Patrick Gagnon

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that 40 per cent of the National Film Board's productions in Montreal are French productions. So, if I understand the opposition's logic, if Quebec were to separate tomorrow, funding would fall to 22 to 25 per cent. Quebec would be the loser in this situation and that is what the opposition does not seem to understand.

Where will the people on the other side get the money to organize trips and trade shows? Let us not forget that a lot of money comes from federal grants. I was just talking about the Monument national, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, Radio-Canada and Telefilm Canada. The Canadian government has never questioned the work of our artists from Quebec.

As I was saying earlier, the hon. member does not want to admit to this 40 per cent, to the fact that Quebec receives more than its share of funding for its cultural institutions. She cannot give me an example of a film like Mr. Falardeau's Octobre , a film about the FLQ that was funded by Telefilm Canada and by the National Film Board. I challenge you to give me an example from another country. Do you know of any film about the Corsicans or the Bretons that was funded by the government of France?

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish first to inveigh against such a lampoonist speech! What it described is very far from the reality of the federal contribution, which is extremely generous in Quebec, to the promotion of the French Canadian culture across the country and around the world.

Tell me something: how is it that Telefilm Canada, which comes under this department, subsidized Mr. Falardeau's latest film, Octobre , with the participation of the NFB as well?

I wonder if there is another country in the Western hemisphere that would subsidize a film produced, written and directed by a separatist, a fellow who is bent on breaking up his country. Do you know of any other country that would do the same thing, a country with the will to finance such a project? Name one.

Tell me something else: did the hon. member know that over 40 per cent of the National Film Board's budget goes to Quebec productions, to productions in French?

I would also like to know this: on the subject of the federal contribution, we could also mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I learned recently that the CBC produces more hours of original programming than France does for its own programming, its own culture. In a country with 6 million francophones and a total population that is half that of France, the Canadian government spends more than France on this. And then, some say this is a ploy on the part of the federal government. Some people have the nerve to talk about interference. When you look at the figures though, they speak for themselves: the federal government is the one promoting the Quebec culture and I think that many creative artists recognize this.

Finally, I understand what the Bloc Quebecois is driving at, but let us not forget that opinions are divided in Quebec. You have producers, directors and people who would readily admit it. As a matter of fact, we saw in certain documents last year that the involvement of the federal government should be maintained because it is generally more responsive to the aspirations and legitimate financial needs of our producers in Quebec.

I am prepared to take questions from the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 30th, 1994]

"Allons, enfants de la Patrie"-

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that he does not represent all Quebecers, and neither do we, I admit.

But we have to take into account the commitment of our government, of this sub-committee, which is to look at this question in depth. I believe that today's question was to determine whether or not we needed a parliamentary commission. This sub-committee includes one member of the Bloc Quebecois and one member of the Reform Party, and along with them some of us on this sub-committee want to shed some light on the allegations against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I can assure the hon. member that once the reports of the sub-committee or even the SIRC have been submitted to Parliament, he will have the opportunity to look at them, and make enlightened judgments.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like again to say to the opposition that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service does not cover the legitimate activities of any advocacy or protest organizations. It does not spy on legitimate organizations like political parties or unions, as the member opposite claimed.

Again, the opposition keeps harping on about events which took place over twenty years ago. Since then, we have had the McDonald Commission which helped to create the civil service as we know it today as well as SIRC. I also have the feeling that the opposition tends to remember only what suits its philosophy, and that is unfortunate.

Last night, as a Quebecer, I was very disappointed by the new Quebec government, when I heard Bernard Landry himself state publicly that he would weed out federalists hiding in all the Delegations General of the province of Quebec and that he was appointed to find out if they are true sovereignists. Sometimes, I think the opposition should look at itself and ensure that the government of Quebec will still respect the great majority of Quebecers who are federalists and not separatists.

I still want to point out to the hon. member opposite who is yelling at me that Canada is, after all, a land of open arms, a free country that first and foremost respects individual freedom. I think our government has made a commitment to examine in detail the allegations made against our services and to take remedial action if needed.

So, I do not see why we should spend $20 million to $25 million on a royal commission of inquiry, when we have not yet completed our own investigations, mainly through the Sub-Committee on National Security and the upcoming SIRC report. However, I want to add that I am deeply disappointed by the hon. member, who belongs to a separatist party in the province of Quebec and wants to weed out the federalists, as suggested by Mr. Landry. I think this is unacceptable in a democratic society such as ours.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning unparliamentary language. I would like to know if the hon. member has any source or if this is actually printed in Hansard .

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that members on this side of the House are planning to take their work very seriously and we have countless assurances that members of the security committee including members on the opposite benches are going to look through this thoroughly.

I hope, thanks to the questions raised by the hon. member and his colleagues, that we are going to clarify this thing once and for all.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member. I can assure the hon. member that no one on this side considers the Reform Party a terrorist organization.

There are all kinds of allegations out there on improprieties and we have set up a mechanism, SIRC, which was established 10 years ago as he very well knows, to look into those kinds of allegations.

Furthermore, we have gone one step further. In co-operation with the opposition benches, Bloc and Reform we have set up a subcommittee on national security issues. One hon. member dealing with this subcommittee has done commendable work. We are looking forward to all the proposals made by the opposition. We are awaiting reports from SIRC. I believe the subcommittee is going to pursue its research on these allegations made against the service.

I want to make sure it is perfectly clear to the opposition benches that never would this government condone spying on legitimate political organizations such as the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

Since Reform is so concerned about accountability and the way we spend money and controlling the deficit, does the hon. member really believe that by spending $20 million to $25 million on a royal commission we would not be better served by giving the subcommittee on national security issues the time and the chance to look into this and as well as SIRC to report to us and Parliament on what happened or what has allegedly happened? I would like to know if it would be preferable for us to wait before spending $20 million to $25 million of taxpayers' money.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find these comments very regrettable. Canada is a tolerant society, but it is not right, now that there has been a change of government, to point a finger at people who have served in the Quebec government, who have tried to promote Quebec's development outside that province and who have convinced foreign investors to come here. There is a lack of continuity and, unfortunately, I think all this is beginning to sound like McCarthyism: you are not true Americans, you are not real capitalists, etc.

It is unfortunate. This is what makes that argument a dangerous one. This is the reason why the government seeks to promote tolerance and welcomes opposition members and stakeholders to come and voice their concern and views on how to manage CSIS.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that reference is again made to history being a guide to what will happen in the future. To be sure, the United States had the McCarthy affair and the Rosenbergs. France was involved in sinking Greenpeace's ship, the Rainbow Warrior . We have seen all sorts of abuses in other countries but nothing like that has happened here.

Certainly, if someone wants to make a comment-and this is getting to the question which I would like to ask the hon. member-last night, Bernard Landry was on the CBC talking about Quebec's delegates general abroad and he wanted to know if they were true sovereignists. I think he threatened them with dismissal if they were not.

This is another demonstration of intolerance towards the opinions of all Quebecers, if their opinions do not suit the party in power. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker; at least we set up a committee of inquiry, a sub-committee, chaired by one of our own people, but also with members of the Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party represented, which will shed light on this matter. Nevertheless, I would like to remind the hon. member that some of his colleagues in Quebec want to investigate good Quebecers whom they do not think are true Quebecers.