as an argument in favour of the federation. We all know other federations which are definitely not prosperous, such as Russia or the former Yugoslavia.

There is no causal link between the political system of this country and its prosperity. It is work, the work of the people, that generated this prosperity. So, let us stop raving about this prosperity and use it as an argument in favour of federalism.

If you cut a cake into two pieces, the pieces are as good after as they were before the cake was cut. If we split Canada into two parts, will Quebec and the rest of the country be less prosperous? The answer is no. So, let us cut the cake into two pieces, let each one have a piece, let us remain friends, and let us stop raving about how good the cake was before it was shared. It will be just as good after it is shared.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier, the hon. member for Portneuf talked about wasting time and money. The biggest waste of time and money for Quebecers was to elect 50 some members from the Bloc Quebecois.

These members have been sitting here for about three and a half years. I did some quick calculations. I figured that, over the last three years, they collectively spent, in salaries, budgets for their ridings and transportation, some $100 million, all this on purely separatist propaganda.

The only motion which I could support today in this House would be: ``That this House condemn the use of public funds by the Bloc Quebecois on purely separatist propaganda activities''.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, whatever amount we cost the public purse, each of us costs exactly the same as any member of this House.

However, the money used to pay for my salary and for the operation of my office comes from my constituents who elected me with 54 per cent of the votes. That is democracy. If my hon. colleague opposite cannot respect the fact that 53 members of the Bloc were democratically elected according to the rules of this Parliament and of this Canada to whom we belong legally and constitutionally and which also govern the way he was elected himself, if there is a double standard allowing him to sit here because the rules are good for him whereas they are not good for us and we are not entitled to sit here, then he should say so and assume that Quebec would be better off forming a country of its own.

(1800)

In any case, that is what we want. We are asking for it, we are waiting for you to grant it to us, and if you refuse to do so, then the people, by way of a referendum, will demand it.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too was elected by 60 percent of my constituents to serve Canada in this House. That is what I intend to do.

I would like to address the House today to set the record straight. I want to talk about the exceptional measures taken recently to help francophones in this country develop culturally. It is true that the arts and culture sector in Canada has suffered cutbacks, on both the anglophone and francophone sides. You know this better than anyone: the economic situation in which we find ourselves requires that the government reduce spending. It has no other choice. This is the case for Canada and it is the case for all other countries in the world, including Quebec, more about which, which is now up against new international stakes.

All sectors in society, including the cultural sector, must look at the situation and carry their share of the load. Canada's prosperity depends on it. But let us be clear: there is no question of the economic development of our country moving ahead to the detriment of our culture and our collective identity.

Above all, the Government of Canada has no intention of weakening without due cause a sector as important as culture, which alone contributes $30 billion to the Canadian economy and represents almost 900,000 direct jobs, even less so in this time of expanding markets and borders when the cultural vitality of a country is a key to success and to the future.

Francophones share in this cultural wealth that makes Canada so unique and so successful. One quarter of the population speaks, sings, writes and lives in French, including my community in northern Ontario. From our earliest history, francophones have constituted an influential force that has contributed to the growth of this country, culturally, socially and economically.

In this context, the government's commitment to francophone communities in minority situations takes on its full significance. The government wants to help its communities meet the challenges of their situation so that they can continue to take part in Canada's development and help strengthen its cultural identity.

Francophones outside Quebec recently expressed their concerns regarding government cuts to the CBC. They were worried that these cuts would have adverse effects on regional programming.

We know how important it is for these communities to have access to French language broadcasting that reflects their values, presents their perspective on the world and enables them to communicate with each other. For those who are most isolated, it is nothing less than a matter of survival.

Aware of this reality, the CBC and the government took the necessary decisions. Last January, the CBC announced a series of measures to reduce the impact of these cuts on French language programming outside Quebec.

First, the four western television stations will give up the news cast Ce soir. In addition, regional stations will continue to produce children's, news and special broadcasts focusing on events of importance to these communities.

Second, the CBC will make available to independent producers and community groups of the Acadian community in the maritimes a mobile T.V. unit to cover cultural and community events. It will also provide a $500,000 line of credit.

Third, the sum of $500,000 will be set aside for the most affected radio stations outside Quebec, those in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Windsor, in order to augment the content of local broadcasting.

(1805)

I remind everyone that radio stations serving minority francophone communities were less affected by the cuts than other CBC radio stations on the average throughout the country.

In a press release dated January 30, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, a national coalition of nine provincial and two territorial francophone associations, praised the efforts of the CBC. It said: ``This reorganization demonstrates that the CBC is becoming increasingly attuned to the needs of the communities in the various provinces, as well as to its mandate to those communities''.

Subsequent to this, the Government of Canada also made two major decisions which will help the CBC fulfil this mandate. It announced that it would be giving an additional $10 million to the French and English language services of CBC radio.

According to Marcel Pépin, Vice-President CBC French language radio, this will enable radio to better fulfil its primary missions: to support talent, maintain information systems which are strongly anchored in the regions, and properly reflect regional voices on the AM and FM networks.

One piece of good news follows another. Starting April 1, 1998, the government will guarantee stable financing to the CBC for the next 5 years, in keeping with the announcement it made less than a week ago.

In addition, a new television and cable production fund has been created for the production of Canadian programs, totalling $200 million yearly, and now accessible to the CBC.

I hardly need to point out that these announcements were received with a great deal of joy by the francophone communities in this country. Canada's cultural vitality must of necessity include the cultural development of its francophe population. French speaking Canadians have shaped the history of this country, and they lend a singular face and a special voice to Canada. That is why, despite the financial restrictions facing it, the government has intervened to strengthen the cultural foundations of the francophone communities outside Quebec.

To touch the culture of a country is to touch its very soul. On the eve of a new millennium, we are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity of using every possible means to strengthen the soul of this country. All of these measures, and those the government plans to take in future to safeguard Canadian culture, are paving the way to the Canada of tomorrow.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague, the member from northern Ontario.

In this country, there are two founding nations; it is a little bit like a couple. You cannot buy love. I recall that on October 27, 1995, people in the party opposite spent an inordinate amount of money on a sudden show of love for the Quebec people. Tens of thousands of people from Ontario and New Brunswick converged on Place Canada, downtown Montreal. Even the airlines were asked to do their share. People were supposed to suddenly show their love.

Twelve month later, there was an attempt to repeat the performance, but this time the airlines and the Liberal Party of Canada were not asked to contribute. The result: hardly 225 people showed up to profess their love for the Quebec people.

(1810)

Was it love for one day or love for ever? Quebecers will not be bought with flags, biased information, information that sounds like the kind of propaganda that could be heard on the airwaves in Europe at a certain time.

I must commend my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond-Wolfe, for his motion. I would like to read the part I am interested in. As he said so rightly a little while ago, the government must reduce its expenditures. It has been cutting everywhere except in the area of propaganda.

The member for Richmond-Wolfe wrote:

That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and the One Million Flags Operation-

They had to give get rid of these infamous flags; the magic number was one million and there are 30 million of us. This means that one Canadian in 30 had to receive a flag. Robert Gillet, alias Bob Sweater, received several thousands of them. Sirs, you have become the laughing stock of Quebecers.

We are in the thick of budget cuts. Try to explain to your government that it is currently squandering public funds on propaganda activities that are underhanded, disgusting and verging on the ridiculous.

Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed one of those Canadians who travelled to Montreal in 1995. I did it with pride, and I would gladly do it again tomorrow. I went back there afterwards too. It has not been just a one day love affair, as you say. I do not believe in the love of one night, also called a one night stand.

I went back to beautiful Quebec City. And I have to tell you I visit Quebec City with the same pride I feel when I visit the Rockies, Vancouver or the maritimes. Each summer, I spend a week down there visiting my Acadian brothers and cousins. Incidentally, I met the hon. member there.

Let me say just this. We did not go to Montreal just to tell Quebecers we love them, but also to undo some of the misinformation by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. I visited Jonquière, not far from Mr. Bouchard's riding. I asked about 200 people how many French speaking Canadians they thought we have in Ontario: 5,000, 10,000, or 50,000?

When I told them 50,000, they were amazed and would not believe there were more than 10,000, because that is what they had been told by the separatist propaganda. When I told them there were 600,000 francophones in Ontario, and that 400,000 anglophones had learned French, they would not believe me. One million people speak French in Ontario, and they are not even aware we exist, and they want to make an informed decision on the future of this country. This is the problem we have in Canada. There is a lack of communication.

(1815)

Quebecers are ill-informed by the media which are very often separatist but work with federal money. That is why it is so important that the federal government should make sure Quebecers and all Canadians are proud of their flag and have all the information they need if another referendum is ever held, so that Quebecers can make an informed decision. This time you will be soundly beaten.

Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): With your propaganda.

Mr. Serré: I would rather use public funds for propaganda to promote pride in this country-and I am proud of it-than to promote separation and job loss.

My colleague, the member for Portneuf, just said that there are children who still live in poverty and suffer. I admit this is true. It is true in Quebec and outside. But the problem may now be more serious in Quebec because of the separatist option which hinders job creation and economic recovery in that province and elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member who just gave an impassioned speech. He spoke with a lot of conviction about the Canadian francophonie and, of course, the preservation of Quebec within the Canadian federation.

However, I want to point out that the promotion of a sovereign or an independent Quebec is hurting Quebec and is worrying some people, including investors. We must ensure that the people know the full cost of independence.

We talked about the unemployed young people in my riding and the economic problems we have, which are, indeed, very serious. If we do not have the opportunity to address the concerns of our people it is mainly because of the political instability which is being propagated and pursued by the Parti Quebecois and also because of the presence of the Bloc Quebecois here, in Ottawa.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member argues that political instability is hurting the economy, but what about Team Canada's missions in countries where human rights are violated? What about these missions in countries where the political system is almost undemocratic and even in some cases totalitarian? This is going too far.

We have to tell it like it is. Federalism comes with a price that the province of Quebec has been paying for the last 150 years. Federalism comes with a price tag that has reached an unacceptable level, and sovereignty is the option supported by the province of Quebec, which is asking the rest of Canada to set up a new framework called a partnership. This framework would be particularly well defined, absolutely negotiable and would put an end to any so-called political instability.

It takes two to create instability. As long as this problem is maintained by our federalist friends, it will not go away. The only way to settle it is to opt for a partnership where the province of Quebec will become sovereign and take its responsibilities, and where Canada will do the same. Only then will we be able to face

the problems of the 21st century, instead of trying to deal with problems left over from the 19th century.

[English]

Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Frontenac a while ago was talking about love of one night.

Mrs. Picard: On parle tous français ici. Ceux qui t'écoutent parlent français et comprennent le français.

Mr. Serré: It is my right, Madam, to speak English or French in this country, and I prefer at this point to address the House in English. Please have the decency to accept that.

(1820 )

The member for Frontenac was referring to a love of only one night. I think the member for Portneuf is talking about having a separation, a divorce, because the family is not working anymore. After that he said ``We want to get back together. We want to remarry. We will get divorced but we want to keep not only alimony from Canada but also bed privileges''. I say that they cannot have it both ways.

[Translation]

Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think there is very little time left in this House. I can assure you that Quebec will be part of the Canadian Federation for still a very long time because I can feel things are changing.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Gagnon: Things are changing in Quebec. I feel the will of a new generation. The will not of the old generation, not of these backward-looking people, but of a new generation that has taken the opportunity to travel, to explore, to exchange, to find new ways to communicate, new ways to create jobs, to open up to new horizons often unexploited.

You know, the great Canadian project meets the real needs of the people. Lucien Bouchard came to my constituency in the Magdalen Islands to announce a $200,000 grant for a small project there. As for us, we invested $1.5 million to send workers back to school, to develop programs, to train a new generation of workers. That is what the Canadian government wants; that is what the people want: to put Canadians back to work.

I hear them in the House talk about telecommunications, and the electronic highway, but, as you may know, my constituency has the greatest number of netsurfers in all of Quebec. More than eight villages are on the net. This is not the case, unfortunately, throughout Quebec. Through federal programs, thanks to the Canadian government, these new community centres are linked to the Internet. I hope they will be able to create long term jobs in my riding.

Unfortunately, there is always some lag time in communications.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that, as usual, our colleague is brilliantly doing his thing but I think he is not speaking on the motion and therefore is out of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I have no doubt that the hon. for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will soon speak to the motion and that his remarks will surely be similar to others made during debate this afternoon.

Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight, so to speak, these values. And one of the great values of our Canadian federation is taking care of the needy. It is also to say the truth and, often, to denounce iniquities, injustices frequently committed by the government of Quebec.

Of course, I sometimes speak as someone in opposition, but what concerns us most is not propaganda, it is not flags, it is to put people back to work. And I believe that we must tell this to Quebecers, we must condemn the opposition once and for all, by saying that there are costs-

[English]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I will now speak in English. Maybe I will be better understood by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I appreciate whatever he is saying but obviously he did not get the point you made, that he would eventually come to the motion.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): As I said earlier, today's debate has been quite general, at least while I occupied the chair.

I have no doubt that the hon. member who is making remarks concerning national unity, which really has been the topic of today's debate during most of the time I occupied the chair, is making his remarks are on the same subject and that directly he will be moving on to the subject of the motion.

Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, one must conclude that the hon. member of the opposition has not understood anything because Quebecers said no on two occasions. I wanted to remind him of that.

(1825)

I think that we must make sure that Quebecers and the rest of Canadians gain a better understanding of the way the Canadian federation works. Our system is not perfect, I admit, but I believe that it is our duty to explain to the people how our federation works and to promote exchanges between Canadians.

I do not think that we must put up obstacles. I do not think that we must isolate Quebec from the rest of Canada or from the international mainstreams. I think that sometimes, we must spend all the money that is necessary. Some people may not like it, but some others are happy with it and I believe that the ultimate goal is to make sure that for Quebecers, the sovereigntists do not take over the debate without being challenged in their assertions.

I think that it is worth mentioning the millions spent by the Quebec government in nonrecurring or special projects, like the $4 million that went to the Conseil de la souveraineté, to which I often allude, the $300,000 spent on the 1-800-INDEPENDANCE toll free line, and the $8.5 million used to finance the separatist commissions and the sovereignty commissions just before the referendum.

That opposition that is suppose to be the loyal opposition is not so loyal to Canada after all. This is not the case. These people have used most of their time dismantling the Canadian federation, and I believe and hope that the figures provided by the opposition and the things it says will be put in the proper context, based on clear explanations of the benefits of the Canadian federation to the people of Quebec.

I know of no government, be it in England, Germany or France, which would not do anything in its power to preserve the unity of its country. I believe we have shown an exemplary tolerance. We are not propagandists, but people who wish to share true information. We want a balanced debate. I believe that the primary goal of the Department of Cultural Affairs and of this government is to make sure that the truth is known. The reason we are here in this Chamber is to discuss a substantive issue. We talk about the Canadian flag, Canadian colours and Canadian history.

I wish to talk about the future and about employment. Now, we all know that the future lies within the Canadian federation and not outside as the opposition claims.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague-

Mr. Serré: Mr. Speaker, I think that this discussion is being conducted on my time, and we already had two interventions. I did not have the opportunity to answer the hon. member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): As I indicated, there are two minutes left for questions or comments. As we all know, it is customary for the first question or comment following a speech to go to an hon. member from a different party, and this is the reason why I recognized the hon. member for Frontenac who now has the floor for one minute.

Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for playing Solomon. That is perfect, one minute for me and one minute for the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

When I met the constituents of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, on three occasions, these very warm people told me: ``This is strange, you are coming to visit us, but we never see our own MP''.

Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. These are allegations. I can tell you that I go there every month and I do not think it is appropriate for the hon. member to discuss the problems in my riding. I can assure you that I look after my constituents' interests and I believe that they will be the judges of that.

Things like the Irving Whale, the $1.5 million invested in the Magdalen Islands, the new ferry soon to be put in service, will remind people that the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is working hard on their behalf, for their well-being.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Debate is now closed. It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

_____________________________________________