CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 21, 1995
Bill C-77. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted. 10751
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10753
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10757
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10764
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10764
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10767
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10772
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10776
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 10782
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 10783
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10784
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10785
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10786
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10787
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10787
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10787
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10787
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10787
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10788
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10788
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10789
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10789
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10789
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10790
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10791
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10791
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10791
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 10791
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 10791
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10792
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10793
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10793
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10793
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10794
Consideration resumed of motion 10794
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 10797
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10799
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 10802
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 44; Nays, 165 10812
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 172 10813
Consideration resumed of motion 10814
Amendment agreed to on division: Yes, 129; Nays, 80 10814
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.) 10815
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 10815
(Amendment deemed to have been withdrawn.) 10818
(Amendment agreed to.) 10818
(Motion as amended agreed to.) 10820
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10821
10751
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 21, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and further to the
commitment made in this House on November 17, 1994, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, an order in council
establishing the commission of inquiry as to the deployment of
the Canadian Forces to Somalia.
[English]
This is an order in council establishing the commission of
inquiry as to the deployment of the Canadian forces to Somalia.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to section
61(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Standing Order
32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, le
rapport annuel de la Commission des droits humains for the year
1994 for referral to the Standing Committee on Human Rights
and the Status of Disabled Persons.
* * *
(1005 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
32 petitions.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an act to provide for the
maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): When shall the bill be
read the second time? Later this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): At the next sitting of the
House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the
following order. I move:
That notwithstanding any standing order, immediately after the completion
of Private Members' Business on this day, the House shall revert to Government
Orders for the purpose of considering Bill C-77, an act to provide for the
maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services at the second reading
stage, in committee of the whole, at the report stage and at the third reading
stage, provided that the House shall not adjourn this day except pursuant to a
motion by a minister of the crown.
In light of the substantial losses being suffered in the
Canadian economy as a result of this rail strike, it is appropriate
that the House deal with this motion. I seek consent to put it to
the House today.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House to table the motion?
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I must say no. We proposed
amendments to the government. Had it accepted them, we would
10752
have had all three readings today. However, given its refusal, I
must withhold our party's consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We therefore do not
have unanimous consent.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear that
the Reform caucus is not part of the opposition's response. We
support the speedy passage of legislation to end the rail strike
given its drastic consequences for the Canadian economy.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present today a petition on behalf
of the citizens of Calgary asking that dangerous offenders be
ineligible for parole until their full sentence has been served.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the
clerk of petitions on behalf of 43 individuals from Ontario.
The petitioners request that Parliament at the earliest possible
time initiate a wide ranging public inquiry replacing many being
convened piecemeal into the Canadian Armed Forces, including
reserves which will investigate, report and make
recommendations on all matters affecting its operations,
tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale and welfare.
(1010 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a second petition to present on behalf of 57
constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area,
again duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation against
serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk
offenders by permitting the use of post sentence detention
orders and specifically by passing Bill C-240.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have three sets of petitions on related matters, but the petitions
are different.
The first one says that because of the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act, it will provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges; that
because the inclusion will infringe on the historic rights of
Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience, expression
and association, therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or
to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would provide for
the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this is the second petition on a related matter.
It says whereas the majority of Canadians believe everyone
currently has equal status under the law and whereas Bill C-41,
section 718.2, would give special provisions based on sexual
orientation, therefore the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 as presently
written and that in any event, it not include the undefined phrase
``sexual orientation'', as the behaviour people engage in does
not warrant special consideration under Canadian law.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the last petition I have states that the undersigned residents of
Canada draw to the attention of the House of Commons that
members of Parliament have recently made hateful comments
which contribute to the climate of intolerance, fear and violence
for lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians; that more than 80 per
cent of Canadians believe that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals
are subject to discrimination and that many gay and lesbian
Canadians have been harassed, beaten or even murdered in
violent expression of this discrimination; and that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone equal rights.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
the following three petitions from my constituents of
Comox-Alberni.
The first petition contains 780 signatures and calls on
Parliament not to enact any further firearms control legislation,
regulations or orders in council.
The second petition comes from constituents all across
British Columbia and contains 454 signatures. It requests that
Parliament refuse to accept the justice minister's anti-firearms
proposals and insist that he bring forward legislation to convict
and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, this last petition comes from across Canada and
contains 550 signatures.
10753
The petitioners request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a
six-year-old girl who was murdered in my riding of
Comox-Alberni, that this petition be brought to the attention
of Parliament.
The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to
change the justice system to provide greater protection for
children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of
offenders.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to present a petition to Parliament
calling on the House of Commons to ensure that the present
provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law that would sanction or would allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10753
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1015)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions concerning funding
for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for the next three years, thus
causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.
She said: Madam Speaker, today's debate will be on the
following motion, which I am submitting to this House with the
support of my colleague from Mercier:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions concerning funding
for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for the next three years, thus
causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.
This motion has become necessary because of the Canadian
heritage minister's refusal to be open and confirm the
information his deputy minister gave the President of the CBC
on the day the budget was tabled in this House. According to this
information, in the next three years, the CBC will have to absorb
some $350 million in cuts, despite this government's formal and
oft-repeated commitment to stable multi-year financing for the
CBC.
This lack of openness on the part of the minister and this
stubborn denial of the facts show contempt for CBC employees.
They create a climate of insecurity which can only harm our TV
network. That is why our motion today condemns the minister
for not disclosing all the cuts planned at the CBC. This course of
conduct is also being denounced by the francophone press.
For those who know how to read and listen, the government
had made clear commitments to the CBC. On October 4, 1993,
the Canadian Conference of the Arts distributed a questionnaire
aimed at finding out the main political parties' respective
positions on culture and communications. The Liberal Party of
Canada responded as follows: ``By slashing funding for national
institutions like the CBC, the Canada Council, the National Film
Board and Telefilm Canada, the Tories have done great harm and
shown how little they care about cultural development. Their
savage cuts will hurt the next generation of performers, reduce
the number of writers, composers, dancers and other creative
artists, and undermine our cultural production. The
development of our cultural organizations will be stunted.
Cultural life outside the major cities will decline. In short, our
country will weaken to the point that it will have to fulfil its
cultural aspirations with foreign products''.
The Liberal Party went on to say: ``A Liberal government will
be committed to stable multi-year financing for our national
institutions''.
This was the first firm commitment the Liberal Party made
during the election campaign and it was reiterated in the red
book, which says: ``Canada needs more than ever to commit
itself to cultural development. Instead, the Conservative regime
has deliberately undermined our national cultural institutions.
Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the
Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and
other institutions illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the
importance of cultural development''.
After this impressive illustration of Tories' failures, the
Liberals go on to state in their red book that they ``will be
committed to stable multiyear financing for national cultural
institutions such as the Canada Council and the CBC. This will
allow national cultural institutions to plan effectively''.
Almost as soon as he took office, the minister claimed to be a
friend of the CBC. On February 3, 1994, he announced the
appointment of Anthony Manera at the head of the CBC. In a
letter to Mr. Manera and in the press release he issued at the
10754
time, he stated his firm intention, as government member, not to
impose further cuts to the CBC.
(1020)
By the end of the fall, the word was that the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation would not escape the finance
minister's bistoury. However, to Mr. Manera everything still
appeared to be clear. Testifying before the heritage committee
during the hearings on he CBC, Mr. Manera maintained that the
Minister of Canadian Heritage had indeed promised him that the
CBC would continue to receive multiyear funding. In his mind,
the heritage minister's commitment was firm and unequivocal.
On that occasion, the hon. member for Richelieu asked Mr.
Manera: ``When you took the position, did you have a solemn
commitment from the government to maintain that financing on
a stable basis for a certain period, which is for five years starting
with the 1994-95 budget? Did you have a commitment of that
sort, before taking the plunge, with such a vision of the CBC?''
And Mr. Manera said, directing his answer to the chairman of
our committee: ``Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes''.
But now it would seem that all of us misunderstood, starting
with Mr. Manera.
On January 25, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was
reported by the Canadian Press as stating that anyone who
understood that there would be no cuts to the CBC
misunderstood him.
I am quoting from a Canadian Press article. It says the
heritage minister did not rule out further cuts to the CBC, saying
that the government had never promised that the corporation
would be spared in the upcoming budget. The federal plan
announced last year to stabilize CBC finances should not be seen
as a pledge to keep the broadcaster's budget at current levels,
said Mr. Dupuy. He added, and I quote: ``If it was interpreted as
freezing the situation, it was the wrong interpretation''.
Oh, dear. Then everyone who read the Liberal Party's
response to the Canadian Conference of the Arts was mistaken.
Then, we all misinterpreted what was written in the red book, the
press release and the letter signed by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, the last two which were issued to the press on February
4 and in which the minister firmly committed himself to
maintaining CBC's funding.
The budget confirmed what the minister had been hinting at.
The budget plan tabled in the House on February 27 announced
that the CBC's budget for the next fiscal year would be cut by 4
per cent, which translates into $44 million.
The budget plan also stated that, over the next three years, the
government would be cutting $676 million from the budget for
funding crown corporations which fall under the Department of
Canadian Heritage's mandate. The same day, the deputy
minister sent the CBC president an information brief on the
breakdown of the $676 million in cuts. The table in the brief
clearly showed that the CBC would have to absorb $44 million
in cuts for 1995-96, $97 million in 1996-97 and $165 million in
1997-98. Unprecedented cuts, even under the Conservatives.
The $15 million which the Department of Foreign Affairs
used to pay each year to fund Radio Canada International should
also be added to the cuts, because the corporation will now have
to pay it. The president had already stated that he would not
preside over the crown corporation's demise, so he resigned.
What did the Minister of Canadian Heritage do to support his
president? Nothing. He merely said that Mr. Manera was aware
of the cuts and even added that Mr. Manera had informed him
that he intended to resign a few weeks earlier. One day he stated
that the only figures which his deputy had given to Mr. Manera
were those contained in the budget; the next, he said the
opposite. He admitted that Mr. Manera had obtained documents
on program review.
These documents show that the government plans to cut the
CBC's budget by more than $300 million over the next three
years. Mr. Manera did his homework, he let the public know
about it, and then, he resigned.
(1025)
That was on February 28. On March 15, in the afternoon, it
was the turn of the vice president of the French TV network.
Meeting first with her staff and then with the press, Mrs. Fortin,
in a presentation which was exceptional, I must say, insisted on
setting the record straight for her employees. Seven hundred and
fifty positions will be abolished on the French television
network of the CBC, since it will be losing $60 million over
three years as a result of the cuts agreed to by the heritage
minister.
What will be the consequences of these cuts? Well, there will
be fewer cultural productions, fewer in-house productions,
fewer television serials and less Canadian content, and all this in
the age of the information highway. However, the heritage
minister continues to pussyfoot around. No, there are no other
cuts than the ones announced in the budget; no, the CBC did not
inform him of any layoffs. In an editorial published in La
Presse, editorialist Pierre Gravel talks about the lack of
openness on the part of the heritage minister, and I quote:
``Instead of being straightforward and behaving like a minister
conscious of the seriousness of the issues, Mr. Dupuy only
answered with a metaphor, in very poor taste, about the fact that
when you let the ewe out of the barn, it comes and relieves itself
on your doorstep''.
Yet, the budget mentions $676 million in cuts to the crown
corporations which come under Heritage Canada, namely the
CBC, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board. Mr. Manera
did, in fact, receive a letter from the minister, and the minister
10755
now admits that under the program review a plan for cuts was
indeed produced. We are now used to the pussyfooting of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. Chantal Hébert, a reporter with
La Presse, mentioned it in an article entitled: ``The variable
time of Minister Dupuy''. His controversial statements have
become his trademark.
In an article published on March 4, Mrs. Hébert said that, in
the case we are dealing with, the minister ``sent smoke signals in
all directions, and gave as many different interpretations of
events as there are days in the week. His public declarations
contradicted the outgoing president, his top civil servants and
what he himself has said unequivocally on the same issue''.
While the heritage minister is getting ready to drastically cut
parliamentary appropriations to CBC-SRC through the back
door, the chairman of the Canadian heritage committee, the
member for Don Valley West, is appearing on the front porch,
ready to talk.
He appeared twice on ``Le Point médias'', on Radio-Canada;
he has appeared on CBC ``Prime Time''; he is appearing on any
possible forum available to him, more often than not replacing a
heritage minister who would rather stay silent. And what is our
heritage committee chairman saying on all these forums? He is
saying that the future of CBC-SRC lies in a formula somewhat
similar to PBS, in the United States, an under-financed public
network which, according to Madeleine Poulin, of ``Le Point
médias'', reaches only one per cent of the population.
Of course, he says, somewhat reluctantly-since he is after all
a man of culture-, that French television is slightly different
from English television because, as he told ``Le Point médias'',
the Quebec environment is not yet a multi-channel one. The
member for Don Valley-West was clearly implying that Quebec
was slightly behind the rest of Canada, because fewer viewers
have cable, but that it is only a matter of time before we are
engulfed in the multi-channel universe. After all, he said, we
already have TV5, and, to a degree, we are already being
invaded by French-speaking European television.
It is not a coincidence if the committee chairman is displaying
in such a manner his personal feelings on public broadcasting.
We feel that he has been given a mission. He is preparing public
opinion for a radical shift in policies regarding Canadian public
broadcasting.
(1030)
In the guise of sharing his personal opinion, the chairman of
the committee is revealing to us the views of his government and
is preparing us accordingly. Make no mistake: public television
for the Liberal government amounts to a Canadian version of
PBS.
This vision is perhaps fine for English Canada, which in any
event seems to be having quite a bit of difficulty finding a niche
in the multi-channel universe, as the committee chairman so
eloquently put it. But this vision is completely wrong where
French television and Radio-Canada in particular are
concerned.
And that, furthermore, is what Radio-Canada, TVA, the
Union des artistes, the Guilde des musiciens and the Association
des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec had to say at
the information highway hearings now being held by the CRTC.
In the present multi-channel universe, French television
occupies a generalist niche, and this is not just some theory, but
hard reality.
Of the 50 most popular French-language television
productions in Canada, 47 are produced here in Quebec, where
we are just as exposed to the multi-channel universe as our
English-speaking cousins in Toronto. Radio-Canada reached
3.9 million viewers last February 5 with the independently
produced made in Québec.
Knowing that French television is under-funded compared to
its English counterpart, one wonders what we could achieve if
we were on the same financial footing as the English arm of the
CBC.
A recent poll by Som-Radio-Québec revealed that 53 per
cent of Quebecers opposed cuts to the CBC, and 7 per cent
thought there should be an increase in its parliamentary votes.
Perhaps the fact that 60 per cent of Quebecers say they like their
television network is not enough for English Canadians, who
take decisions about the French network without even viewing
it.
This is why Michèle Fortin said that the disappearance of
Radio-Canada's public television from the generalist niche,
where it reaches large audiences never reached by Canadian
English-language stations, is collective suicide. Mrs. Fortin
quite rightly recalled that, in Quebec, PBS-type public
television niches are already occupied by RDI and
Radio-Canada, for example.
So, as the CBC French network Vice President, Mrs. Fortin,
has also noted, the member for Don Valley West does not watch
French television, like others, for that matter, who wish to
impose on it a solution that is perhaps better suited to the
English network.
The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the loss of CBC French
television. We have already lost a lot. Like my fellow citizens
from Rimouski, I have witnessed the closure of three local TV
broadcasting stations in the lower St. Lawrence in 1990. Acting
as it did, the CBC French network deprived the region's
inhabitants of the opportunity for debate, for the exercise of
democracy.
In the coming debates, the government will try to make us
believe that no decisions have yet been taken. Indeed, they have
been taken, just not announced, that is the difference. In the
coming debates, the government will try to make us believe that
10756
it will replace parliamentary votes by new funding sources to be
suggested by the heritage committee.
It is no secret that the member for Don Valley West told ``Le
Point médias'' that the committee's mandate was to study the
sex of angels, in other words, to find long term sources of
funding for the CBC French network, not just for next year or the
year after.
In the coming debates, the government will try to make us
believe that the committee of three experts that it will soon set
up to study the complementarity of the mandates of Telefilm, the
National Film Board, and Radio-Canada as well as of their
funding might change the situation for Radio-Canada. The
government will get no one on this side of the House to believe
such nonsense.
The government might attempt to say that cuts were imposed
on Radio-Canada, but it will convince no one. The impact of the
$10 million cuts made to Radio-Québec, as difficult as they
were, has nothing in common with the $60 million cuts made to
the CBC French network.
(1035)
The government may also try to make English-speaking
Canadians think that we do not care about their national
television, but that is not true. If we are focusing more on the
French CBC today, it is mainly because its vice-president has
announced the effects the forthcoming cuts would have on our
television.
We would not have the presumption to tell English-speaking
Canadians what their television should be like. As for the
Reform Party, it will probably say how pleased it is to see that
the heritage minister is implementing part of its program.
Indeed, the Reform Party did propose to reduce the CBC's
budget by 25 to 30 per cent in the taxpayers' budget it presented
a few weeks back. This proposal in no way takes into account the
role public television plays in Quebec and in French Canada nor
does it meet the expectations of French-speaking Canadians.
I will conclude by quoting the French television
spokespersons who appeared before the CRTC: ``The policy
proposals that will be drafted in the months to come will focus
on one major and crucial objective, the promotion and
preservation of French-Canadians' identity. Our current
broadcasting system requires its partners to make a lot of room
for Canadian content, and that has furthered the expression of
our cultural identity and has contributed to the growth of
audio-visual production in both our official languages. We
should not let what we have acquired so far be jeopardized''.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. Like
her, I am a staunch supporter of CBC's French language network
and of the CBC.
[English]
I listened with great sympathy to what the member opposite
had to say. I am a great supporter of both radio and TV as far as
the CBC is concerned. That includes Radio Canada
International. I like the fact that by radio we can reach out not
only to Canadians of both languages but to all those interested in
Canada, whether they speak English or French, whether they be
in the English speaking world abroad or in la francophonie. I am
a great supporter of that.
I like the fact that from coast to coast to coast Radio Canada
and the CBC are there in both languages. The northern service of
the CBC is a particularly fine example of what is being talked
about. It deals with the most remote areas of the country. It spills
over into Greenland, which is related to Denmark, and into
Alaska. Our voice is heard in both languages throughout the
north.
It is partly as a result that French is one of the languages used
in simultaneous translation by the legislature of the NWT in
Yellowknife. It is one of the eight languages it functions in.
As a member from Ontario, from a riding where less than two
per cent of the population speaks French, the French language
services are a very special feature of the CBC. In Ontario we
have La Chaine, a provincially based French language service
and it has great support throughout the province.
The CBC is a billion dollar a year corporation. We know that
like large government, large corporations have problems. They
have financial problems. They have organizational problems.
Many members here have had experience with the CBC. I am
told the CBC is top heavy, and in particular is middle heavy. It is
heavy in the middle management area.
(1040)
It has excellent artistic people on air, on camera who write and
produce things. A great deal of the resources go into middle and
upper management areas.
Does the member not think any billion dollar corporation in
Canada should be examined from the point of view of its
efficiency with great detail in these difficult financial times?
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. It goes without saying that we must absolutely
ensure that-with a budget of one billion dollars-CBC is
managed efficiently. We must ask ourselves the right questions
but, more importantly, we must get answers.
I sit on the heritage committee and its members almost
unanimously agree that we are somewhat disturbed by the
corporation's lack of transparency when it comes to really
telling us how it is managed. There are many things which we do
not know about. For example, we do not know the exact cost of
10757
the corporation's head office. Only recently did we find out how
much it costs to pay this group of bureaucrats, lawyers,
secretaries, specialists or experts-whatever you want to call
them. It costs the corporation $15 million just to appear before
the CRTC every year. This $15 million is almost money thrown
out the window since, after all, the CRTC cannot take away
CBC's licence. The corporation is governed by an act. So these
positions could be cut.
Sure, there are positions which can be cut. But I am concerned
that these cuts might affect artistic workers or creators. If three
or four vice-president positions are eliminated, I will not rise in
this House to question that decision. It goes without saying that
cuts can be made. The head office is useless, but no one can
answer that question.
Do we still need a large engineering service, at a time when
the information highway is becoming a reality? Unfortunately,
we did not take on a leadership role in that regard. There are
many questions to be asked. However, the problem is the
situation in which we find ourselves; it is the uncertainty in
which the minister keeps us. He does not say things the way they
should be said. Will cuts be made? Yes, they are mentioned in
the red book. The figure is $679 million, but the government
continues to claim that it is $44 million. This is the problem.
I read an article in which a minister claimed to be a person of
substance. That must be the case only when he is talking to the
media, because so far we have no evidence of that when he
speaks in this House.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
find it particularly unfortunate today that the Bloc has chosen to
bring this issue to the House for a couple of reasons.
We have thousands if not tens of thousands of people who
presently cannot get to work or even if they could get to work do
not have the materials with which to conduct their jobs. It is
estimated the strike by the rail workers which the Bloc is
stopping will cost the economy $3 billion to 5 billion. When the
Bloc comes to the House to discuss this issue, I find it really
unfortunate.
Speaking specifically to the motion of the Bloc, why is it-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. Your question
should be directed to the previous speaker and her comments.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I was coming to that. Why is
the Bloc motion dealing only specifically with the issue of
Quebec? If it is the official opposition, why is its motion not
more encompassing with respect to the question of CBC?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I made it clear in my speech that I would talk
specifically about the French-language network of the CBC
because this is the one I know best and because Mrs. Fortin was
the only vice president to make her position known. The vice
president of the English-language network probably never
thought that there would be cuts because he believed Mr.
Manera. So he did not do what he had to do and he still does not
know where to cut in the English network. For her part, Mrs.
Fortin was ready to adapt to the new situation.
(1045)
Since my colleague mentioned the train, I will tell him that if
the proposals from the official opposition were accepted, we
could easily resolve the rail strike. If we could have a little bit
more co-operation than confrontation in this House, the
problem could be solved in the next three hours.
It is fine to debate our respective points of view, but if we
were to stop arguing for the sake of arguing, we could solve the
real problems.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and speak on a motion from the opposition concerning
significant and continuous support of the CBC by this
government.
Discussions about the CBC cannot be but emotional,
undoubtedly because the CBC is so dear to Canadians.
[English]
Each night Canadians tune in to CBC news to keep up to date
with the new challenges facing the country and the government.
As Canada's first source of public information and as a source of
national pride, the CBC is acutely aware of the challenges that
must be met for Canada to achieve a sustainable level of
prosperity.
The CBC is Canada's largest cultural institution. It is the
guardian of the Canadian experience. The voices of Canadians
echo through its history and its archives. For most of this
century Canadians have sought their reflection, which they
found in the CBC.
[Translation]
Since it was founded in 1937 by the then Liberal
government,the CBC has been the main instrument of the
Canadian broadcasting policy. As a true reflection of our
country's growth, the CBC has adjusted to the new realities with
the passing decades.
Reflecting the Canadian situation at the time, the 1968
Broadcasting Act conferred a far-reaching mandate to the CBC:
to broadcast everything, in fact, so as to please everybody. This
10758
mandate was quite appropriate in 1968, since the CBC,
particularly the CBC television network, was the only service
many Canadians had access to in a world where broadcasting
was still made through waves.
Nowadays, the conditions are drastically different. Apart
from technological progress, among them the multichannel
broadcasting, Canada can now rely on dynamic and innovative
private producers. This means that the CBC does not have to
produce all its own programs, particularly its entertainment
programs. Thus, the CBC now buys about 46 per cent of its
English-speaking and French-speaking programs from
independent Canadian producers. These programs complete its
in-house programming.
[English]
In recent years the CBC has been focusing increasingly on
bringing Canadian programming to Canadians. To counter the
dominance of U.S. mass culture, the CBC's primary concern has
been to attract large audiences to Canadian programming. That
is just what the CBC has been doing.
Witness the success of CBC productions like ``Road to
Avonlea'', ``La Petite Vie'', ``North of 60'' and ``Scoop'', to
name only a few. CBC programming, especially in drama, has
achieved excellence over and over again.
[Translation]
The problems and challenges of the French language network
are not those of the English-language network. Indeed, the
French-language market is more limited and concentrated than
the English-speaking market. This creates conditions and an
industrial structure that are quite different than in English
Canada. This government recognizes that these two different
situations call for different policies.
(1050)
The French network of the CBC has done an excellent job in
Quebec, where it is very important to French-speaking viewers.
The province has its own star system and many artists from
Quebec are well known in all French-speaking households. The
network has been a useful springboard for French-speaking
artists and has contributed to the creation of a strong
Franco-Canadian identity.
[English]
Not since the advent of television has the CBC been asked to
accelerate its evolution to the extent that technology and
finances are demanding today.
However the public must never be the missing link in the
CBC's evolution. Last fall the public joined the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage in its journey toward a new
future for the CBC that will be more than brave new words. It
will be a future that will ensure the survival of the fittest source
of Canadian content, the CBC.
The road to CBC's success was paved with new definitions,
new ideas and new ways of dealing with the realities of the time.
The most recent exercise of this kind dates back to 1991 when
one of the elements of the CBC's mandate was reaffirmed: ``to
contribute to a shared national consciousness and identity''.
[Translation]
The funding provided to the CBC accounts for more than 60
per cent of the total federal funding provided to cultural
organizations under the Department of Canadian Heritage. The
CBC could be compared to an orchestra that provides a
showcase for all the cultural instruments.
[English]
The CBC has allowed the community of Canadians to develop
regionally and nationally while always being in tune with each
other's concerns. The CBC can legitimately take credit for being
the link that allowed the far flung communities of the second
largest territory on earth to define themselves as Canadians. The
CBC is the lenscrafter of Canada's vision of itself and the world.
It magnifies our cultural sovereignty and helps us see our way
clearly through many challenges ahead.
[Translation]
The Minister of Canadian Heritage thinks that the present
context, characterized by all these challenges and changes,
gives us an opportunity to re-evaluate the role that public
broadcasting plays and must continue to play, given the
increasing globalization and the existing social and economic
situation.
[English]
The epicentre of the first tremor of challenge can be found in
the realm of technology. Consider the multiplication of
television channels which is already considerable and which
satellite and digital compression are about to render
astronomical.
One may ask what purpose public broadcasting serves when
services and choice proliferate and the line between public and
private television, once clearly defined, seems to be blurring.
The response to that challenge is that the role of the public
broadcaster has never been greater, nor the need for it more
urgent.
[Translation]
These multiple choices, coming for the most part from outside
Canada, will be dictated essentially by the logic of commercial
television, which is different from that of public broadcasting.
10759
[English]
If public television is to survive it is in its best interest to
flaunt the characteristics that distinguish it from commercial
television. It is by firming its difference that public television
justifies its social values.
Public broadcasting cannot be guided solely by commercial
considerations in so far as it has quite a different mission to bear
witness to society's progress to affirm our national identity. The
true mission and values of the CBC form the source of its appeal
to many Canadians.
Public broadcasting is an instrument designed to democratize
culture and information and showcase the Canadian
contribution on the world stage. That is the public service in
public broadcasting and one important reason why it should not
be sacrificed entirely to the demands of commercial advertising.
We understand that as a public corporation facing low tide
fiscally, the CBC needs to launch itself as a cultural vessel
custom built for these leaner times. We are confident that CBC
management will be able to navigate through uncharted waters
ahead.
(1055)
In the 1995 budget funding for the CBC was set at 4 per cent
below previously scheduled levels. This will amount to a
savings of $44 million for the coming year.
[Translation]
As the opposition speculates about the contents of the 1996
budget, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been hard at work
laying the foundations for a stronger CBC.
[English]
We already know that important changes are taking place
within the broadcasting industry. Fundamental changes beyond
budget reductions and advances in technology leading toward
greater diversity are expected to translate into more
competition, fragmented audiences, a major investment in
technology and potentially higher costs for Canadian
programming.
In television the advent of digital video compression will
make direct broadcast satellite distribution possible and
increased capacity for cable undertakings will make the
500-channel universe a reality.
[Translation]
The government must ensure that the private and public
Canadian broadcasting system is ready to compete at the
national and international level, on the information highway and
in all the mega-networks of the future.
[English]
The review by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
of the role of the CBC combined with the other supporting
initiatives of the government, the information highway advisory
council, the examination of the direct home satellite issue, the
mandate review of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the
National Film Board and Téléfilm represent the comprehensive
integrated approach that will result in sound government policy
which will take Canada and Canadian cultural products
successfully into the information age. The approach will allow
Canadian broadcasting and Canadian culture both English and
French to thrive.
As the opposition speculates about the contents of the 1996
budget the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been hard at work
laying the foundation for a stronger CBC.
[Translation]
According to the Bloc Quebecois, it is a threat that can only be
eliminated by the publication of speculative projections for the
next two years.
[English]
The hon. member's motion refers to some ominous threat
looming over the CBC's French language network. The motion
wrongly attributes this threat to a decision of the government to
publish only the precise funding level of the CBC for the coming
fiscal year.
[Translation]
By speculating on the possible number of people that will
have to be laid off by the CBC, the opposition does nothing to
help the cause of our public broadcasting system and adds to the
climate of uncertainty felt by employees affected by the cuts.
[English]
I would like to end on a curious note. It seems strange to me
that the entire basis of the motion is the hon. member's concern
over the contents of the 1996-97 federal budget which should
only matter to her after the separatists lose the referendum. Her
heated comments are evidence of a referendum campaign gone
stone cold.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary indicated that the CBC should be the
body involved in defining our identity as Canadians.
I have heard that point before in the House from members
opposite. I have had no calls from my constituents asking for
anyone to define them as Canadians. I have heard of no calls
from my colleagues' constituents to help them define
themselves as Canadians. I certainly feel no need personally to
have anyone define me as a Canadian. I am a Canadian and I am
happy and proud to be one. I do not need anyone to define what a
Canadian should be.
(1100)
Has the hon. member had calls from her constituents for a
definition of Canadians? Maybe the hon. member could refer to
letters and petitions she may have received as well as calls about
the definition of Canadians.
10760
Furthermore, does the member feel that the CBC, a crown
corporation, would be the body her constituents would go to
for a definition of what a Canadian is? Going to a government
organization to get a definition of what we should be as
Canadians sounds a little strange to me. I would like the hon.
member to respond to those questions.
Ms. Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me
if I have had discussions with my constituents about the CBC in
recent days. If that is the benchmark the hon. member uses
simply to gauge the importance of the CBC, then there is a
serious omission, if he will forgive me, in the hon. member's
education.
Yes, I have had numerous discussions with my constituents
about the CBC. It has been a topic of conversation recently and it
has certainly been highlighted in the press. The Reform Party's
view of the CBC is really the same view the Spanish trawler has
of the last turbot. The Reform fantasy budget would fish the
CBC into extinction. The Liberal approach offers the
opportunity for the CBC to grow and thrive in a new age of
broadcasting.
One reason the Liberal budget has been so well received by so
many people throughout the country is that they understand our
cuts are not based on some ideological vendetta against cultural
communities. They are based on necessity and not on the type of
philistine intolerance shown by the Reform Party of our cultural
programs. Our budget is driven by a genuine necessity of
concern for the programs that Liberals have built and Liberals
will continue to build in the next century.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my
hon. colleague, whom I know very well for we have been
working together since the beginning on the heritage committee.
But I do feel there are limits to trying to mislead people. Truly,
this government seems to be affected by the untruth syndrome.
There is no more serum left to cure it because they have
exhausted all the supplies available, for they have failed all the
tests they underwent throughout their existence.
We are not speculating about the number of positions that will
be cut, we are taking the word of the vice-president on it. That is
not speculation. We are not only concerned about what will
happen, but also sick and tired of hearing the minister telling us
lies in the House, not telling us the truth and misleading us from
start to finish. People are fed up. That has to stop. We need the
real figures because it is imperative for both the francophone
and the anglophone networks to know exactly where they are
going in order for the CBC to really evolve.
The hon. member stated that the minister, instead of
speculating about the years ahead, is laying down the
foundations of the CBC. Foundations my eye. He is destroying
those foundations. He is not building them up, but demolishing
them. So, Madam Speaker, what is the hon. member waiting for
to wake up within her government, before there is no more
public television left? Everybody knows public television
comes with a price tag. Every decent, self-respecting country
has a public television network, and that does not prevent
private television from existing beside it. We are not asking for a
status quo regarding the CBC's finances. We know there is some
clean-up to be done. But we are asking the government to stop
making these deep cuts and preventing the president of the CBC
from getting the corporation back on its feet, on the right track.
(1105)
What is the hon. member waiting for to stand up-she is the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage-and to wake her minister up so that he will stop
destroying this essential cultural tool?
Ms. Guarnieri: I fully agree with the hon. member there are
limits to misleading people. The motion she just submitted
misleads the Canadian public. I think the president of the CBC
showed at a sitting of the committee she attended that he
understood fiscal realities much better that the official
opposition does.
I would like to remind her of what Mr. Manera, former
president of the CBC, told us. I will find the quotation because I
want you to hear the very wise remarks he made. Here is what he
told us: ``Mr. Chairman, we of the CBC, acknowledge that the
financial situation facing the country is indeed serious and we
certainly cannot escape, nor should we intend to escape, the
austerity measures that have to be taken in order to bring our
finances in order''.
As you can see, the former CBC president had a realistic point
of view. It is quite clear that, as a government, we will
reexamine the role of the CBC, and the standing committee,
three members of that committee and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage all work very hard on this. I hope the hon. member will
be patient enough to wait for the advice of a committee she sits
on. Future budgets will provide the CBC with the resources it
needs to carry out its redesigned role.
We know what our commitments are. I want to give
assurances of that to the hon. member, and I think it is about time
that the Bloc woke up.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ.): Madam Speaker, when
the parliamentary secretary refers to her committee, I hope she
is kidding. There are two distinct components in the CBC, the
French network and the English network, but the committee
which she is a part of comprises a majority of English-speaking
people, who are Liberal on top of that. It is therefore pretty
difficult to get parity.
10761
It is like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. Would
she please explain to us how she intends to be fair in this
committee, where anglophones form the majority, so that the
interests of the francophones in the CBC are defended?
Ms. Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, I wonder what the member
is trying to make me believe. Does he want me to believe that the
Bloc members are wasting their time in the committees?
Personally, I have a lot of respect for the work of the members of
the committee. I do not think we have wasted our time. We will
reflect on this and recommendations will be presented at the end
of the process for the minister's consideration.
I find the Bloc's interest in the CBC ironic and I often wonder
what lies behind this passionate interest in an entirely Canadian
cultural institution. Why does the Bloc reject the country which
has created an institution it admires?
(1110 )
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the Reform members will be splitting their
time today.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss this motion
which has been put forward by my hon. colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois.
It is important to note that it seems a little particular that we
are debating this issue in the House when this exact issue is
before the heritage committee. We as a committee have been
reviewing the CBC for quite some time, focusing primarily on
the issue of the role of the CBC in a 500 channel universe.
When the committee began this endeavour in September of
last year, our mandate also included how to fund the CBC and
report to the finance minister with recommendations for
budgetary cuts in this year's budget. That timetable was
postponed. We then set a new tentative date to conclude and
make our recommendations to the House as a whole by the
beginning of March. It is obvious the committee did not meet
that timetable.
Presently we are still reviewing the CBC. No action plan or
recommendations are in place. Therefore perhaps it is
appropriate that the Bloc has introduced this motion to debate
this issue on the CBC.
It is also abundantly clear to me and to most Canadians that
this government is unwilling to deal with the fundamental issues
such as the CBC and its financing. Since our arrival in Ottawa
this government has introduced discussion paper after
discussion paper while ignoring the pleas of Canadians for
action.
If we look at the Liberals' latest budget, we see they have
begun to sing from the same songbook as the Reform Party.
Canada's national debt and deficit have moved from the back
burner to the mid-range burner. These notorious tax and spend
Liberals are beginning to see the flaws in such a policy, yet they
are still attempting to hold onto all government entrenched
programs through an ever decreasing amount of resources.
The fact is however that Canada does not have a revenue
problem but a spending problem. This spending problem is
perpetuated by the fact that the federal government continually
spends billions of dollars on programs that could be done by the
private sector at no cost to the taxpayer. This would ensure that
the necessary funding would be available for priority
departments such as health, education, defence and veterans
affairs.
In terms of privatization, this government has taken a step in
the right direction, however it has not gone far enough. Every
ministry has one or more areas in which the government is
providing a service which is in competition with the private
sector or could be done more effectively by the private sector.
We as a government must balance our books which means all
areas of public financing must be evaluated for efficiency, cost
and effectiveness. It is for these reasons we are looking at the
financing of the CBC.
The CBC's primary mandate should be the provision of
distinctive culture specific information and drama
programming. In an increasing multichannel environment the
current mandate to provide a wide range of programming that
informs, enlightens and entertains is too broad.
It is also clear that the mandate of the CBC is to provide
Canadians with predominantly Canadian programming. What
Canadians are being subjected to is extremely questionable in
terms of meeting this prescribed mandate.
(1115 )
The issue is no longer whether the CBC has adequate funding.
That has passed long ago. Rather, it is the structure of the CBC.
In particular, the CBC has not adjusted to the realities of the
marketplace. It is outdated, highly centralized and expensive.
We must constantly remind ourselves that the Canadian
broadcasting environment has changed radically since the
original conception of the CBC.
New technologies and new services change viewing tastes and
fundamental changes in advertising behaviours have
transformed the broadcasting environment. Do not forget that in
a world where the CBC is no longer the only national service,
does it make sense to use scarce public funds to subsidize the
provision of commercial television programming?
In this new world of broadcasting, consisting of many more
options to television viewers, public broadcasting cannot
effectively maintain the objective that it is all things to all
people.
10762
It is therefore essential for survival in this multichannel
universe that the public broadcaster be willing to reinvent
itself. It is quite evident the corporation is unwilling to do that.
The president and the former president of the CBC stated
revenues were not their mission. We must therefore as
parliamentarians address this area for them. Since revenues are
not the mission of the CBC, what is?
How can a private company such as CTV make revenues its
mission while still adhering to Canadian content regulations?
CTV last year spent $488 million while the CBC spent $561
million on Canadian content programming. This is not a huge
difference considering we spent over $1 billion for the operation
of the CBC and nothing on CTV.
CTV spends close to the same as CBC on Canadian
productions. The difference is that one is government owned and
one is privately owned. One is a drain on the public purse, the
other adds to the public coffers through taxation of profits.
Had this government privatized the CBC it could have saved
the taxpayer approximately $800 million and this number does
not include revenues that would have been generated from the
sale of approximately $1.5 billion in assets, which the CBC
currently holds.
The sceptics will rise and say that if we privatize the CBC,
Canadian culture will perish, Canadian culture cannot survive
without government intervention. Surely they jest. Canadians
are extremely talented. They produce, write, paint, create. They
do this not because the government says it is okay, but rather
because they want to create. The fruits of their labour will sell if
it is quality, and it will not if it is not.
Art and culture should be created not because government
thinks it is so, but because the artist wants to do it. The more
government gets involved, the more things seem to go awry.
I would like to make a comparison between the privatization
of Air Canada, Petro-Canada and the possibility of similar
action being taken with regard to the CBC but I see my time is
running out.
I would like to amend the motion of the Bloc. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``years''.
(1120 )
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if I
understood the main thrust of the hon. member's comments, he
certainly encourages the government to privatize the CBC.
I noticed in the Reform fantasy budget it mentioned cutbacks
of some $360 million. I wonder if the hon. member could
delineate what the Reform game plan would be for the CBC.
Mr. Hanrahan: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
opportunity to deal with the question.
What I would recommend very clearly is that we look at a
number of possible options with respect to the privatization of
the CBC. The first option would be an outright sale to the
highest bidder.
While I recognize the beginning of a trend to cut the CBC's
budget, what concerns me is that we are going to continue to cut
the CBC and have it die the death of a thousand cuts. There will
be nothing left at the end of it. If it is going to be viable, saleable,
I recommend we sell it while it still has strength.
Another possibly would be a simple public share issue which
would divest the government of the entire company. A third
option, although I do not particularly favour it over the other
two, is mixed ownership involving public and private investors,
as we have done with other companies.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in addressing the motion on funding for the CBC
brought forward by our honourable Bloc colleague, it is passing
strange that this motion on a supply day should take place when
we have almost a national crisis on our hands with the rail strike.
I do not see how talking about the CBC is of any import
alongside that problem. Nevertheless, here we are faced with it
today.
I will paraphrase the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata when she addressed a Reform motion
on the CBC last June. She said although the Reform Party may
disagree emphatically with the way certain situations are dealt
with at the CBC, it does not support the motion presented by the
Bloc member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
If we look at the history of the CBC we see it was the genesis
of the Aird commission in 1929, although it did not officially
become the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation until
Mackenzie King's Liberals rewrote the Broadcasting Act in
1936. The last revision of the Broadcasting Act came in 1991
under Brian Mulroney's Tories.
(1125 )
However, over that time the mandate of both French and
English CBC has remained relatively unchanged. Is it possible
for a mandate nearly 60 years old to still be valid, particularly in
an age of technological change such as we have now?
10763
The forerunner of the CBC, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting
Commission, suffered from underfunding, an uncertain mandate
and inappropriate administrative arrangements. The same is
true in part of the CBC today.
If we look at these problems separately, we must first address
the issue of underfunding. We know Canadian taxpayers cannot
afford to increase the roughly $1 billion in subsidies the CBC
already enjoys. The Liberals' answer was to pass legislation for
the CBC to borrow money. This is certainly not the answer, as it
only increases Canada's already enormous debt load.
The Liberals have also considered taxes on things like video
rentals and movie tickets to fund the CBC. This is also
unacceptable, as Canadians are already overtaxed. Therefore the
only solution would appear to be privatization to allow the
corporation to become competitive and raise funds through the
private sector by means such as increased advertising. There is
no reason the CBC does not have the capacity to compete
commercially.
The second problem of an uncertain mandate can best be
illustrated by looking at how Canadian politicians view the role
of the CBC. Last June in the House the Prime Minister said:
``The law says in defining the mandate of the CBC that it must
inform people on the advantages Canada represents. This is the
reason for the creation of the corporation''.
One day later on CBC radio the Deputy Prime Minister stated
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a responsibility to
acknowledge that one of its responsibilities is to promote
Canadian unity.
Neither of these interpretations reflects the reality of the CBC
mandate which is to provide a wide range of programming that
informs, enlightens and entertains, and to reflect Canada and its
regions to national and regional audiences while serving the
special needs of those regions.
While this example points to part of the problem with the
uncertainty with the CBC's mandate, it also illustrates the way a
public broadcasting service can become politicized and even
manipulated by its political masters. I believe privatization
could address this problem as market forces would quickly force
the CBC to find its niche while still promoting Canadian culture.
It would also remove the potential for political interference.
The final problem that existed with the CRBC 60 years ago
and is still relevant for today's CBC is inappropriate
administrative arrangements. The CBC receives more than $1
billion in taxpayers' money to operate yet still has a deficit of
$45 million in its operating budget. In the last year about 2,000
jobs have been cut at the CBC in an effort to become more
competitive. Despite these drastic cuts to the staffing budget,
CBC's deficit continues to grow. There is simply no incentive at
the administrative level to ensure a healthy bottom line.
Privatization appears to be the only acceptable method of
dragging the mother corp into the fiscal realities of the 1990s
and beyond.
Let us look specifically at the CBC French operations of
Radio-Canada. A recent news report suggests that up to 750 of
the 2,500 employees at SRC may be cut as a result of funding
cuts. The vice-president of French television, Michèle Fortin,
admitted in the same article: ``Those who will suffer most from
probable cuts are not viewers. We can supply to the public
programs of the same quality and content if we purchase them
from private producers or other networks''.
(1130 )
If that is truly the case, and we have no reason to doubt Mr.
Fortin, then what is this ominous threat looming over the CBC's
French language network which my hon. Bloc colleagues are so
concerned about?
We should also look at an independent survey conducted by
the CROP polling firm in October of last year. In that survey,
French speaking Quebecers stated that the quality of
programming on privately operated TVA was equal to that of
government funded Radio-Canada. In fact, in all areas the
respondents rated the two stations equal.
However, when asked if: ``Because Radio-Canada is
subsidized and the other networks are not, that creates unfair
competition'', 56 per cent of French speaking Quebecers agreed
while only 39 per cent said no.
Similarly, when French speaking Quebecers, many of whom
we might presume are Bloc supporters, were asked if
Radio-Canada's public funding should be cut because of the
federal government's deficit problems, 55 per cent said yes
while only 37 per cent disagreed. They are roughly the same
percentages.
The same arguments I presented for the privatization of
English language CBC are relevant to French CBC. The only
way to ensure a viable Radio-Canada into the 21st century is to
make the operation responsive to market forces and to take
advantage of modern satellite technology.
For example, CBUF-FM, the CBC's French language FM
radio station in Vancouver, has a staff of 25 and an annual budget
of $2.2 million. Its average audience in any given quarter hour
over its entire broadcast area is 100 people. That is according to
the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement.
The same is true of Edmonton's French language station
CHFA which has a staff of 32 and an annual budget of $2.4
million. Again, according to BBM figures, the station is
fortunate if its audience tops 600.
In just these two examples we see how $4.6 million in tax
dollars are being spent to service 700 people. That is almost
$6,600 per listener. This is not very efficient.
If these services were privatized and forced to depend on local
advertising it is quite likely they would be forced to close.
However, with the advent of modern satellite technology it is
quite possible to maintain a small staff of reporters in both
markets that would provide local stories and features via satel-
10764
lite to be included in regional and national programming. This
would not only save taxpayers millions of dollars but would also
allow Radio-Canada to fulfil its mandate and get out to the
people of a minority language where it is needed.
The time for bleeding heart motions such as the one before us
today is over. We must address today's situations based on
today's realities, not some teary eyed, romanticized vision
based on the way we did things in the good old days. Times have
changed.
Today's fiscal realities will undoubtedly mean restraint and
government downsizing. However, tomorrow's technology
means we have an opportunity to provide government services
and information in ways politicians of even 15 years ago never
dreamed.
For this reason I urge the House to vote against this
near-sighted motion of yesteryear and leap into the 21st century
by listening closely to the ideas my Reform colleagues and I
have and will present during the course of the debate.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's
remarks and I share a different view of the CBC. The Liberal
Party founded the CBC in 1934. I have always believed that it
was one of the great instruments that held the country together.
(1135)
I believe also that in remote regions of our country where the
private sector would not necessarily make the investment and
take the risk, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is
there to make sure that every part of the country is
interconnected and we can all feel as one.
A lot of things have been developed in Canada that have
defied economic logic or to use business terms, earnings per
share per quarter. We are not running a business here. We are
building a nation. The criteria that one uses when building a
nation and developing a set of values and a character for a nation
are totally different from the value system used when running or
building a business.
I would like to think that the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation is something that should be looked at in terms of
building a nation and not just as a stand alone profit centre.
I regret that the Minister of Finance and the government have
had to make the cuts in the budget to the CBC. Many people at
the CBC are constituents of mine. I spent many a long hour
having a glass of cranberry juice with Larry Zolf on the Danforth
where he would reminisce about the contributions various
artists have made and how some have grown through their
exposure on the CBC. Right now all of these things are being
jeopardized because the international bond markets, the people
who control the real flow of capital, are holding the gun to our
brain. I regret that and I know most members do.
Can the member not see that perhaps when we get our fiscal
house in a little better order over the next few years that as a
galvanizing agent we would go a long way to find something
better? Would he not then, once our fiscal house is in better
order, see that the CBC is something we should reinvigorate and
make sure that it continues to build on that long history of
pulling the country together?
Mr. Ringma: In response, Madam Speaker, I have to say first
that we have a long road ahead of us before we get our fiscal
house in order.
We are well aware of the situation. We are still $560 billion in
debt. The deficit reduction program introduced in the latest
budget is inadequate to cope with the situation. We are paying
more and ever more money into servicing that debt. In two to
three years time with the Minister of Finance rolling the moving
target, we are still going to be in deep trouble if in fact we have
not hit the wall before then.
I have to negate the argument ``in time''. I do not know when
that time is going to come.
My second point in response would be that essentially the
hon. member is living in the past. I concede that the CBC in
times gone by has furnished part of the glue that has held the
country together.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I am sorry, the
hon. member's time has expired.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to second the motion presented by my colleague, the
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. The motion reads as
follows:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions concerning funding
for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for the next three years, thus
causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French language network.
First, I will give a brief background. Then, I will describe the
present situation and analyze its impact on the French-speaking
community of Quebec and Canada.
Before starting, however, I would like to point out that, unlike
the government, I will use both terms, that is SRC and CBC, to
refer to the two sectors of our public television instead of SRC in
the French version of documents and CBC in the English
version. For greater clarity, the term SRC will refer only to the
French network and the term CBC, to the English network. You
will see later the importance of this distinction.
10765
Under the precedent Conservative regime, many cuts were
made. In 1990, certain services were abolished, 1,100 jobs were
cut, three local television stations were closed, eight stations
were transformed into information production offices. These
cuts resulted in savings of $108 million.
These measures were vigorously denounced by the Liberals.
The famous red book put it this way: ``Funding cuts to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the
National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions
illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of
cultural and industrial development''. Those are the words of
the Liberals in their red book.
And it went on: ``A Liberal government will be committed to
stable multiyear financing for national cultural institutions such
as the Canada Council and the CBC. This will allow national
cultural institutions to plan effectively''. It would be difficult to
find better intentions concerning culture and the SRC.
What is the situation today, following the tabling of the
budget in February? On that famous day, February 27, 1995, we
learned the extent of the budget cuts which would affect the
Department of Canadian Heritage. We learned that this
department's budget would be cut by $676 million over the next
three years, in other words, 23 per cent of its global budget.
These cuts would affect the budgets of the CBC, Telefilm
Canada and the National Film Board, which would be reduced
by 4, 4 and 5 per cent respectively. In the case of the CBC,
depending on how you understand the figures, it means a
minimum cut of $44 million for the 1995-96 fiscal year.
Furthermore, the day after the budget, the government decided
to transfer Radio Canada International to the CBC and that
accounted for an additional amount of approximately $12
million.
At the same time, the minister announced that the government
would review thoroughly the terms of reference of the CBC, the
NFB and Telefilm Canada. The CBC mandate would be
examined, according to him, within a framework similar to that
of the study being done by the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage on the role of the CBC in a multichannel environment.
We must remember that, before the budget was introduced,
the CBC already had to support a loss of revenue of $180 million
because of the cuts previously made by the Tory government and
a decrease in commercial revenues. The former president, Mr.
Anthony Manera, was already worried that these cuts could kill
public television for good.
Nevertheless, the Liberal government, in spite of the rhetoric
of the red book, will not be impressed by so little, and certainly
not if it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage talking.
And the saga goes on. Right after the budget was tabled, on
February 28, it was announced that Mr. Manera would talk to the
employees to explain the financial situation of the CBC. The
explanations remain vague because figures can be seen
differently by different persons. Yet, everybody agrees that in
April 1995, the CBC will have to cut between $40 and $50
million to offset this loss of revenue, also called the structural
deficit.
(1145)
On the same day, Mr. Manera announced his resignation as
chief executive officer of the CBC, when his mandate was
supposed to end in February 1999, that is in four years. Talk
about an early retirement!
In support of his decision, Mr. Manera alleged personal
reasons, which the Minister of Heritage hurried to repeat using
these words: ``Mr. Manera has resigned for personal reasons;
everything else has been totally invented''.
By ``everything else'', the minister was referring, among
other things, to the scenario of a $300 million reduction in the
budgets of the CBC over the next three years. I would recall that,
on his appointment to his position, in November 1993, Mr.
Manera had demanded assurances from the minister that no
huge cuts would be applied to the CBC. At that time, the same
minister had made a commitment to give the CBC multi-year
financing. He even went so far as to promise Mr. Manera that
there would not be any more budget reductions at the CBC. He
had dared describe himself as a ``friend of the house'', meaning
the CBC, when he had been appointed as the Minister of
Heritage. That is too much!
We must realize that we are not talking about ancient history
here. We are talking about November 1993, just 18 months ago.
We are talking about assurances that were given by a minister to
one of the most important departments of his government. How
sad and shameful.
Mr. Manera, who seems to have been somewhat more lucid
than his minister, came back by setting the record straight: it was
a cut of not only $44 million that the CBC would suffer, but of
$350 million by 1997-98. The government was getting ready to
reduce the total budget by 23 per cent over three years. All this
after the minister had confirmed to his president that there
would be no more cuts.
How did the minister respond to his president's statement?
First, as I said earlier, he repeated that Mr. Manera had resigned
for personal reasons. According to the minister, there was no
relation between this resignation and the budgetary cuts
announced. He said he knew that Mr. Manera was going to
resign and that his resignation was for personal reasons.
Somehow, Mr. Manera made it clear in his speech to the
employees that he was resigning because of the budget cuts.
This is quite a lack of communication. This minister is no doubt
fully proficient in the
10766
area of communications. He went on to say the same thing again
on March 16 in similar circumstances.
In Montreal, the vice-president of the CBC French network,
Mrs. Michelle Fortin, could already foresee the impact the
announced cuts would have on the operations of her
organization. On March 15 and 16, she called a meeting of her
employees to take stock of the situation. According to her, the
organization in Montreal would suffer cuts of about $60 million
and there would be a downsizing of some 750 jobs over the next
three years.
In answer to a question asked in this House in that regard, the
minister said he knew nothing about the downsizing and tried to
justify his position by saying that the CBC, his ``official source''
of information, had made no official decision. Need we remind
you that the president and chief executive officer had already
resigned and declared that he had no intention of presiding over
the implementation of the new budget.
I would like to go back briefly to the minister's statements, in
the order in which he made them. We saw that when he received
Mr. Manera's resignation on February 28, the minister said it
was for personal reasons. The day after, on March 1, he only
mentioned again the figures contained in the budget. On March
2, we learned that Mr. Manera recognized he had received from
the deputy minister of Heritage a secret document outlining the
scope of the cuts for the three following years. The members of
this House were treated to blatant nonsense.
While the opposition had that document in hand and was
quoting it, the minister refused to admit that the figures were
right. According to him, this document is based on assumptions
which are part of a program review undertaken by another
minister. All this when we know that the cuts depend on
Cabinet's decisions. Where was the hon. minister? Is he not a
member of the Cabinet? It seems that Radio-Canada employees
and executives are better informed than the minister about the
situation that is prevailing in this organization. In fact, on March
18, the Gazette published the information that Mr. Alain Pineau
of the CBC had announced that the regional stations were
threatened by the budgeraty cuts.
(1150)
For the time being, it is more than appropriate to wonder what
the minister has to gain by hiding the truth, since evidence
points in that direction. We also have to wonder if further cuts
are not going to be announced soon. We have to wonder what
major initiatives the minister intends to put forward within the
national television, and what political implications they will
have.
It is interesting to look at the public opinion about these cuts
in the French network. A recent SOM poll released last week by
La Presse showed that 60 per cent of respondents want the
subsidies allocated to the CBC maintained or increased. It seems
the public can only praise CBC-SRC for the way it does inform
Canadians and increase their general knowledge. In Quebec, the
results are even more impressive since one Quebecer out of
three are opposed to the cuts Radio-Canada is facing.
That raises a completely different issue: the gap in the
audience ratings between Canada and Quebec. Quebecers listen
a lot to national television whereas only 12 per cent of their
English-speaking counterparts watch it. This is a big difference
which should, in theory, have an impact on the subsidies allotted
the two networks. Up until now, however, viewer ratings were
not among the criteria used to determine budget allocations. We
pay more attention to the production costs of the programs,
which are higher in English Canada than in Quebec. This is a
vicious circle in which we have been trapped for a long time and
which has been raising questions for many years.
Let us turn to the announcement made by the minister with
regard to the CBC mandate review. For the French network, this
announcement raises a lot of concerns. Indeed, we know that
English Canada is generally not happy with the CBC, as far as its
cost-quality ratio is concerned. For $1 billion, many people
think that we could get more for our money. As I said, this vision
is not shared in Quebec where people are satisfied with the
performance of Radio-Canada which is reaching, on average, 35
per cent of the viewers. Once again, we are faced with the
dilemma of the two solitudes.
Once again, these two solitudes have different needs and
tendencies. Could the government decide it woud be politically
correct to invest more in the French network, which has good
ratings, than in the English network that is not very popular?
Can we imagine that the Canadian federalism could be flexible
enough to allow for the government to be very generous with the
French network, while reducing drastically the subsidies
allotted to the English network? This question has not been
debated yet. We must also ask ourselves what would be the
consequences of the budgetary cuts.
In his brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,
the CBC spokespersons mentioned the possible impact of the
reduction of its budgets. They said that the CBC would have no
choice but to put thousands of people out of work. They added
that their services would have to be drastically reduced and that
no part of the mandate of the CBC would be left untouched.
The Minister of Finance said recently that any important
reduction of the CBC budget would require a review of its
current mandate. The citizens, the corporation employees and
this House have the right to know where the minister and his
government are going with the CBC. The Canadian public will
not tolerate any longer the mysteries and the balderdash of the
minister. Therefore, tell us what to do.
10767
(1155)
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member
for Quebec talk about national institutions and our commitment
to national institutions I did not understand where she was
coming from. That party is committed to dismantling national
institutions; that is its whole mission here. Have the Bloc
members suddenly had some kind of a conversion they have not
declared in public? Are they trying to figure out a way to
recommit themselves to Canada by pushing the CBC? I cannot
figure them out.
The member also talked about our commitment to stable,
multi-year budgets. The member is absolutely right. It does say
that in the red book.
One of the difficulties we have and which all Canadians
should know is that we are trying to rebuild an economy that was
literally on its knees. Our recovery is fragile. We are starting to
get a little steam, but what does the Bloc Quebecois do this
week? It refuses to let us table our back to work legislation so we
can get our national transportation system going. This causes a
ripple effect beyond imagination.
For an example I will use a sector that I had some association
with, the automotive sector. It is not just the assembly plants
that are brought to their knees, it is all of the small and medium
size auto parts manufacturers that ship to these plants. The Bloc
Quebecois right now is hurting the chances for a renewal of this
country's economy even more so by shutting down our ability to
rebuild this economy by keeping our transportation system in
order.
The best hope and the best long term chance the CBC in all of
its facets has in terms of restoring itself to the funding and
renewed strength we would all like to see is by the Bloc
members committing themselves to rebuilding the economy of
all of Canada rather than thinking about their own parochial
interests. Does the member not see that?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for his questions and remind him of the commitments
the Liberals made on multi-year financing to allow the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make a balance sheet for
several years instead of operating on a piecemeal basis, as it is
the case now.
When it sat in the opposition and during the election
campaign, this government made promises that I do not think it
can keep now. My colleague seems to be particularly concerned
about the economic situation and he would like the Bloc to bring
forward solutions to deal with some economic problems and the
economic recovery.
I have here some figures. For instance, defence spending,
which amounted to $11 billion, will be cut by 4.97 per cent, the
budget for the advancement of women will be cut by 30 per cent
and the budget for culture and communication will be cut by 23
per cent. Those figures show where the priorities of this
government are: cutting by 23 per cent the budget for culture,
which amounted only to $1 billion, and the budget for the
advancement of women, which amounted only to $10 million,
while defence spending is only reduced by 4.97 per cent. What
about your priorities for economic recovery? We wonder.
In answer to another question that the hon. member asked
about the railway problem, the opposition proposed some
alternatives and I think that if the government had listened to
them, perhaps we would have reached a decision very quickly.
(1200)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, since
its beginnings, la Société Radio-Canada-The French language
counterpart of the CBC-has been the voice of Canada's
francophone population and the mirror of our culture.
Sociologists will tell you just how closely the birth of the
Québécois identity is linked to the cultural programming that
Radio-Canada broadcast into our living rooms. Thanks to
Radio-Canada, francophones in all parts of Canada have seen
and recognized themselves. The network has offered shared
experiences to all and, through its programs, opened up a
window on the world. In more recent years, Radio-Canada has
allowed the world to learn about our culture, our way of life, and
our values.
We are all proud of Radio-Canada's achievements. We are
proud because they are closely linked to the success of our
broadcasting policy. This policy, which is set out in the
Broadcasting Act, ensures high calibre programming in French.
The Act stipulates that ``English and French language
broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under
different conditions and may have different requirements''.
And in fact, la Société Radio-Canada has managed to give us
quite unique programming, programming that has been highly
successful and is even the envy of some on the
English-language CBC side.
Thanks to this broadcasting policy, French-language
programming obtains unbelievably high audience ratings, year
after year. Nineteen of the twenty most popular
French-language shows, and forty-seven of the fifty most
popular French-language shows are produced in Canada. Yes,
they are produced in Canada. And these programs are popular
because they are good, their quality is universally recognized.
This explains why a series like ``Les filles de Caleb'' has been
sold in over forty countries.
10768
Some people will say that this series owes its success to those
who made it, which is true. We are indeed lucky to be able to
count on such talented artists. Some of them have had their
talents recognized abroad and have decided to work there.
Gifted though they may be, however, not many of them could
have reached such heights without the help of government
policies and support to the cultural community.
Among the federal institutions which contributed in this way,
I should mention Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and
the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission.
Not only has Radio-Canada played a leading role in the
process of cultural affirmation, it has also played an
incalculable role with regard to linguistic affirmation. As
explained by the Authors of the report of the Task Force on
Broadcasting Policy, also known as the Sauvageau-Caplan
Committee: ``Francophones are well aware of the importance of
radio and television in strengthening the language. The best
known example is the sports vocabulary, which was almost
completely anglicized, even in France. Two Radio-Canada
announcers, Michel Normandin and René Lecavalier, had to
develop new terms to describe the games they were announcing
and the French equivalents they developed were adopted so
wholeheartedly that competing private broadcasters, print
media and sports fans gradually began to use them, and they
eventually became an accepted part of the language.''
(1205)
However, not only do francophones benefit from good quality
programming, they are also able to receive broadcasting signals
from a variety of sources. In the first place, there are the
conventional television services: Télé-Métropole and
Télévision Quatre Saisons, as well as two French-language
educational networks: Radio-Québec and TVOntario's La
Chaîne.
In addition to these, there are a number of specialized
services: Réseau des sports, Météomédia, Canal Famille, TV5,
Musique Plus and, just recently, Réseau de l'information, RDI.
This last service addresses a need that had been identified within
the Canadian broadcasting system. I hasten to add that the Bloc
Quebecois itself had demanded that such a service be
established. RDI went on the air January 1, 1995, and since then
it has been doing an admirable job of covering events in Canada
and elsewhere.
All these services provide a range of programming more
varied than that available in any other francophone country.
[English]
Furthermore through TV 5 the federal government has been
able to ensure that the influence of Canada's francophone
culture spreads to the four corners of the earth. TV 5 broadcasts
in Europe, Africa, the United States, Latin America and the
Caribbean. We anticipate that its signal will soon be picked up in
Asia. In all these parts of the world a Canadian traveller staying
in a place with the necessary receiving equipment will be able to
watch Bernard Derome and numerous other broadcasts
produced in Canada.
One cannot speak of Radio-Canada without mentioning its
regional presence, particularly outside Quebec where its
programming had considerable impact in communities such as
my own in St. Boniface which until recently had the impression
that mass media were inevitably anglophone. Collective
identities in minority communities began to emerge thanks to
Radio-Canada.
There is no doubt that the review of the corporation's mandate
and the budget cuts the government had to impose will require
some realignment. However the need for realignment had
become unavoidable because of the 500-channel universe and
the information highway.
The reality is that we are going through a period when
certainties will be tested, when change will be the only constant,
when our creativity will be our chief resource and unfortunately
when public funds will continue to be in limited supply.
This does not mean that we are giving up. We must find
common solutions to ensure the continued vitality of French
language culture and to ensure the relevance of our national
institutions based less on the resources allocated to them and
more on the imagination we are capable of showing. The
committee on heritage has already taken steps in this direction.
We must continue our deliberations and come up with
innovative solutions.
Radio-Canada will measure up to the challenges. It will be
able to fulfil its present mandate as well as any other mandate
that it might be given. Its past accomplishments has secured it a
promising future.
(1210)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion, which I will do
from a different perspective. The Bloc was extremely critical of
the minister's lack of openness this morning because the
announcement made by Michèle Fortin may seriously handicap
a powerful instrument for the transmission and production of
Quebec culture.
But first of all, I would like to respond to members who
wondered why we were defending the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, since it is a federal institution and we want to get
out of Canada.
I would like to read a quote from what Pierre Elliott Trudeau
said in 1967 in Le fédéralisme et la société canadienne
française: ``One way of offsetting the appeal of separatism is by
investing tremendous amounts of time, energy, and money in
nationalism, at the federal level. A national image must be
10769
created that will have such an appeal as to make any image of a
separatist group unattractive. Resources must be diverted into
such things as national flags, anthems, education, arts councils,
broadcasting corporations, film boards''. This is what Pierre
Elliott Trudeau wrote in Le fédéralisme et la société canadienne
française, HMH, 1967.
We are defending the CBC's French network, which we feel is
at risk because of imminent cutbacks, because we are aware that
despite the mission Pierre Elliott Trudeau wanted to give the
network, Radio-Canada has been a very important vehicle for
the transmission and production of Quebec culture, although we
could have dispensed with some of the bias involved.
Altogether, it is part of our living heritage. This is an
institution that belongs to us, and we want to make sure it will
not only continue to exist but will be able to improve the quality
of its productions. In fact, Radio-Canada is the depository of a
collective resource, a collective instrument that is essential to
our culture, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has no right
to trifle with the future of this powerful collective instrument of
Quebec culture.
I may recall what was said by Gérald Leblanc on tv-it was
not on Radio-Canada-last Sunday. The following gives some
idea of the ratings of French television in Quebec compared with
those of Canadian tv productions in the rest of Canada: ``When
the Royal Air Farce, an excellent comedy program, reaches one
million viewers out of a potential 20 million, it celebrates and
breaks open the champagne. However, every week,
Radio-Canada and TVA together regularly reach a viewership of
three million or more out of a potential seven million''.
(1215)
He added: ``If we were to obey the dictates of the market,
Radio-Canada would be affected, cuts would have to be made,
but the CBC could not survive''. Far be it from me to suggest
that we should take away the CBC's means to survive. We are
only too aware of the significance culture holds for the future of
a people and a nation. We can state forcefully that no people, no
nation, with the exception of the United States perhaps, can let
the powerful instrument which creates and conveys its culture
become hostage to the marketplace.
I add that the CBC is the only broadcaster that has strong
Canadian content during peak hours. All other Canadian
television networks have a low domestic content, around 20 to
30 per cent during peak hours, which can seriously affect
Canadian culture. As for us, we chose this morning to show how
important Radio-Canada is to the Quebec culture and how much
we want not only to know what the government is planning but
also to block its plans to deprive the SRC of its means. We care
because the goals of the SRC are intrinsic goals, they are the
collective goals it was created to achieve. That is why we cannot
afford to let Radio-Canada be deprived of its means.
Mrs. Fortin, to whom I listened with great pleasure, was
defending wholeheartedly in her own energetic way the role of
this public television network which she compared to public
schools. We never say that public schools are not profitable and
must be financed in some other way. Public television has an
important role to play. At least, it plays an important role in
Quebec and it can play that role even better. We think that our
colleagues from English Canada could ponder with us ways of
strenghtening Canadian culture.
Being a francophone in North America can be difficult since
we represent a little more than 2 per cent of the population and
we are surrounded, submerged by English language channels. To
remain a country not only with a distinct border but also with a
distinct national identity, Canada-which does have its own
culture, though sometimes it is not easily differentiated from
that of the United States-must protect its public television.
I would like to say a few words about culture. If in fact we
attach so much importance to public television and to television
in general, it is because television is, along with other
audiovisual techniques, the main vehicle of culture nowadays. It
is not only a vehicle of that culture which exists and which we
shall try to define, it is also an extremely important forum for
cultural production.
(1220)
When one realizes the public reached by Radio-Canada and
TVA in Quebec, when one realizes the impact popular programs
may have on the people, how these programs can strenghten its
cultural identity, give rise to debate, question actions, attitudes
and values, one realizes how alive our culture is, nurtured of
course by our heritage, our history, the arts and all that cultural
production embraces, but digested and distributed in another
form, vehicled by the media of our times.
In this era of telecommunications, which is still full of
surprises, it is a means, the most important means of
distribution, development and production of culture.
Figures alone are not enough when we are talking about such
an important instrument, which defines what people will think
and are thinking and what affects Canadians' current and future
desire to live together. This is what nationalism is all about. This
is why we say that there are two countries within this country.
We keep seeing it-every day. And what we want is sovereignty,
because we think it is better for our people.
At the same time, we are aware that Canadian culture as well
warrants clearer definition. It too needs to find expression in a
world in which it is perhaps more threatened than francophone
culture, because it shares a common language with the United
States, which is more than a neighbour; it is the prevailing
influence of our time. And if, because of this, Canadian minds
10770
are fed American values, images, references, history, action and
activities, I would take the liberty of saying that one must draw
one's own conclusions and take no delight in the fact that
English Canadian public television reaches such a small portion
of the population, quite the contrary.
Of course, there are my hon. colleagues beside me who say
that culture does need the help of the state. I would challenge
them. The state does not create the cultural product, the artist.
However, without a way to live, without sufficient means, few
artists, artistic endeavours and cultural productions would
survive, particularly in today's world. We must remember, here
again, that the CBC is in competition with American
productions, which have 20 times the resources.
We have chosen to talk about the CBC because our culture, its
life and its evolution, depend in part on the continued
availability of resources. Just as in the past, during the
Renaissance, people needed patrons, the patrons are now being
replaced by the state, by states.
(1225)
No people, no self-respecting nation can afford not to support
this great tool which television has become.
It must be said that the audiovisual medium requires a lot of
resources. You and I can make video clips, but to produce
programs which can compete with other programs coming from
all over the world, we need resources. Otherwise, all the talents
available to us will either be under-utilized or not used at all.
Culture is what defines a people, a nation. It is its soul. Its way
of being. It is not static. It implies a knowledge of the past. It
implies the handing down of the cultural production of previous
generations. But it also implies a certain intermixing. It implies
that each generation has to embark on the creative process using
the same basic tools. But, in the long run, it is culture, this way
of being, which guarantees that globalization will not reduce all
cultures to the one with the most resources. This is what is really
at stake in the present situation when we talk about all these
numbers.
In 1992, in a fantastic speech he made in Montreal, Boutros
Boutros-Ghali said: ``The sound globalization of modern life
implies the existence of strong cultural identities, since an
excessive or ill-conceived globalization could crush various
cultures and melt them down into a uniform one, which would
spell nothing good for the world''.
He added: ``Individuals need an intermediary between a
universe too large for them and their solitary status, for the mere
fact that, at the start, they need a language to understand and
decipher the outside world. What they need are practical
alliances and a framework of cultural references, to sum it up, a
passport to the world''. Television is that passport to the world
for most young people. That is why it is a national
responsibility. This passport contributes the most to the creation
of future societies, because it does not act alone.
I digressed a little, but now return to Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali's speech. ``Nation-states, which transcend the
physically closer alliances of family, clans or villages, fill these
needs. A nation has a common reason for existing, which is the
first step towards the universal, towards a universal civilization.
An orderly world is a world of independent nations which are
open to each other and respect each other's differences and
similarities''. This is what I call the fruitful logic of
nationalities and universality.
To defend the Société Radio-Canada and the CBC, the Bloc
Quebecois says ``stop''. Culture is the soul of the people, and if
culture is not given sufficient means, the growth of these little
people, these small states, will be stunted in a world
overshadowed by the giant we all know well.
(1230)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague for
Mercier on her excellent, and in a large part spontaneous,
intervention. It shows how much culture, whether it is Quebec
culture or Canadian culture, is dear to her heart and how much
she knows about the fundamentals of its development.
I would like my colleague to comment on what I am going to
say, because my understanding of the present debate on the
future of the CBC reminds me of other debates we have had on
the future of Quebec culture and Canadian culture.
Just remember the whole copyright issue which is so
fundamental to the development of Canada and Quebec from a
cultural point of view. Remember also everything related to the
information highway where Quebec, because of its different
language in North America, is not recognized, not invited to
participate. This is extremely serious. It is also excluded
because of the centralizing nature of Canada.
Another example is what happened with Ginn Publishing,
where English Canada sacrificed for peanuts a Canadian
publisher, simply because we are considering ourselves more
and more as vassals of our American neighbour.
This debate on the CBC shows that it is essential to the
preservation of the future of English Canada, of the English
Canadian culture. As to the Quebec French speaking culture, we
are preparing the future so that it will be preserved. I would like
my colleague to comment on this subject, that is the American
influence on these issues.
Mrs. Lalonde: Madam Speaker, that is in fact the underlying
basis of my remarks. We must not think that, in this world where
the economy plays such an important role, we cannot afford to
10771
invest in culture. Because culture is the very essence of our
identity.
More than that, very concretely, the cultural industry is the
main showcase for our cultural talents and products. This
industry also needs encouragement.
The fact that Quebec cannot sign international agreements,
negotiate its own bilateral contracts or participate in regulatory
talks, that it is thus often unable to develop direct expertise, that
it cannot address some problems such as copyright matters, and
that it cannot continue regional and local production, for
example, because it cannot afford it and because the resources
come from Ottawa, all contribute to its erosion, if we continue
with this comparison.
The French, who are the unchallenged champions of culture,
invest heavily in their culture, their heritage, their television,
their arts community.
(1235)
We could say that they know how important this industry is,
but they also know how closely it is tied to their place as a
middle power in the world. They know that culture is the glue
that makes people want to live together. They know that it is
extremely important to allocate all the resources and all the
energy they can to this industry.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will preface my comments on the
motion before us by the following preliminary remarks because
I want to make myself perfectly clear.
First, I have the profound conviction that there is a need in our
country for a national public broadcaster. I am convinced that
this broadcaster is essential to our cohesion and the
development of our culture, as both francophones and
anglophones. After listening to a fair number of my colleagues
opposite, I am happy to see that they support the position I have
always defended. Inasmuch as they continue to support this
position I just heard our colleague mention, I am very pleased
with their contribution. We are working together to ensure that
Radio-Canada remains a large corporation and continues to
contribute to the development of the francophone culture in
Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
My second introductory observation concerns the
relationship between the government and Radio-Canada. I think
that there is no ambiguity there either. There has been much talk
about this issue. The government, and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage in particular, always made it clear that we respect
Radio-Canada's autonomy, as essential to this great institution
but also to freedom of press, which we wholeheartedly support.
So, what is the government's involvement? Well,
Radio-Canada belongs to all Canadians and the government is
responsible to ensure that this public property is managed
properly and well run. That responsibility takes a specific form
with budgeting, in so far as budgetary appropriations are part of
CBC's budget, and I will get back to this, and with appointments
to the board of directors and, of course, to the executive level of
the corporation.
The government can express opinions, as I just did, on general
issues related to CBC's position in the world of
communications. We can express such opinions. We state our
general policy, so that CBC's managers can develop their plans
and their management strategy in compliance with the federal
government's vision and main policies.
The third point is that the review and the decisions made
concerning CBC are part of a larger initiative, namely the
development of what is called the information highway. The
information highway will, of course, provide information, but it
will also contain numerous and significant cultural elements.
There is no ambiguity here. As spokesman of the Canadian
government, I keep saying that we hope that Canadian content
will be prevalent on that information highway. As I said earlier,
and opposition members support that position, it is important
that the information highway helps promote Canadian culture,
which includes the French-speaking Canadian and Quebec
culture.
(1240)
What should we do now? There are three basic institutions
which belong to Canada and which can help create this Canadian
content. The largest one of is CBC, of course, but there are also
the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. These agencies
are in the sound and picture business and, to be sure, very
important decisions will be made this year, in 1995, regarding
the creation of sound and pictures by Canadian producers.
Numerous studies commissioned by the Minister of Industry
and myself are currently being conducted regarding this issue.
There is a reference to the CRTC, an advisory committee on the
information highway, as well as several other committees at
work. All this will lead us to make fundamental decisions a little
later on this year, when the consultation process will have
brought together all the elements we need to elaborate our
policies, the architecture of the information highway and the
traffic regulations for this highway.
I think it is important to say these things, because it is within
this context that the CBC and the two other agencies I mentioned
must make their contribution. It is only natural to address this
issue and to consider the way the CBC will be able to play its
part.
This brings me to the decisions announced in the Budget
which will especially affect the CBC. There are three of them.
Nothing complicated, only three decisions. First, the
government will undertake a fundamental review of its support,
and the mandates of, the three agencies I mentioned.
10772
Of course, the object of this review is to ensure that these
three agencies are in the best position possible to play their
roles on the information highway. When I talk about the
mandates of these agencies, I use the expression in the large
sense. I do not mean only a sentence in a piece of legislation.
I think it would be wise, while we are examining all our
communications, to review this particular aspect of the
mandates. This was the first decision that was announced. I will
have the pleasure, very soon, to announce the members of the
group that will carry out this review and the very specific terms
of their mandate.
The second decision announced in the budget was the transfer
of Radio Canada International back to the CBC. This decision
was made because it was found that the CBC should again
assume the responsibility for this agency. I know this will have
repercussions on the budget but the conditions and budgetary
aspects of this transfer can be the subject of various discussions
between the CBC and the government.
Finally, there is the parliamentary appropriation for the
coming fiscal year. This appropriation provides for a 4 per cent
reduction in the CBC's base budget as far as the parliamentary
appropriation for this fiscal year ending soon is concerned. So,
why were so many questions asked, since these decisions are
clear?
We were asked why the parliamentary appropriations for a
second and third fiscal years were not announced at the same
time. The answer is simple. If we are serious with our review of
the mandates and our study, it would be wise to wait for the
results of this examination and for the recommendations that
will follow before deciding on the CBC's budget for the second
and third years.
(1245 )
To drive from Ottawa to Montreal, one does not need as much
gas as if he or she would be to go to Quebec City. Thus, there is a
link between the mandate and the budget, as the CBC's chairman
indicated many times publicly. Thus, we answered that question
and we will have mandates redefined when preparing for the
next budget, for next year's budget.
Another thing we have to take into account is the work of the
House heritage committee. This is a review of the CBC and it
includes, as indicated by the reference, or it will include, I hope,
a review on other possible sources of funding the CBC could
have access to. That report is not the only document that
mentions possible new funding sources for the CBC.
How could we set future budgets permanently when basic
elements of the fiscal situation of the CBC are not yet known?
To conclude, I would like to say that I agree with a view that
has been expressed by members on both sides of the House: It is
important that radio and television programming by our public
and private broadcasters provide the bulk of what is transmitted
over our information highway.
A few weeks ago, I was in Brussels for a meeting of the G-7
communications ministers. It turned out that I was the only
minister who was also in charge of cultural matters. The
message I had was essentially what I just said. We cannot
discuss setting up an infrastructure without first discussing the
content it will carry.
After my remarks, there was no more talk of a comprehensive
information infrastructure; all of the talk was about a new
information society. That is very important in my view. I got
unanimous support, including from the American delegation,
when I said that the content that will be carried over those
international information highways should reflect different
cultures and languages instead of a standardized content that
would not be positive for creative artists around the world.
That will conclude my remarks. We are in the process of
developing important policies. I know this is a difficult period.
We cannot ignore the present fiscal limitations that everybody
understands. We have decided that we should all contribute to
bringing down the deficit. We should not fool ourselves: this
government has a tough fiscal policy, but that policy is
supported by 70 per cent of Canadians. I am pleased to add that
all agencies that report through me told me that they understood
the fiscal situation of the government and that they were ready to
co-operate, so that we can eliminate a deficit that makes it so
difficult to govern this country.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for taking the
trouble to come here to get his message across. There are a few
questions I would like to raise.
But first, I thought it was interesting that he had a clear
itemized message for us. Last year, we spent the year, from the
time we were elected until the end of June, sitting two days a
week on the Canadian heritage committee and listening to
people who came to talk about the electronic highway, to be told
that Mr. Manley and Mr. Dupuy, the two ministers, formed a
committee that would ask the CRTC to look into the information
highway.
(1250)
Now we are starting all over again. The same people who
came before the committee will do the same before the CRTC.
The minister said earlier: ``I cannot announce the budget cuts
for next year or for the year after''. Not according to our sources,
which made it very clear in the newspapers and on television
that the cuts for next year were already known. He said: ``We
cannot do that, because I asked a lot of people to look into the
matter''. Well, that is precisely what the Canadian heritage
committee has been keeping itself busy with for the past six
months. It has heard the testimony of many people who came
and talked about the CBC. And even before our report was
released, we already knew this report would be submitted to a
10773
committee of three experts and we knew as well that the
decisions had already been made.
This year, $44 million will be cut. If the government cannot
announce next year's cuts because it is waiting for the findings
of a committee which has yet to be appointed, on what basis did
it make its cuts this year? I am not saying that the status quo is
what we wanted, financially speaking. Not at all. But the
government did not even wait until the committee finished its
work or, because it failed to take the longer view, give it its
mandate soon enough for the work done by our committee to
have an impact on the budget.
We asked whether we should work a little faster so that we
could have an impact on the budget. We never got an answer.
The sad part is that taxpayers' money had already been invested
in the SECOR studies on the situation at Telefilm and the
National Film Board. Since that was not satisfactory, another
study was ordered. The government thinks everything will be all
right, thanks to the information highway. It is like deciding to
build a controlled access highway across Canada and getting rid
of our other highways. Even with the information highway, we
still must keep our other highways.
The government is letting one of those highways-the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-go to pieces by putting it
in a financial situation that is unacceptable at this time, without
taking the time to make the right decisions and without taking
the time to ask, for instance, whether it is necessary to maintain
CBC headquarters, to send the corporation each year to the
CRTC, and so forth. Many areas will be affected by cuts.
However, when the government announces it will cut so many
positions, it will not necessarily be the vice presidents, so that
we can keep the people who are involved in production.
How can the minister guarantee that we can do this? Someone
will have to administer the $180 million in foregone revenue,
the $44 million that has just been cut and the $15 million it will
take to manage Radio Canada International. Can we have the
assurance that those who lose their jobs will not be the
performers, producers and creators? How can the government
guarantee it will remove people who are not directly involved in
production but are part of a bureaucracy that has to issue
cheques in Ottawa to pay people who take part in television
broadcasts in Nova Scotia, for instance?
Mr. Dupuy: Let us speak first about the respective roles of the
CRTC and of the heritage committee. They do not deal with the
same issues, although these issues are related.
The CRTC's terms of reference deal with competition
problems arising between the cable industry and telephone
companies. These problems cover a series of issues which are
industrial, commercial or cultural in nature, but which do not
come under the terms of reference of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation.
(1255)
Specifically, in view of the importance given by the
government to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it was
very important not to let a whole discussion on the architecture
of the electronic highway take place while ignoring the
broadcasters, particularly the biggest of them all.
That is precisely why I wanted a thinking process on the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which would be open to all
parties and to all the people who would decide to testify.
As for the relationship between the reports that the heritage
committee will produce and the last budget, of course, it would
have been possible for the heritage committee to report very
quickly, but I believe that it did what had to be done. It took the
time to think about this and it also gave us the time to think. We
have targeted a fiscal year, but that is precisely in order to
benefit from the advice that the heritage committee and the
other advisory organizations will give us.
There is nothing unusual for a government, whether a Liberal
one or other, that has always determined in its budget the
commitments for the next fiscal year, to continue to do so. This
world is not a world of absolute certainty; it is changing. And we
are indeed going through a period of huge changes in the field of
communications. It would have been irresponsible to say: ``We
are going to take decisions for the next 15 years'', when
everything is changing and we have not yet seen the results of
this serious work which is being done.
This also brings me to a comment on studies. There have
indeed been many studies. We are up to here in studies. But this
time, we are not initiating a new study, let there be no confusion
about this. We are trying to have people synthesize the data, to
help government bring the elements together and prepare some
specific recommendations. So we are certainly not trying to
delay things, on the contrary, we want to accelerate the process.
We must not forget that by next summer, next fall, we will
begin to see the preparation of the next budget. This is exactly
what the deadlines will force us to do. By the time the next
budget is ready, I hope we will have answers which will be
satisfactory for the CBC.
I must say I disapprove of the attitude of the Bloc Quebecois.
They are trying to cause uncertainty, precisely in the mind of
those they pretend to be protecting. Those who will suffer most
will be the craftsmen, the people who will feel distressed by this
confusion the Bloc is trying to create, for reasons that are not
always clear. I will not go into details. However, I feel we should
explain the truth and the process to those who, after all, are at the
origin of all productions. That is what we are trying to do and I
hope my colleagues will cooperate to ensure that these people,
who have always contributed in a remarkable way to the
Canadian culture and the Quebec culture, will understand we
10774
want to help them and give them a mandate where they will
truly have a role to play.
It is false to say that government is trying to kill the CBC. On
the contrary, the government is trying to ensure that the CBC
will be the most efficient instrument, the best institution with
the best policies, to carry out the new mandate.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the Bloc motion reads:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions concerning funding for
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the next three years, thus causing an
ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.
(1300 )
In essence the Bloc is chastising the government for not being
accountable on spending decisions. Naturally I agree with that.
My party agrees with that. We believe very much in the principle
of accountability.
If turnabout really is fair play, and I believe it is, I have some
questions for the Bloc. Where does it get off blocking the
business of an entire nation on the whole issue of back to work
legislation and the railway strike? How accountable is the Bloc
being to its own people in its own province of Quebec who are
losing pay, jobs, business and markets because their party will
not stand up and act for them? Where is its concern for the
unemployed now?
I really feel the Bloc is letting people down. It has acted
irresponsibly throughout the whole process and has thwarted the
democratic will of this place. That is why I find it ironic that it
would put forward a motion that would force a degree of
accountability on the government.
Let us talk for a moment about accountability and about the
motion. The motion is too narrow. The separatist government of
Quebec talked about how it would protect minorities in Quebec,
but there is no mention of CBC English language services in the
motion.
I have to ask why that is. Just how deep rooted is its
commitment to minorities in Quebec? Not very, I suggest. I
believe all the statements it has made about being fair to
minorities is sugar coating. It is a vain attempt to draw in people
who are not francophones in Quebec to vote for the Parti
Quebecois in the referendum. I believe it is vain.
Let us talk for a moment about why accountability with
respect to the CBC is so important. Obviously accountability is
important at any time, but it is especially so when the future of
the CBC literally hangs in the balance. We have a $550 billion
debt and a deficit of about $30 billion. It is an understatement to
say that our fiscal situation is extremely serious.
In considering the whole issue we have to ask ourselves
whether as parliamentarians we will be accountable and
responsible. We have to ask ourselves why we need a CBC in the
first place. Do people really want some kind of institution called
the CBC, or do they really want interesting programs that deal
with issues not dealt with by private broadcasters at this time at
a cost that recognizes our fiscal constraints? That is the real
question. I will talk more about it in a moment.
Let us talk about the different divisions of the CBC. People
who listen are largely happy with what they receive on CBC
radio. However, I firmly believe that the CBC's choice of issues
to explore betrays a liberal bias and truly lacks balance on some
social and political issues. If the CBC were to fix that it would
have a larger audience than it has today.
I also believe all kinds of efficiencies could be built into CBC
radio that would make it function a lot better than it does today.
On the whole, however, relative to some of the other services the
CBC provides radio is in relatively good shape.
The real problem is with CBC English language television. I
commend a recent article in the Montreal Gazette to members of
the House. It was by W. Paterson Ferns and is probably the best
description of not only some of the problems with the CBC but
also some of the solutions. I am mostly addressing English
language television when I talk about this matter.
Mr. Ferns made four major points. He said that the CBC
should start over, that it should start as if the page were blank, by
a commitment to focusing programming. Mr. Ferns described
Britain's channel 4 as a model and pointed out that it had a
mandate to serve all of the people some of the time. Not all of the
people all of the time but just all of the people some of the time,
in other words to really sharpen that focus.
The question Mr. Ferns asked explicitly and implicitly in his
article was: Why in the world should the CBC be broadcasting
American programs? It makes no sense. Those programs flood
over the border on cable systems. We do not need the CBC to
rebroadcast them. To its credit I believe the president has
recognized that it is a crazy idea. Certainly the chairman of the
CRTC has talked about it. It is a crazy idea and we should move
away from it.
(1305)
Another question is why we are broadcasting programs the
private networks are already carrying. Why is the CBC so
heavily involved in sports? Obviously TSN is more than happy
and more than prepared to pick up carrying hockey games and is
already doing so. Do we really need hockey on the CBC? Why is
the CBC bidding to pick up Olympic coverage? Why is it
bidding twice as much as CTV was prepared to bid to pick up
Olympic coverage? It is a huge issue and at a time of fiscal
10775
constraint it is an important issue. It is something the heritage
minister and the leadership of the CBC have to address.
We have to ask ourselves and the CBC has to ask itself what
types of valuable programming are not on the menu of private
broadcasters right now. I do not think that has been done yet. We
see a lot of programming that is currently covered by either the
major networks, by the Americans or by the specialty channels.
That should be a cue to us that we must move away from it.
Mr. Ferns also talked in his article about the need for thin
administration. He pointed out that Britain's channel four
limited its administration to 10 per cent of the total budget. It is
very difficult to examine the CBC figures because they are just
not available. When we look through the annual report of the
CBC it is not obvious just how much money is spent on
administration and it does beg the question: What is it
attempting to hide? Why can we not see those figures?
The motion brought forward by the Bloc asks the right
question and it should be asked of all the CBC: Why are
spending decisions not being made public? Then the question
that flows from that is: Why is the CBC not forthright about how
it spends all its money?
The CBC's percentage of administration to budget is unclear,
as I pointed out. However we know the CBC has a very old style
hierarchy of management. It has several vice-presidents and
several senior managers in Ottawa. It has more senior managers
at the regional level. There has to be a lot of money spent on
administration, given the type of hierarchy.
Mr. Ferns also raised that leadership in a network should be
comprised of programmers. I must admit that at first I took issue
with that point, being concerned about the fiscal side. However
if safeguards are built in there is some sense in the idea.
I point to the private sector and the great success of Moses
Znaimer who has brought tremendous success not only to City
TV in Toronto but also to MuchMusic and the Bravo channel,
one of the new speciality channels that can be found on networks
around the country. I believe it is enjoying a measure of success.
Visionaries like Mr. Znaimer are probably better able to
anticipate public tastes and better able to see needs than perhaps
they are sometimes perceived by the public. That is why Mr.
Znaimer has been hugely successful. Perhaps one of the reasons
the CBC has not been successful is that it has been too
administratively driven in the past. Even with people like Mr.
Watson there was so much bureaucracy in the way and such a lot
of baggage attached to the CBC that it was very difficult for the
programming vision to get down to the field level and to drive
the CBC agenda.
There is a lot to be said about what Mr. Ferns suggested with
respect to the CBC and other public and private broadcasters
around the world. A program maker should lead that institution.
My experience is as a broadcaster who came up on the
programming side as opposed to the administration or the sales
sides. I have seen many successful private sector operations
being driven by people with a good sense of programming, a
sense of what people want from programming. From a personal
standpoint I think it is really true.
(1310 )
A program producer who heads up an organization may
indeed be the best choice as long as the organization is
accountable. It has to be accountable not just to a board of
directors but to its advertisers, its viewers and taxpayers. This is
something that has not happened with the CBC to this point, nor
with the government when it comes to not sharing information
that is important to taxpayers, namely how their money is spent.
An institution such as the CBC must be accountable to
Parliament not in name only but really accountable. There
should be an annual review of the CBC by this body in a deep and
probing way so that if things are going off track we have
immediate recourse: We can jump in and make some changes as
appropriate.
Also Mr. Ferns indicated that news and current affairs shows
should be bought from a reputable source and all shows should
be commissioned from the independent sector. That makes a
tremendous amount of sense. He argues that the corporation
should not make, that it should buy. The CBC invests a
tremendous amount of resources-time, money and
manpower-in producing programs when there is a huge
creative sector out there that could provide and would compete
to provide the CBC with all kinds of programming. It should
avail itself of that.
That type of competition would lead to better programming. It
would also lead to cheaper programming because people would
go the extra mile to get their costs down to win the bid and
ultimately get a program on the CBC. That makes sense. Why
invest money in bureaucracy, administration, bricks, mortar and
equipment when it can obtain programs directly from the
makers of programs?
The analogy in the article was that book publishers did not
hire authors to sit in a room and produce novels which they then
published. Book publishers buy the finished product. It makes
all the sense in the world. That is exactly what the CBC should
be doing.
10776
In summary, we cannot afford the CBC as it is now. To simply
parrot what happens on other networks is a complete waste of
money, talent and time. People do not watch the CBC as it is
now. Advertisers do not support it. While there are a few
popular programs, CBC English language television is
generally not held in high esteem.
This impression is only compounded when the CBC and the
government shroud themselves in secrecy. Given this veil of
secrecy, who among us is not tempted to ask the obvious
questions: What does it have to hide? What is it afraid of?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks, which I
listened to carefully. He mentioned at the start that he was
surprised to discover we wanted to talk about television, when
we were preventing the trains from running.
I think it is extremely important to remind him once again,
-we said it a number of times this morning. It is not really
relevant, but, since the subject has been raised-had the
government accepted the Bloc's proposals, the bill would have
been adopted a while back and the trains would probably have
started running by now. So, do not blame us if the trains are not
running and no one is looking after the economy.
Looking after culture is in fact looking after the economy. It is
not only when the trains are running that the economy exists.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: He also felt our motion was somewhat
limited, because we referred only to the French network.
Throughout his speech, my colleague talked only of the CBC.
This is perfectly understandable. He knows the CBC better than
I ever will, and I know the SRC better than he ever will. Since
there are really two peoples, two nations, two cultures, two of
everything in this country, and people want to deny this fact, it is
not surprising that they find our motion limited when we talk of
the French network.
(1315)
What I think is also important to point out, and I have the
figures to back me up, in our concern about the famous cuts at
the CBC, is what proportion each of the English and French
networks will get. It is also perhaps important here for the
people in this House and for everyone watching us on television
to know that, for an hour of news, the SRC gets $7,000, while the
CBC gets $18,000. For an hour of variety programming, the
SRC gets $30,000, the CBC, $141,000. For a drama program, the
SRC gets $68,000, and the CBC gets $99,000.
We can therefore readily understand that, with less money to
begin with, there will be even less money to produce our
programs, if the cuts are made the same way. The problem is that
the SRC's programs are popular. The BBM ratings for the SRC
are positive. What program on the CBC can claim to have 4
million viewers?
Some hon. members: Not one.
Mrs. Tremblay: Not a single one. The best CBC programs
barely reach a figure of 10 or 12 per cent of viewers. In round
figures, in very very generous terms, this means some 2 million
viewers. We are therefore definitely not talking about the same
order of magnitude, other than to say that a lot of people watch
television, and if we had the same resources as the CBC, even
the anglophones would probably start watching the SRC,
because they would find it interesting.
Does my colleague not think that we have reason to worry
about the present situation, since we are told that the
information highway is the answer which, in a way, is like
saying that we will solve the question of the CBC in 20 years?
But what about this year or next? It seems logical that we should
worry about keeping a general interest television network since,
according to statistics given at the heritage committee, there are
places in the West, for example, where rural populations can get
only one TV network, the CBC. The same is true for some parts
of Quebec.
Then would it not make sense to try to find a way to reach that
market? I have nothing against helping private enterprise, but
should we not also try to maintain a general interest television
network for the whole Canadian community, French speaking as
well as English speaking? What does he think about that?
[English]
Mr. Solberg: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon member's
question. She talked about several things but I would like to
comment on what kind of service should be provided to people
in remote areas.
It is a legitimate responsibility of the CBC to provide service
in remote areas. I completely accept that. However, there is a
larger question and one I posed in my talk which is, does it
always need to be the CBC? Is it really important that it be a
particular institution, or is it the service itself that is important?
Sometimes that service can be better provided by a private
sector broadcaster. When talking about news and current affairs,
there is no doubt in my mind that the private sector can and has
produced shows which are as good as those on the CBC.
I would argue that people in some of those communities
should have the choice of bringing in either a private sector
broadcaster or the CBC. It should be ultimately driven by them.
While it is a legitimate role for the CBC, it does beg the bigger
question: Is it really the institution we want there, or is it a
certain type of programming? That is probably what people
10777
really want. At the end of the day it should be up to them to
decide what kind of service they want brought in.
(1320)
If it is something they cannot get otherwise, then it is
something the government should provide for them. That is
probably a good use for the CBC northern service. In talking
about TV broadcasting, if people in a community would rather
have CTV than CBC and it requires building a transmitter, then
personally I do not see a problem with bringing that service in
instead of CBC.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
great interest in taking part in this debate today.
It is seemingly unusual that only yesterday I was in the House
arguing and defending the budget program of the government.
At that time my hon. colleagues in the Bloc were saying: ``Cut
more. You need to cut more. You have not done enough. The
province of Quebec is sitting in a sinking ship and we are not
doing enough''. Today, they are speaking the reverse argument.
``You are doing too much. You are hurting us. Do not do that any
more''. What is it going to be?
It is clear to most people in Canada that the status quo is not
good enough. As we approach the 21st century we have to
change. We have to change as a government, as a country and as
a people. The status quo which is being defended by the Bloc
Quebecois is not satisfactory.
While talking about the status quo, it is interesting to note the
problems we are having with our rail industry today. That is part
of the same argument in some ways because some of these
contractual agreements have matters in them that go back
almost a century.
I was surprised to learn that blacksmithing is a job description
which is still available in the CN. One has to be a blacksmith to
get certain types of jobs. This is the kind of thing the Bloc
Quebecois is defending, blacksmithing, as we approach the 21st
century. I do not think that is good enough.
I can say that the people of my riding in which General Motors
is a major feature are not at all impressed by the ability to
manage this economy that the Bloc Quebecois has shown so
clearly. We try to manage and people are stopping us from doing
that.
We share the North American continent with our
tremendously large neighbour to the south. This neighbour has
tremendous resources, huge programming and cultural
diversity. It is exporting its culture all over the world. Programs
come easily across the border. Indeed as we go to better
telecommunications devices it is going to be almost impossible
to avoid that kind of culture penetrating the North American
milieu. That affects our culture, both English and French.
I have always been a supporter of the CBC. I have always
believed it is necessary to foster Canadian culture. What we
have to do is to foster it in an affordable way.
Clearly the CBC has been a vanguard of supporting culture
both in English Canada and French Canada. I note that Canada is
an exporter of French programming and clearly therefore, it has
been a success. It has been a success not only of the CBC but also
of our federal system which has recognized the need to foster
these industries, to get them going and let them flourish.
As we approach the 21st century, it is clear we have to change
the way we conduct our government and the way we do business.
It is clear that governments want to withdraw from direct
management of different types of industry, whether they are
cultural or direct industries like CN Rail and let others do that
for them. It does not mean the government wants to abdicate
Canadian culture, far from it. The object of the exercise is to
find a better and more efficient way to deliver the same thing.
(1325 )
The CRTC has a mandate which does just that. New licences
have just been issued. The basis of that licensing program was to
foster and assist Canadian culture.
I remember not too many years ago when the finance
department brought in an incentive to support both the French
and English Canadian film industry. I was a little pessimistic at
first. I am always pessimistic about tax driven investments.
However it was very successful both for the French and English
people in Canada who developed a movie industry. Once again,
Canada was an exporter of French language programming to the
world.
We have now slowly moved out of the tax incentives for that.
Once we get a child going, it is no different from a family. If we
think about it, when our children reach a certain age it is time for
them to go out on their own. It is time for them to do their own
thing. That is really what we are saying about the CBC.
Even after these cutbacks the CBC will still have funding of
$1.4 billion. We can hardly consider that a small amount of
money in support of cultural broadcasting in Canada regardless
of what language it is in.
We are not saying to the CBC that it has to cut a lot of jobs,
which possibly it will. We are saying that it has to redefine
where it is going in this country. It has to define the things it can
do well and rethink some of the things that perhaps it should not
be doing any more.
I had a discussion with some journalists one day. They
thought it was unusual that the CBC could have journalists in
just about every town in this country whereas other private
broadcasters had to rationalize that and make it more efficient.
This is what we are asking the CBC to do, to become more
efficient so it can be slowly weaned off the public payroll.
10778
The motion very clearly is talking about the concern of the
reduction in funding. I ask my colleagues in the Bloc, what
would the alternative be? Would the alternative in meeting our
deficit targets be to transfer this tax on the poor, the needy, the
unemployed? Those are the alternatives. We have to get our
deficits in order. That is the commitment we have made to the
Canadian people. I can say that the Canadian people are very
happy about the leadership we have taken in these areas.
I know there are many new broadcasting ventures. My
colleague from the Reform Party mentioned CITY-TV in
Toronto which has a tremendous array of new broadcasting
programs. In other words it is not necessary to have publicly
funded broadcasting companies simply carrying on with this
type of production.
The bottom line is that it is necessary. The taxpayers are
saying we have to get our economic house in order. The
taxpayers are on the hook even after all of this is over for $1.4
billion. Taxpayers want to be able to see what they are getting
for that money. In some ways they are getting valued service for
that.
Most people in Canada will continue to support cultural
funding for broadcasting, but at a significantly reduced level.
That is only reasonable. We have to focus on the things which
possibly are missing, those things that perhaps need a bit of help
right now, but those other areas which can stand on their own, we
can let them fly.
In conclusion, it upsets me very much to see that members of
the Bloc Quebecois simply want to carry on with the old systems
of the past. They do not want to be flexible in seeing how we can
change government financing. More important, they do not want
to assist their cultural industries from the infancy stage to
fruition.
(1330 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak on the motion of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. I am a supporter of the CBC, of its
domestic and international services, in both official languages.
I was shocked to see that the motion states that an ominous
threat looms over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and,
in particular, the CBC French language network. In no way is the
government threatening our public broadcaster. Far from it. The
government has acted in a responsible fashion to balance the
need of all Canadians to continue to receive high quality radio
and television services in both official languages with the
requirement to take immediate steps to put its fiscal affairs in
order.
In addressing this motion, it would be extremely useful to
compare the Canadian broadcasting model with examples of
similar efforts in other countries. Canada is not alone in its
search to develop answers to the questions facing public
broadcasting. All around the world countries and public
broadcasters have been grappling with changing environments,
changing technology and changing viewer patterns.
The sweeping changes affecting public broadcasting began in
the 1980s. That decade was marked by a large increase in new
terrestrial, satellite and cable channels. These new channels
provided the public with an unprecedented range of options in
their viewing choices. In Europe alone the number of terrestrial
commercial channels increased from four in 1982 to 58 ten years
later in 1992. In the 1990s the global broadcasting community
began to come to terms with the arrival of new direct to home
broadcast satellites. These new satellites have further explosive
growth potential in the development of new television channels.
Let us be clear on one thing today. The world is not sounding
the death knell of public broadcasting. Countries around the
world are rethinking the role of public broadcasting and are
seeking to adapt these broadcasting systems to meet the
challenges created by the changing environments. In fact, we
see few reasons to believe that the changing broadcasting
landscape will mean that public broadcasting will be frozen
from our televisions and our radios any time in the near future.
In the United States the organization representing public
television stations recently issued a report summarizing its
concerns surrounding the role of public broadcasting in the
information age. According to the conclusions of this report,
public television's strength in the multi-channel universe will
derive from its position as an integrated production and
distribution network for special interest programming. As in
Canada, U.S. public television seeks to serve American
audiences through high quality and informative programming
which cannot be obtained elsewhere.
Clearly a role will remain for public broadcasting. Defining
that specialized role will be the key for policy makers, like
members of the House, in countries around the world. The new
realities of the multi-channel universe have forced many of the
world's public broadcasters, such as the BBC and Japan's NHK,
to undertake comprehensive reviews of their activities.
In July 1994 a very comprehensive white paper on
broadcasting was completed in Great Britain. This widely
discussed document examined the many challenges facing one
of the world's most venerable public broadcasters, the BBC.
Like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC must
confront increasing competition because of new technology and
services. Like the CBC, the BBC must attempt to face these new
challenges in an era of limited resources.
(1335 )
The British government and the select committee studying the
matter both agreed that the BBC in its present form cannot go on
forever. But within that recognition for the need for change at
10779
the BBC was a very real affirmation of the vital role of the
British public broadcaster.
In the British government's view, a key objective for the BBC
will be reflecting the national identity of the U.K., enriching the
country's national heritage. Furthermore, the BBC is committed
to providing diversity and choice in high quality programming
which informs, entertains and educates the public it serves.
Japan has also recognized the worldwide challenges facing
public broadcasters as a result of the expansion of broadcasting
competition and technologies. The Japanese public broadcaster
NHK has undergone an internal discussion concerning its role
and responsibility as a public broadcaster. This review
culminated in the publication in 1993 of NHK's ``Future
Framework'' document which addressed the new challenges and
prospects of broadcasting such as multi-media, multi-channel
access, high definition television and satellite broadcasting
services.
This report also reaffirmed NHK's commitment to quality
journalism and to the provision of first rate information
services. Furthermore, the Japanese public broadcaster has
adapted to the growing globalization of the broadcasting
industry by increasing its involvement in international
co-productions and other initiatives.
NHK now has agreements with organizations in over 30
countries. In addition, NHK broke with its tradition of
producing its programming almost exclusively in-house and
began commissioning work from outside production firms.
Public broadcasters around the world are striving to fulfil
their public mandates. In most instances they are fulfilling a
unique purpose in their broadcasting environment, a purpose
that the private sector will not necessarily ever feel the need to
fill. This is because private broadcasters have entirely different
goals from those of public broadcasters. Private broadcasters
respond not only to the preferences of their audiences but to the
expectations of their advertisers.
The Government of Canada will not stand by and let Canada's
rich tradition of public broadcasting, in both official languages,
stagnate or be overtaken by technological advances or other
changes in the audio-visual environment.
The government has taken notice of the international
precedence and finds the lessons learned by others highly
instructive. But more than just watching how other countries are
coping with change, the government has demonstrated its
leadership by putting into place a forward looking strategy to
find Canadian solutions to the challenges facing our distinctive,
dual language public broadcasting system.
This strategy includes a fundamental review of the mandate of
the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada within
the context of the entire Canadian audio-visual sector. It is a
review that has been made urgent by technological and market
changes. It is a review that has been made necessary because of
the fiscal realities facing the country.
The Government of Canada is clearly demonstrating its
confidence in the future of public broadcasting by examining the
mandate of the CBC in the light of the new realities of the
country's communications environment.
As I have stated already, our re-examination of public
broadcasting is not unique in the world. It is our firm
expectation that our approach to the challenges of public
broadcasting will serve as a model and a source of inspiration
for other public broadcasters and nations around the world.
I have received many letters and phone calls of support for the
CBC from people in my riding and others. For example, Orra
Henan, Alex Robertson, Floyd Howlett, Ricky Cherney,
members of the Peterborough Symphony Orchestra, the art
gallery, the theatre guild, teachers and students have approached
me about the CBC. One of them, Alex Robertson, refers to the
CBC as the glue which keeps this nation together. I want to say
to all of those people that I appreciate their support. I agree with
them about the role of public broadcasting in Canada.
(1340 )
I disagree with the view of the Reform Party which says that
its first option would be to put the CBC on the chopping block
and sell it to the first comer. The Reform Party has no sense of
what a nation is, no sense that we are here to run a nation, not a
business. I do not think it has a sense of the role of government.
The government should be involved in public broadcasting. I
disagree with its point of view.
I also disagree with my colleagues from the Bloc. I do not
think the CBC, a corporation which even after the proposed
changes will still have a budget of well over $1 billion, should
be immune to the changes which face the rest of us in society,
which face public servants, the private sector and all of us as
citizens.
The CBC is an institution which should be supported. Like our
other institutions it should be streamlined to deal with the
present financial circumstances so we can have a smaller, more
effective organization which contains the seeds or the
foundations for future public broadcasting and which will be
even stronger when its budgetary situation improves.
Therefore, I intend to vote against the member's motion.
10780
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for taking the trouble today to speak on the motion I
presented this morning. I appreciate it very much.
I would like to ask him a question. You may have heard the
numbers I gave earlier, illustrating the funding imbalance
between the CBC and Radio-Canada. I will repeat them for the
benefit of new viewers and listeners: for an hour of news, the
SRC gets $7,000, while the CBC gets $18,000; for an hour of
variety programming, the SRC gets $30,000, the CBC,
$141,000; for drama, the SRC gets $68,000, and the CBC,
$99,000.
Given the success of French TV programs across the
board-for the audience to ``La Petite Vie'' to reach four
million, some English speaking viewers must be secretly
looking at it, otherwise it would be extremely difficult to find
four million francophones who would feel like looking at the
same program at the same time-would it not amount to
penalizing SRC for its success to arbitrarily apply the same cuts
to the French and English networks?
[English]
Mr. Adams: Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I have
followed the debate as well as anyone else here today. When I
spoke earlier I stressed the fact-as I will try to do in my
remarks now-that I strongly support the CBC, the SRC and its
services in both languages. I support that across the country, as I
mentioned this morning.
I support the French language service in the north. I support it
in the rural areas. I support the English language service in
Quebec. I support and I enjoy the fact that the international radio
service, Radio-Canada International, is distinct in the fact that
we reach out to fellow Canadians when they are abroad and to
other people in both official languages. I greatly support the
existence of the services in both languages.
To answer her question, I deliberately used the word
streamlining rather than downsizing. This really means that we
are. We inherited a government which because of debt is
functioning at two-thirds of its effective capacity because
one-third of our money is spent on interest. We inherited that. I
am not pointing the finger or laying blame. That is a fact.
In order to get rid of the debt we undertake a dangerous but
very necessary exercise. We have to make the government which
is already functioning at two-thirds capacity even smaller in
order to get rid of the debt so we can come back as a fully
effective national government. I believe that very strongly. All
the cuts we make have to be such that they streamline what is left
so that in every ministry we leave the seeds for a future ministry
which could be more powerful. In every program we leave the
seeds, the foundations for a 100 per cent stronger program in the
future.
(1345)
To answer the question about the CBC, we as a government
have made very different cuts in all our ministries. We cut one
ministry by 55 per cent. One ministry is growing by a small
percentage and in the all the others we have very carefully
decided what the cuts should be. That is streamlining.
When we get inside the ministries or inside the programs, I do
not believe the House can do it. I believe we have to tell our
ministries that with the budget we have given, they should do the
same.
My answer to the member's question is the CBC should
manage its own affairs and determine itself where the cuts
should be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
found it strange to hear the speaker before me say that he is for
the CBC and the Société Radio-Canada. He says he is for them,
yet he would cut their budgets. This is like a mute person saying
to a deaf person: ``Watch out, I think a blind person is watching
us''. This is the kind of thing that the Liberals are saying today.
The issue is more complicated than that, when we reflect on
the extremely important motion which the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata tabled regarding the corporation. In
fact, the current Liberal Party is behaving exactly as the party
always has. That is, the party accedes to power using slogans
which are tossed out completely once in office.
Let us quickly touch on the 1970s. One of Trudeau's weapons
in his election campaign against Stanfield was the promise that
he would never control prices and salaries. Six months after
being elected, Prime Minister Trudeau announced price and
salary controls. This is the doublespeak party.
A little later, along comes the election of the 1980s, which
toppled the Clark government. We remember. They said that
they would never raise gas prices. Six months after the election,
gas prices were up 65 cents.
The Liberals made three big commitments during the election
campaign. One was to reduce the deficit. After the election, the
deficit had grown from $13 billion to $38 billion. They also said
they would reduce unemployment. One year after the election,
there were 1,5 million unemployed, when there were 800,000
before it. The party which says one thing and does another.
10781
They said that they would clamp down on government
spending. Within one year of the election, expenditures had
risen from $85 million to $110 million.
What about the referendum in the beginning of the 1980s, on
May 20. Keep in mind that they said that they were committed to
meeting Quebec's traditional aspirations, and that they were
willing to risk their seats. Two years later, Quebec was stabbed
in the back. Who held the knife? The current leader of the
Liberal Party, who has always been behind the post-election
changes in tune.
During the referendum, they warned us that the dollar, which
was then worth about $1.03 American, would tumble to 80
cents. They published small dollars which had an 80 cent value
and a drawing of Bérubé, a Quebec minister at the time. The
so-called mighty dollar. But, what happened under the Trudeau
government two years later? The dollar fell to 69 cents. With the
Liberals, post-election facts always tell a completely different
story than pre-election promises.
They also talked about unemployment and about a deficit that
they would get under control. They threw all of it, everything
they promised us so that we would say yes in the referendum, out
the window and said they did not give a darn. Then, they
proceeded to do the opposite. That is typical of the Liberals.
Now reconsider the 1993 election. What did they promise in
their red book? What did they promise during the election
campaign? Think about the free trade issue. They were
vehemently against it.
(1350)
One month after the election, our friend the Prime Minister
rolled over and made even greater concessions in signing the
free-trade treaty in Ottawa. That is an example of the Liberals'
double talk.
They used to stand against patronage and loudly denounce the
Conservative Party's political appointments. However, after the
election, they had to reward their friends. They had to prove
Senator Rizzuto right. What did they do? For example, they gave
Michelle Tisseyre, a Liberal candidate who was defeated in a
Quebec riding, a nice little six month contract worth $49,000
with the Privy Council. A little private contract equivalent to a
$98,000 annual salary. They made Camille Samson responsible
for political appointments. They appointed Jacques Saada to a
$100,000 a year position with CIDA. What did the rat pack,
those Liberals who used to denounce patronage, do while their
party was busy rewarding its friends?
Whatever happened to the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell? As was said in a newspaper, the
lion has turned into a mouse. He is now applauding and
supporting these political appointments. He applauded when
Mr. Dion, a so-called constitutional expert, was quietly given a
$10,000 contract with the Privy Council. The only reason why
we know about this is that a journalist managed to dig it up.
Otherwise, we never would have known. Mr. Dion was used to
objectively defend federalism on public affairs programs, while
in fact he was only a salaried employee of the Prime Minister's
Office, paid through the Privy Council.
Whatever happened to the rat pack? Where are they now? The
new Liberal mice have remained silent. The language changed
after the election. They used to talk about unemployment. The
Liberal Party critic ``rent his clothes'' in protest against the
Valcourt cuts. Ah! In the first budget tabled a few months after
the election, the UI reform proposed by the current Minister of
Finance called for ten times more cuts than under former
Minister Valcourt, but the hon. members, including the rat pack,
who used to shout their disapproval in this House, kept their
mouths shut.
What could be said about our defenders of the farming
community? What did the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell used to say when defending the
farmers in his riding? That he would never accept cuts. Today,
he finds it normal when a budget cuts subsidies and guaranteed
income by 30 per cent each. He finds it normal. They said before
the election that they would defend the public service. What did
they do less than a year after the election? They cut 45,000 jobs.
This is what the Liberals call normal and they are happy. Such is
the Liberal Party. It makes two kinds of speeches: one during the
election campaign and another one after.
The same is true when it comes to job creation. The Liberals
campaigned by promising jobs, but there is no mention of job
creation initiatives in the Minister of Finance's budget. The
Liberals also claimed that they were the protectors of French
culture outside Quebec. They promised to do everything
possible. Now, these same Liberals remain silent when their
government reduces by five per cent the operating budget of
French-speaking and Acadian associations outside Quebec.
Where are the French-speaking Liberal members who were
going to speak up for francophones within their party, so as to
ensure that the French fact remains a reality in Canada? Where
is the member for Restigouche-Chaleur? The member for
Carleton-Gloucester? Why will they not speak up? Why do
they remain silent? Where is the member for Nickel Belt? The
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell? The member for
Cochrane-Superior? The member for St. Boniface? The
member for Cape Breton? The member for
Madawaska-Victoria? The member for Beauséjour? The
member for Timiskaming-French River? Where are they?
What are they saying now that the budget is reduced by five per
cent? What about their election promises? Two speeches: one
before the election and another one after.
10782
(1355)
Let us now look at the cultural sector, where the situation is
even worse. Take the issue of copyright and the legislation
imposed by the Liberals a few months ago. What did the Liberal
Party say to the Canada Council? The official commitment made
by the Liberals to the Canada Council regarding copyrights was
that they would make it a priority to review the Copyright Act,
since they understand the importance of copyright. They said
that they would reorganize the administrative structure and
review the decision made by the Conservatives to split this
jurisdiction between two departments. The Liberals made this
commitment and then, all of a sudden, they came up with a
Copyright Act which was exactly like the Campbell legislation.
Again, one speech before the election and another one after.
Then they addressed the cultural issue. What did they have to
say about the Canadian Conference of the Arts? What
commitment did they make? To representatives of the Canadian
Conference of the Arts who asked them: ``Does your party
recognize the significance of our national cultural institutions,
like the CBC, the Canada Council, and so on, and does it
guarantee their survival?'', the Liberal Party of Canada stated
that the Conservatives, by cutting the budget of such national
institutions as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the
Canada Council, the National Film Board, and Telefilm Canada,
really did hurt these agencies and show that they did not care a
lot about our cultural development. A Liberal government, they
said, would be keen to provide a stable multi-year budget to our
national institutions. Again, we have two languages, one during
the election campaign and something completely different once
the Liberals were elected and in a position to govern. Two
languages from the forked tongue Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are indicating that I must stop for
now and resume after the question period.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, you will be able to resume
after question period. It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
10782
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
March 31 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, a day that challenges all people and their
governments to take a stand against racism and racial
discrimination.
[Translation]
In a pluralistic society such as ours, racism is one of the most
destructive forces preventing people of all origins from sharing
equally in the country's prosperity.
Canada is a country built on diversity. Young adolescents in
my riding have understood this message clearly, and this is why
I would like to draw attention to their efforts to promote
cross-cultural dynamics. I am speaking of the Multi Media
group, which, next Saturday, will present original works, such
as poems, drawings, choreographies, photographs and songs
reflecting their hope of living in a racism free world.
[English]
Whether we are going to live with each other in
compassionate understanding and mutual harmony and then in
collective prosperity is a matter that will be decided in the future
by our actions today.
I urge all members of the House to join with me in carrying
this message to the people of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): The president of
Canadian National, Mr. Paul Tellier, said on television this
morning that the working conditions enjoyed by CN employees
were too generous for the economic context of the 1990s. Mr.
Tellier's attitude clearly indicates the bad faith of management
in this dispute.
I find astounding that Mr. Tellier would make such a
statement, since he amply benefits from Canadian National's
generosity. With a salary of $345,000 and an annual allowance
of $51,752, and not forgetting an interest free loan of $300,000,
Mr. Tellier is in fact the best paid public servant in the entire
government machine.
This gentleman is in no position to be talking about the state's
so called generosity toward its employees. Rather than make
statements on television, he should do what he is paid to do and
negotiate in good faith with his employees in order to reach a
quick solution to the dispute that is affecting the entire Canadian
economy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after the genocide of last year when over one million
people were murdered there exist half a million orphans inside
Rwanda and 1.2 million refugees in camps in Zaire and
Tanzania.
Of the $22 million which Canada has already given, none has
entered Rwanda because of conditions placed by donor
countries that no humanitarian aid enter Rwanda until all the
ref-
10783
ugees return. However, they cannot return because there is no
food in the country. Furthermore, the refugees in the camps are
under the boot of armed thugs of the defeated regime. They use
aid as leverage to control these helpless refugees to retrain them
for another war.
The government in Kigali is equitable and broad based, made
up of both Hutus and Tutsis. However, they are receiving no help
whatsoever to get up on their feet and produce a peaceful front to
those outside the country who would like to restart the carnage.
I implore the government to convince the international
community to help the government in Rwanda. To not do this
makes a mockery of our justice and lays the groundwork for
another genocide.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, everyone in
Canada is seriously affected by the rail strike. It has already
taken its toll on the country's economy, with disastrous
repercussions. Production losses in many sectors have been
brought to our attention.
It is never desirable for the government to force people back
to work with special legislation, but in this case, this exceptional
measure is warranted. Let us hope that the major changes which
are necessary can be made to rail transportation in a way that
helps management reach all of its goals while helping unions
protect workers' rights as much as possible.
The government should also update the Labour Code and
propose mechanisms which ensure that essential services will
always be provided while leaving room for management and
workers to work out their differences.
It is certainly possible to negotiate in good faith after back to
work legislation, and I encourage the government to introduce
its bill as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last night in Winnipeg, on the eve of the International
Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I attended the
20th annual media human rights awards sponsored by B'Nai
Brith Canada. The evening highlighted the vigilant role the
media plays in protecting human rights.
Earlier today the 1994 annual report of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission was tabled in the House. It states:
``However diverse our species may be, all human beings remain
worthy of respect''.
The issue of human rights is about the integrity of any one
person which, if violated, destroys the soul of any nation and the
very essence of our humanity. Racial discrimination violates
human rights.
Therefore on this day we must renew our national resolve to
uphold human rights and eliminate all forms of racial
discrimination, thereby ensuring human dignity and peace
among all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as this is learning disabilities month, I would like to
acknowledge the thousands of dedicated Canadian teachers and
health care workers who devote themselves to improving the
lives of those who face the challenge of a learning disability on a
daily basis.
From infancy to old age learning disabilities affect Canadians
of all ages in a wide variety of ways. Disabilities range from
minor inconveniences to very serious physical, psychological
and emotional limitations which must be managed if the
affected persons are to maximize their potential and lead full,
active and rewarding lives.
Today I salute all Canadians who struggle courageously with
any form of learning disability. We thank those who so valiantly
assist them in their fight, including my own wife, Evelyn.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
we put aside party differences to remember the late Eric
Winkler.
Eric Winkler served at all three levels of government during
his 29-year political career.
He served as mayor of his hometown in Hanover, he was a
cabinet minister at Queen's Park and chief whip for the federal
Tories when the late John Diefenbaker held power.
During World War II he served in the bomber command of the
Royal Canadian Air Force where he was shot down and held as a
prisoner of war from 1942 to 1945.
In 1957 he ran federally and was elected as the MP for
Grey-Bruce, where he was re-elected four times.
In 1967 he left Ottawa and was elected the provincial member
for the Grey riding, a position he held until his defeat in 1975.
During his time at Queen's Park he became minister of revenue
under Bill Davis in 1971.
In the 1980s he served as a member of the Ontario Racing
Commission.
10784
I extend on behalf of all my colleagues our deepest sympathy
to his wife Frances, his children Mark, Tim, Jane and Mary,
and his six grandchildren.
Eric Winkler served this country with pride and dignity and he
will always be remembered as a great Canadian. May he rest in
peace.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he too was
concerned, like the official opposition, about the unstable
situation in Burundi, and he stated the following: ``It is sad that
the ethnic conflicts which occurred in Rwanda and ended in
terrible bloodbaths could now surface in a neighbouring country
and trigger a similar tragedy''.
However, Canada's honourary consul in Bujumbura said
today on the CBC that he was not worried and that there was no
comparison between Rwanda and Burundi, since the ethnic
breakdown of the population is totally different.
We must ask ourselves whether this analysis contradicts the
minister's and whether it calls into question Canada's capacity
to speak with one unified voice and to really promote
preventative diplomacy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to comment on a remarkable story of growth.
The province of which I speak surged ahead of all other
provinces in 1993 and its real GDP rose 5.1 percent, more than
double the national average of 2.2 per cent. Both international
and interprovincial exports rose and record crop and livestock
production lifted farm incomes substantially. Labour income
also rose markedly, accompanied by a significant jump in
consumer spending.
How did this happen? Was large scale government
intervention in the economy the cause of this excellent growth
rate? No, it was not.
The growth that has occurred in Alberta, a province which has
cut its spending by nearly 20 per cent in the last two years, is the
result I am talking about.
To all of the McCrakens, the Whites, the Hargroves and the
Axworthys of the world, if you want growth that benefits all
citizens in Canada, do not increase government spending, cut it.
It is time the Alberta advantage became the Canadian
advantage.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
present railway strike has already had a severe impact on many
manufacturers and producers all across the country.
In my province of New Brunswick there are many lumber
mills dependent on rail. As well, our ports have been greatly
affected as they also depend on the rail lines.
I ask the House to allow legislation to be passed with
unanimous consent which will quickly put an end to this labour
dispute. I also ask the government to undertake a consultative
process between labour and management that would result in a
settlement that is fair and equitable while at the same time
ensuring CN and CP are not at a disadvantage compared with
their transportation competitors in the U.S.
I recommend to the government that a human resources sector
consultative study be established for the Canadian railway
sector. This would allow both management and labour to jointly
study the changing business environment and the challenges
facing the railway industry in Canada now and to the year 2000.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the railroad
is the great symbol of Canadian unity. It provides commercial
and personal access among all Canadians.
In spite of our great modern steps forward in the air, the
progress of the railroad and our nation are inextricably
intertwined.
Halifax needs the railroad. The Atlantic region needs the
railroad. Ontario and the west need the railroad and Quebec also
needs the railroad.
I call on all members of the House to remember that we
represent all Canadians and get those trains running again.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this national rail strike which is
crippling our economy. It is estimated that between $3 billion
and $5 billion is lost from the Canadian economy in a single
week by not getting our products to market.
National Gypsum, a company near Truro, produces 14,000
tonnes of gypsum a day which goes by rail, two trains a day,
7,000 tonnes a train, to the port of Halifax. From there it goes by
10785
ship to the U.S. and to Quebec when the St. Lawrence Seaway is
open.
National Gypsum is loading a ship at this moment, only
partially and with great delay and extra costs because it does not
have enough gypsum at the dockside. This company will have to
lay off more than 100 men by week's end if the trains are not
moving. The same may be said of companies throughout Nova
Scotia as well as companies in Quebec and every corner of the
country.
This is one case where a day really makes a difference. I urge
the opposition and all members of the House to co-operate and
end the railway strike.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with the events yesterday
wherein the Bloc, supported by the New Democratic Party,
refused to allow the House to bring an end to the economic chaos
that has enveloped our country due to the rail strike in progress.
What is frustrating about this is there is no honourable basis
for the actions of the Bloc party. It is simply sticking to its
agenda of separation by allowing the Canadian economy to take
a beating. Bloc members will not lose any sleep over that. They
might see it as helping their battered agenda.
As for the NDP members, they continue to close their eyes to
the real issues, the needs of farmers, manufacturers and many
others negatively affected across Canada.
What does the premier of Saskatchewan say about their
actions? Does his NDP government support what they are doing
to the economy?
We have had a chance to act together for the good of our
country and the Bloc and the NDP let us down for an alternate
selfish agenda.
My constituents, my government and I are extremely
disappointed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned today that a French speaking group in Ontario,
concerned about social justice, denounced the position taken by
the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne on
the sovereignty of Quebec. The federation urged Quebecers to
vote no in the referendum, something that this Franco-Ontarian
group strongly regrets.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois reaffirm, like this group, that
Quebecers have a sacred right to choose freely their own future.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois also believe that links between
francophones outside Quebec and within Quebec should be
maintained despite differences we may have occasionally.
We cannot deny that francophones outside Quebec have had to
fight long and hard for their rights, their existence and their
development. The fight of Quebecers to assume full
responsibility for their future is just as important.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois pretends to be defending the interests of
Quebecers, but is opposed to ending the railway strike, thereby
adding to the seriousness of the situation brought about by the
failure of the Liberals.
Last week, the Reform Party asked the government to act in
order to avoid such a crisis. As usual, it acted too late. A lengthy
strike will have only negative economic consequences for all
Canadians, including Quebecers.
Saturday, 1,000 people were left standing on VIA Rail
platforms in Montreal. Canadian Pacific is losing about a
million dollars a day.
The Reform Party supports an end to the strike and if the Bloc
is sincere about protecting Quebec interests it should agree to it
right now.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will address
the national transportation stoppage, not exactly a unique idea
today.
In my constituency 14,000 General Motors union workers
will be idle soon. I do not want to speak only on their behalf, as I
feel I represent not only the people who specifically elected me
but also the interests of all my fellow Canadians.
My union constituents will not suffer due to their hard won
union contract. However, we must realize that their continuing
benefits while they are not producing diminishes their sub-fund
and also draws on the UIC fund. This is a cost which must be
borne by all Canadians through higher prices and increased
taxes.
We also must consider the workers in supplier plants who do
not have the good contracts auto workers enjoy.
In short, this transportation tie-up transcends the interests of
any group, province or party. All Canadians deserve relief from
this problem and at this time that can only be provided by people
of courage in the House.
10786
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday and again today, the Bloc Quebecois refused to
co-operate with our government in order to quickly legislate rail
workers back to work.
The official opposition does not seem to understand the scope
of the negative impact of this work stoppage on the Canadian
and Quebec economy. Allow me to quote the Quebec transport
minister who recently said: ``There is nothing quaint about
trains. Their role is critical for the economy and the industry''.
(1415 )
I will also quote its colleague for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans who was recently pleading
for the survival of rail services in these terms: ``We cannot
afford to lose the railroad. It would only weaken our economy
further''.
I urge the Bloc Quebecois to abandon partisan politics and to
support the government's initiative without delay.
_____________________________________________
10786
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Hope's report on labour relations in
the rail transport sector points out the federal government's
troubling behaviour during the negotiations leading to the
current impasse. Mr. Hope concludes that the government was
guilty of interfering in this dispute by systematically supporting
the employers' position.
Does the Minister of Transport admit that the federal
government's partisan pro-management attitude during the
talks is responsible for the failure of negotiations and for the
current dispute?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that solving the problem in Canada's rail system
is in everyone's interest. We much appreciated the fact that
CAW president, Mr. Hargrove himself, said that special
legislation was the best approach.
Some people understand full well that Canada's rail system
must operate so that materials and products like those of Ford,
GM and Chrysler can be moved. I have no idea with whom the
Leader of the Opposition is speaking because all those with
whom we have spoken, without exception, told us that, after 18
months of talks, the time has come to find a solution allowing
the Canadian economy to continue to grow.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, although the minister says that Mr. Hargrove
supports the government's position and the bill, the CAW
president does not want the bill to apply to his own members.
What kind of support is that? Let the law apply to the others, but
not to his union.
How dare the minister defend his government's role in these
talks when Commissioner Hope stated, and I quote:
[English]
``The controversial and provocative aspects of the employers'
demands are found in the partisan role played by the government
in supporting the position of the railways''.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every Canadian recognizes that the Government of
Canada has a responsibility to maintain a transportation system
that is viable, that is competitive, that is affordable.
There is no doubt that over a long period of time every effort
was made by the unions and by the employers to try to find a
solution to this problem. They have not been able to succeed.
We regret very much that companies, farmers, people across
the country are faced with a situation that is very unfortunate,
very difficult to overcome.
All I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do is to listen to what
Canadians are saying, listen to what Quebecers are saying, and
make sure that we can get the railroads back in operation so that
we can find a solution to the problem that has escaped the
negotiators on both sides of the table for 18 months.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Hope report clearly states that the real
responsibility for the current labour dispute lies with the federal
government.
Given the current deadlock and its serious consequences, will
the Prime Minister agree to set aside House rules and pass this
afternoon a back-to-work law imposing a 60 day mediation
period between the parties without the right to strike or lockout
employees, so that a negotiated settlement can be reached?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his offer. I think that the
best solution is to pass the legislation immediately. Otherwise,
if we wait 60 days, we will end up with the same problem. We
will have lost a whole week, and will still end up with the same
problem in 60 days.
(1420)
I think that public opinion in Canada at this time is clearly that
these problems must be resolved quickly. I have received
telegrams from Quebec aluminum plants, for example, some of
which are located in the riding represented by the Leader of the
Opposition, which have been forced to cut production. It is the
same thing for Kruger Inc. in the Mauricie region and for the
10787
lumber industry in the northern part of my riding, in Parent, and
so on.
That is why we decided that, under the circumstances, the
quickest way-and I give the hon. member the opportunity to
co-operate by withdrawing his objection so that the bill can be
passed this afternoon.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister was just offered in good faith by the official
opposition an honourable way to settle the rail dispute once and
for all.
How can the Prime Minister hide behind his trigger-happy
minister's proposal? How can he hide behind this proposal and
reject the official opposition's offer to settle the dispute this
afternoon to the satisfaction of all interested parties, in
compliance with work rules and without affecting workers'
rights?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand the frustration of the opposition,
which is trying to make up for the mistake it made yesterday.
This government's priority is job creation. We must ensure that
there is a rail transportation system to deliver the goods
produced by Canadian workers to the markets, so that we can
have more jobs in Canada, not fewer because of a strike that is
against national interest.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, must
the Prime Minister be reminded that our proposal has been on
the table since yesterday and that it is a clear proposal? If he did
not understand the proposal, that is his problem.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: It is now clear that the only ones to blame for
the rail dispute dragging on are the Prime Minister and his
government.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he tell us frankly
if he is being totally honest when he says he wants the matter
settled-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Dear colleagues, the honesty of
the members of this House is never to be questioned. I would
therefore like the hon. member to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Gauthier: No problem, Mr. Speaker. You understood that
I regard the Prime Minister as an honest man. No problem there.
Being the honest man that he is-
Mr. Bouchard: We just wanted to remind the House.
Mr. Gauthier: -as I wanted to point out-can the Prime
Minister tell us why the government has suddenly turned its
back on mediation, which was accepted as an appropriate
solution in the dispute affecting the port of Montreal? What is
really keeping the Prime Minister today from accepting our
proposal and settling the rail dispute this afternoon?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the means available to the government had been
used earlier to try to settle this conflict amicably and now we are
confronted with a national strike of all the railways in Canada.
The government had to face up to its responsibilities and present
a bill to settle the matter.
I realize the press is creating the impression that it is only the
Bloc Quebecois, but the NDP opposed unanimous consent too.
Western farmers know that we are thinking of their best interests
in settling this strike rapidly.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday, Department of Finance officials will be
meeting with Moody's to try to persuade them not to downgrade
Canada's AAA credit rating. It is widely believed that what
Moody's wants to know is the timetable and the plan for
bringing the federal deficit to zero, something that was not
contained in the finance minister's budget.
(1425 )
My question is for the finance minister. What will his officials
be telling representatives of Moody's?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it
very clear to Canadians and to the investment community that
our goal is to balance the books. We intend to get there as
quickly as possible.
The best way to do this is to have a series of short term targets.
That will allow us to hit our targets as we have done for the first
time in over a decade.
At the same time, contrary to the doom and gloom on the other
side, we shall be pointing out to Moody's that this country has
one of the best productivity records in the world, that inflation is
very low, that we are creating jobs at an unparalleled pace. In
fact, we will be pointing out to them that Canada has the best
growth record of any country of the G-7.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to balance the books as the minister says, he will have
to reduce federal spending by $24 billion.
10788
There is no indication in the budget of how that is going to
be done or when it is going to be done. In my discussions with
lenders and investors last week the one question they all had
was when and how is the federal government going to eliminate
the deficit and not just reduce it.
I ask the Minister of Finance this question. When and how
does the Canadian government plan to eliminate the federal
deficit? Will he tell Canadians and Parliament what he is being
asked to tell Moody's and investors? When and how?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it
very clear that we intend to eliminate the deficit. I have also
made it very clear that the best way to do that is to set a series of
short term targets, not to allow the decision to be postponed by
long term targets.
Surely to heaven the leader of the third party ought to know,
having looked at what the Tories did for 10 years, that federal
long term targets or targets such as those placed in his own
budget based on faulty assumptions and false input, simply will
not do the job. We are far more interested in results, not in
incredible projections.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the markets are not asking for short term targets. They
are asking a simple question. When and how will the minister
eliminate the deficit and not just reduce it?
Given the uncertainty in the financial markets, the
government should stop being coy and plainly tell the House
when and how it plans to eliminate the deficit. If there is not a
plan then the minister should tell us and we will help him
develop one.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is there or is there not a
government plan and a timetable to eliminate the deficit? If
there is will he tell his finance minister to disclose that to the
Canadian people and not just to Wall Street?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the international
financial community has made it very clear to us that what it
wants is results.
It does not want a whole series of projections. It has had it
with projections. What it wants is results and that is what it has
received from the government.
I would ask a question of the leader of the third party. When he
talks about the uncertainty in international markets he is very
sincere. Does he really think that he helps his fellow countrymen
and women when he goes outside the country's borders and casts
doubt on the quality of the budget or the financial projections?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in its report tabled today, the Canadian Human Rights
Commission denounces the government's inability to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act so as to prohibit discrimination
based on sexual orientation. In its report, the commission calls
this is a fundamental abdication of our responsibilities
regarding human rights.
Considering that eight Canadian provinces out of ten already
prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that the
courts have confirmed that such discrimination was not
compatible with the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, I
ask the Prime Minister: why does he refuse to act immediately,
since he has made a commitment to Canadians and Quebecers?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the change to the
human rights legislation to which the hon. member has referred
is only one of many changes this government contemplates to
the act, which is now almost 20 years old.
The report of the human rights chief commissioner quite
properly pointed out that this is unfinished business. Let me
emphasize to the House, as I have done on other occasions, that
the government is committed to this change. It is committed to
modernizing the statute and improving it. It is a commitment we
will fulfil.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the Prime Minister not realize that by keeping
quiet and postponing his decision from month to month, he is
showing his inability to silence the dissensions within his
caucus and he is also indicating to the public that, as far as he is
concerned, the respect of human rights and freedoms is far from
being a priority?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made plain
that our commitment to the changes in the Canadian Human
Rights Act is a matter of government policy. These are questions
in which we believe strongly. These are commitments we will
fulfil.
10789
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the government and the Bloc party teamed up to
defeat a Reform Party bill that would have alleviated the
problems we presently have in the labour front.
When can this government bring forth legislation that will put
an end to this sort of thing once and for all for the sake of the
producers and farmers in this country?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is currently in Canada a major crisis, and we are
aware of if. This crisis has an impact on the economy across the
country, and we are taking action. We tabled a bill in this House
yesterday.
I want to thank Reform Party members for supporting this
legislation, but the fact is that the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP
are not helping us.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister, but perhaps she missed the question. The question
was: When can Canadians expect to see legislation that will deal
with this situation in the long term? The back to work legislation
has nothing to do with the long term.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understood the question very well. What I said is that
we have to solve a crisis in the short term. Once that is done, we
can look at a long term solution, but we have to take action
regarding the current situation.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage proudly
announced that the chairman of the National Capital
Commission is free to use his leisure time as he pleases,
including participating in partisan activities in order to raise
funds for the Quebec Liberal Party. The minister said that Mr.
Beaudry would of course have made sure that his activities were
compatible with his duties.
Are we to understand from the minister's comments that the
participation of senior officials in partisan, political activities at
the provincial level is considered consistent with the
government's ethics rules?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no Canadian statute or regulation
preventing public servants from taking an interest in political
matters in their leisure time. I think that no one should be more
aware of this than the opposition members from the Bloc, who
recruited public servants to help them sell the referendum.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for reasons which will become clear, my second
question is for the Prime Minister.
What explanation does the Prime Minister give for the fact
that his ethics counsellor, the person responsible-responsible
indeed-for the transparency of the government and the
guardian of its integrity, yesterday refused to answer any
questions with respect to Mr. Beaudry?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is because he is the counsellor to the Prime Minister.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
controversy surrounding the appointment of Bob Fowler to the
UN has been very prominent in the media. With all of this
baggage, why did the Prime Minister appoint Mr. Fowler
without first holding a public inquiry to clear the air?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know about an attack like that. Mr. Fowler has
been a great bureaucrat. He has been in foreign affairs for almost
all of his career. He is a very competent person. He was a very
good choice to be named as ambassador after the great service
he has given Parliament and this country throughout different
governments.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the
case of Robert Fowler illustrates the fundamental problems,
both real and perceived, in the Department of National Defence.
The government has a perfect opportunity to open up the
process as promised in the red book and to put an end to the
controversy once and for all.
I ask the Prime Minister again, will he consider calling a
public inquiry on a much broader basis than was announced this
morning?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the inquiry will be comprehensive and everything can
be discussed at the inquiry. We have chosen a course that will
allow anybody in the department and the armed forces to be
interviewed.
To use the House of Commons for innuendoes of that nature, I
would invite the member who just spoke to make the same
accusations outside and face the responsibilities. When he hides
10790
behind parliamentary privilege and attacks a bureaucrat who
cannot defend himself as he is doing, it is shameful.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Air Canada recently put out an ad to hire staff for its Asian
flights. In the French ad, a knowledge of both French and
English is required, while in the English ad, only the knowledge
of English is necessary.
As an Acadian himself, how can the Minister of Transport
accept the fact that French-speaking travellers flying with Air
Canada to Asia will not be guaranteed French-language service?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while operating as a private corporation, Air Canada
must abide by the Official Languages Act. I want to thank the
hon. member for asking this question. I will certainly have the
opportunity to examine why Air Canada acted in this manner,
but I still hope that we will be able to settle the issue, because
Air Canada has gained access, since last year, to the Japanese
market, something it has been looking forward to for the past 10
to 15 years, and will be allowed to fly to Hong Kong before the
end of this year.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are
we to understand from the attitude of the Minister of Transport
who is hiding behind the autonomy of Air Canada to explain why
the corporation did not respect the Official Languages Act to
which it is subject, that this is all the enthusiasm the minister
can muster in defence of the use of French in the skies?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell from the performance of the hon. member in
this House that he has plenty of time to go over all the ads from
Air Canada and probably from other companies.
As I told him earlier, Air Canada must abide by the Official
Languages Act. I will try to find out why Air Canada acted in
this manner and we will ensure that the Official Langues Act is
fully applied.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Madam Minister, I think it is pretty clear we are all very
concerned about the railway strike. Could you tell us what the
consequences-
(1440)
The Speaker: My colleague, you should always direct your
comments though the Chair. The hon. member may ask his
question.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is as
follows: What immediate consequences will this work stoppage
have for Canadians?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the concerns raised by the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi are entirely appropriate. In the passenger
transportation sector, more than 70,000 people in Montreal and
Toronto had no commuter trains and at least 20,000 passengers
had to do without the services of VIA Rail.
As for the shutdown of services at CN, we see its impact
everywhere on our economy. Ford has already closed its plant in
Ontario and wants to close two more. Movements of coal and
grain have been reduced by half. Kruger Inc. in Trois-Rivières
is closed. Pétromont in Varennes is closed. Alcan has also cut
production. We are seeing a tremendous impact on the economy,
even in Quebec, and the Bloc Quebecois is preventing us from
passing this legislation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The ethics counsellor has condemned a recent junket of MPs
to Cuba which he himself said was outside his jurisdiction. Did
the ethics counsellor initiate this investigation himself, or was it
at the request of the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor said it was not under his
responsibility. He looked into that.
That is exactly why I rose in this House last week and said that
I hoped a committee would be struck very soon in this House
with the senators so that members would have some guidelines
to follow. I hope the committee will come through with some
fixed guidelines very soon.
It is the responsibility of members of Parliament and senators
to make their own decisions. We cannot impose our views on
members. We respect the fact that they have been elected and are
adult enough to make their own decisions.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this question
is one which will just not go away.
The president of Canada Post appeared at a well
choreographed committee meeting this morning. Canadians are
no nearer to understanding the complexities of the Perez affair.
10791
Will the Prime Minister either instruct or at minimum not
prohibit the ethics counsellor from thoroughly investigating
and reporting on the Perez affair, a matter which most
Canadians believe is within his purview?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there were members of different parties on the trip,
including one from the Reform Party.
It is up to members of Parliament to make their own decisions
as to whether to participate. If members see that this type of trip
is forbidden, then it is up to members to say so. However, every
member involved in this trip went to the registry and indicated
in good faith that they had accepted this trip.
If members should not have accepted this trip, fine, but I was
not involved in it. The members followed the rules which
existed at that time. If some members want to change the rules,
then change them. I cannot impose them on the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. Yesterday, we noticed that once again, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage does not know what is going on in his
department. On March 7, the Minister for International Trade
promised his U.S. counterpart that no new action would be taken
by the CRTC against U.S. television channels, as had happened
in the case of the country music channel last year.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain why the
Minister of International Trade made this commitment on his
behalf to the Americans?
(1445)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we should determine whether a
commitment exists. It does not. I saw the letter that was sent by
my colleague, and I fully agree with its contents. The minister
was referring to various reviews and investigations going on at
this time, and I have nothing to add to the wisdom of the remarks
he made to Mr. Kantor.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised at the minister's reply, when
we consider what is reported in the media. Once again, could the
minister say what is the truth, or should I say politically correct:
what he says in this House or what he said yesterday to the
journalists?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a problem: she has wax
in her ears.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Plamondon: Wax is all you have between your ears!
Mr. Dupuy: Yes, her ears are probably plugged. What I said
yesterday, and what I said again today in response to a number of
questions I was asked, is that the government does not intend to
instruct the CRTC on what to do about the channels. I repeat,
that is what I said, and there is no contradiction between what I
said and what the Minister for International Trade wrote to his
counterpart.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Defence confirmed that Canada was negotiating the
sale of 39 CF-5 war planes to Turkey.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. What
guarantees has the government received that Turkey will not use
the CF-5s against civilians?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true
that some interest has been expressed by the Government of
Turkey to purchase the CF-5 planes that are surplus to our
needs. It bought some a number of years ago.
I understand that a number of other countries are interested. In
any sale our first obligation is to our NATO allies but, as the
Minister of Foreign Affairs said publicly yesterday, any sales of
arms are subject to certain very strict criteria.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the defence minister to go a little further in
answer to the following question.
Not more than a year ago Turkey bombed Kurdish villages
killing many civilian women and children. This morning
Turkish war planes and 35,000 troops resumed their offensive
against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Given the state of tension it is
unlikely that Turkey would refuse to use CF-5s in a future
campaign regardless of any written guarantee.
Will the government live up to its red book promise and refuse
to sell arms to any country suspected of human rights
violations?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think
the question is premature because there is no deal between
Canada and any country for the sale of the CF-5s.
Obviously some inquiries have been made and some
information discussions have gone on, but should any sale be
made of any surplus military equipment it will be according to
the strict
10792
guidelines to which our party has subscribed for a number of
years and as outlined in our party documents.
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health and concerns breast
cancer. Credible scientific evidence and numerous studies show
a possible link between abortion of a first pregnancy and breast
cancer.
Could the minister ensure Canadians that the possible link
will be thoroughly investigated? Will the minister tell the House
what steps she is taking to ensure the potential risk factor is
explained to all Canadian women?
(1450 )
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, studies to date have not provided evidence of a link
between breast cancer and abortion.
Breast cancer is a very devastating disease for Canadian
women. According to Statistics Canada 18,000 women in
Canada will be diagnosed with breast cancer and approximately
5,500 women will die as a direct result of the disease in 1995.
There are many possible risk factors. Tobacco was raised
yesterday as a possible risk leading to breast cancer. There are
risks factors with diet, genetics and many others. Not enough
work has been done in the area and I intend to do something
about it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Healath.
The minister declared on Friday that the federal government,
despite the large cuts in transfer payments to the provinces,
holds all of the strings needed to ensure that the five great
principles, the untouchables of the Canada Health Act, will be
respected.
Must we gather from the minister's statements that the
national forum on health will unilaterally review the Canada
Health Act and identify the changes to be made, without giving
the provinces, who are responsible for administering the health
system and who will have to absorb these budget cuts, the right
to negotiate anything?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said this many times, and so has the Prime
Minister: the principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act are
not negotiable. The national forum on health is studying the
future of the health care system and of the health of Canadians.
The forum will make some recommendations, which we
might accept, and the provinces will be given the chance to
review the same issues. Both parties want to help each other,
because we both know that we have one of the best health care
systems in the world and we want to keep it that way.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, because I am
no closer to understanding than I was before that answer.
Does the Prime Minister, who is also the chairman of the
forum on health, have any explanation for the fact that the
provinces are not participating in the forum other than that he
intends to impose national standards on them which they will
never have had the opportunity to negotiate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I recall correctly, we discussed this issue when the
forum was announced, and we determined that we were not
interested in having the provinces participate. Later on, we
invited each one to have a representative on the forum. They all
declined.
We offered them a spot but they refused to take part. It is a
forum; there are no conditions, and all are free to express
themselves. Canadians know that I listen a lot. So every time I
go there, I listen. It would have been my pleasure to listen to the
provinces, but they denied me this pleasure.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
environmental extremist Paul Watson who allegedly was
attacked by concerned residents in the Magdalen Islands was
widely reported as saying he held off his alleged assailants by
using a stun gun and his fists.
Considering that his fists were probably not lethal weapons,
my question is for the justice minister. Stun guns are prohibited
weapons under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Watson
admits to having the prohibited weapon in his possession.
Would the minister confirm if the gun was confiscated and if Mr.
Watson was charged with having an illegal gun in his
possession? If he was not charged, why not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I admire the hon.
member's familiarity with the firearms legislation and I
commend him for it.
I also remind him that the enforcement of such provisions is
entirely a matter for provincial authorities to which I invite his
attention.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of enforcement, my question is for the revenue
minister.
10793
In his view is the anti-smuggling initiative working when a
publicity seeking, U.S. based environmental extremist admits
to having an illegally smuggled, prohibited weapon in his
possession when he clears customs and the weapon remains in
his possession one week later?
(1455 )
Could he explain to law-abiding Canadians who will be
required to register guns what the use of registration is if this
environmentalist can walk around with absolute impugnity?
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
well knows, customs officials do their utmost at the border to
ensure that all the laws are kept. They will continue to do so in
the future.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
If the Liberal government goes ahead with its planned
legislation, wealthy Canadians will be compensated for estate
taxes paid in the U.S. under a new agreement signed in August.
The agreement is retroactive to 1988 and will cost Canadian
taxpayers over $2 billion in compensation, by giving families
with estates worth over $600,000 in the U.S. a foreign tax credit
in Canada.
Does the minister have the courage to say no to this
outrageous legislation, or does the Liberal government plan to
create a new $2 billion tax loophole for the wealthy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, primarily because
of some of the noise and static around the member I had a little
difficulty understanding. However I understand the question
referred to the tax protocol that was signed with the United
States. The member is nodding.
We have made sure that Canadians are not subject to double
taxation. Yes, Americans are not subject to double taxation as
well arising out of the same piece of legislation.
The member will understand that it is very important for the
Government of Canada to protect Canadian citizens. I am sure
he will understand, when he talks about the large amounts of
money involved which he says we should be saving, that the
amount is roughly what the railway strike will cost us if we do
not deal with it. One might ask the member why he is not
prepared to support the government.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the same minister.
This has become more and more curious. The Mulroney
Conservative government supported this tax break for the
wealthy. The Liberal government opposite supports this tax
break for the wealthy. It is a $2 billion tax break for very wealthy
Canadians who have estates in the U.S.
Will the minister give Canadian taxpayers a break and cancel
this deal of a lifetime for wealthy Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of this
piece of legislation we are now able to tax Canadian snowbirds
who have gone south and we are able to prevent double taxation.
As the hon. member knows, in the last budget and in the one
before we probably closed more loopholes than any Canadian
government has done since the Prime Minister was finance
minister.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Much of the recovery in the economy has been driven by
export markets. Durham and Oshawa have benefited since
automobile production is a big feature in the area.
When can other small and medium size businesses, their
employees and consumers generally see some relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
once again confirms his reputation for articulate economic
comment. He is absolutely right when he points out that the
recovery has been largely export oriented and to that extent has
been one legged.
I must say we are beginning to see the signs of increasing
consumer confidence. The statistics this week from Statistics
Canada demonstrate that consumer confidence is up sharply.
Retail sales were up again in January for the fifth time in six
months.
We are beginning to see that because of the tremendous
productivity and hard work of Canadians confidence is once
again back into our economy after the long desert of the last
recession.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Finance. It has been reported
that after meeting with Calgary mayor Al Duerr last Friday he
has agreed to review his government's decision to end the
private utility tax rebate.
10794
Is he reviewing the decision and when might the House
expect the results of the review?
(1500)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were two
newspaper reports on that meeting, one of which was the
indication the member is referring to. The other newspaper
report citing the mayor made it very clear the government is not
reviewing that decision. It is the second newspaper report that is
accurate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. On March 17, the
minister responded to a question from the official opposition by
stating that the privatization of Marine Atlantic Inc. would
resolve the matter of this company's foreign flagging of its
ships.
Is the minister not aware that, by not bringing all of the ships
of Marine Atlantic Inc. back under Canadian flag before the
corporation is privatized, he is condoning this practice, which is
followed by many Canadian shipowners, contrary to our
economic interests?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the question of foreign flagging at
Marine Atlantic is one we wanted to address once the matter was
raised.
We have determined it has been ongoing, depending on the
vessel, for a number of years. As I indicated to a colleague of my
hon. friend in the House yesterday, we have asked the president
of Marine Atlantic and the board to look into the potential for
the commercialization of all the activities of Marine Atlantic.
Certainly we will be addressing the question my hon. friend
has put to me one way or another. If the commercialization
proceeds, we will have to take into account the implications of
reflagging the vessels prior to sail. If the commercialization
does not go forward, we will review the matter in the light of my
hon. friend's question.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in view that Canadians are continuing to lose their jobs
as a result of the rail strike, I ask for the unanimous consent of
the House for the following order:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, immediately after the completion of
Private Members' Business on this day, the House shall revert to Government
Orders for the purpose of considering Bill C-77, an act to provide for the
maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services at second reading
stage, in committee of the whole, at report stage and at third reading stage,
provided that the House shall not adjourn this day except pursuant to motion by a
minister of the crown.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify to the
House that while the opposition denied consent, it was not the
Reform Party that denied consent. We would support any back to
work legislation the government introduces.
_____________________________________________
10794
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, due to
question period, I was interrupted for an hour since we are to
follow Standing Orders, which we agree to do. I was discussing
the official opposition's motion concerning funding for the
CBC, along with the amendment proposed by the Reform Party.
(1505)
I recalled my surprise at seeing the Liberal Party renege on
commitments it made during the election campaign. I must say
it was not an entirely unexpected surprise. Traditionally the
Liberal Party has always sung two tunes: one for the election
campaign and one for after the campaign, and the two are
diametrically opposed.
In my introduction, I recalled the agricultural double talk. For
example, when the Liberals were in opposition, they were
committed to supporting the dairy producers, defending article
XI and maintaining subsidies. Well, once they are in office, what
do they do in their budget? They cut aid to farmers and to dairy
producers by 30 per cent. They also cut the income support
program by 30 per cent.
I also mentioned unemployment. During the election
campaign, they said that their priority was to fight
unemployment and create jobs. Once they are in office, the
language and the
10795
speech change. The latest budget speech contained no job
creation measures whatsoever. It has become a joke.
I was at the Sorel and Bécancour employment centres last
week. What was the joke of the day? The question went: What is
the difference between a Liberal MP and an unemployed person?
The answer: The unemployed person has worked in the past.
We have reached a point where people no longer believe in
this government. They do not believe the government will make
good on its promises. It was the same thing when it came to
defending the Acadians and the francophones outside Quebec.
We saw francophone MPs from the rest of Canada claiming
during the election campaign that they would defend the French
fact here in the House of Commons and throughout Canada. But
when there is a 5 per cent cut in the operating budget of their
association, they say nothing. Not one francophone MP from
outside Quebec rose to denounce the policy of the Liberal Party
once it took office.
The same thing happened in a number of areas. With respect
to copyright, for example, they made a written commitment in a
document submitted to the Canada Council to take action to
bring copyright under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Canadian Heritage. Once elected, they turned
this responsibility over to the Minister of Industry, and gave the
heritage minister power to make recommendations only.
The Liberal Party always sings two different tunes: one when
it is going after the vote and another when it is in power.
It was the same thing with free trade. They fought against free
trade for years and denounced it during the election campaign,
but once in office, they were not only all for it, but wanted it
extended to other countries. The Liberal Party has always
operated this way: it sings one tune before it is elected and
another tune after.
I could give other examples. There is patronage, for instance.
They criticized the Conservatives for making patronage
appointments, but once in office they turned around and in less
than six months gave out more than 300 appointments to friends
of the party, under the expert guidance of Senator Rizzuto. And I
mentioned the example of Michelle Tisseyre, Camille Samson
and others.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): You are a very
experienced parliamentarian; you should always comply with
the Standing Orders of the House and avoid identifying
members of the other place.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the Senate but
to one particular senator. I think that the Standing Orders allow
me to identify one particular senator but not, as you pointed out,
to refer to the Senate, that must be called the other place.
In any case, I will drop the word ``senator'' and use only the
name ``Rizzuto''. This individual, who made the
recommendations regarding patronage, is still the party's
bagman and advisor on appointments like those of Camille
Samson, Michelle Tisseyre and Jacques Saada, who was
appointed to a $100,000 a year post with CIDA.
It is typical behaviour for the Liberal Party to use a
completely different language after coming to office. Even
though they promised to do away with patronage and political
appointments, they have since enthusiastically embraced this
practice. The party still engages in double talk, especially its
leader who, throughout his years in office in the 1970s and
1980s and since 1993, still says one thing before the election and
another thing after. They think voters are fools.
(1510)
This review of Liberals' unkept promises and double talk is
clearly reinforced today by our discussion of the funds allocated
to the CBC. In this regard, I would like to quote the red book
commitments made by the Liberal Party during the election
campaign. The red book says on page 88: ``Canada needs more
than ever to commit itself to cultural development. Instead, the
Conservative regime has deliberately undermined our national
cultural institutions''.
The Liberal Party said, and I quote: ``Funding cuts to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the
National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions
illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of
cultural development''. That is what it said before the election,
but after the election, it was the first one to cut, to the tune of
$300 million, financing on which the CBC depends, attacking
CBC's French network in particular.
Here is what the Liberal Party promised in its red book: ``A
Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear
financing for national cultural institutions such as the Canada
Council and the CBC''. This is a far cry from what is going on.
Yet, the minister continued to claimed in this House that he did
not know exactly how extensive the cuts would be at the CBC; it
could not be that much. Perhaps it was a little more than that. He
contradicted himself at least five times in the past two months
regarding possible cuts at the CBC, when a solemn and specific
commitment had been made in the red book to stable multiyear
financing. This goes to show once again the difference being in
an election campaign or in office makes when you are the
Liberal Party.
I will conclude on this as I am almost out of time. I know this
will make my colleagues opposite very sad because they would
like to hear more-I scan see them hang their heads in shame for
sacrificing their principles, the ideals they stood for and their
red book to the party line. They will stop at nothing to be in
power. They take after their leader. Power at all cost: make all
the promises necessary to get there, but once in power, never
10796
mind about making good these promises. Sooner or later, they
will face the same reaction they faced in 1984, that is to say
complete rejection from Halifax to Vancouver of this kind of
behaviour, this double talk they have cultivated.
I will leave you with a recommendation the CRTC made
concerning the CBC, stating that it will be imperative that the
policy proposals to be developed in the coming months focus on
a central and fundamental objective, which is to promote and
preserve the identity of French Canadians; at present, our
broadcasting system demands from its partners that they allow
Canadian content to take up much room, which has encouraged
the expression of our cultural identity and made possible the
development of audiovisual production in both official
languages of this country. It concluded that we should not give
up any ground in this respect.
That is what the CBC should focus on, and the current
minister is away off the track in refusing to give serious thought
to maintaining stable financing, at the expense of the CBC's
French network in particular, which is the highest performing.
They crack open a bottle of champagne on the English side when
they reach one million listeners, while on the French side, this
many people listen in daily.
(1515)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made
by the Conservative or rather the Bloc member, since he has a
tendency to change his mind, who accuses the Liberals of
singing two tunes. Coming from that member, and particularly
that political party, this is quite a statement.
Mr. Speaker, today we heard the Bloc Quebecois raise an issue
with which you are very familiar, namely the situation of
French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. This is the last
straw. The hon. member and his colleague, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, are now telling us that they are
defending French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec who
have a right to be heard. However, yesterday, when some
French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec made comments
which they did not appreciate, they said that these people did not
have a right to speak on the issue and should mind their own
business.
Have you noticed that those who talk about the Liberals
singing two tunes are doing precisely that? Rather than allude to
the two different tunes of the Bloc, it might be more appropriate
to refer to the two faces of that party. Those who sing two tunes
have two-you guessed it, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member opposite claims to be CBC's protector-and
I am pleased to see that Bloc members support anything with the
word Canadian in it-and accuses the government unfairly and
unreasonably. Is he aware that us French-speaking Canadians
outside Quebec, at least where I come from, enjoy RDI, CBC's
French-language network, la Chaîne française, and Quatre
Saisons? Indeed, French-speaking Canadians from Ontario can
listen to all these channels, in a united Canada.
The member opposite, who talks out of both sides of his
mouth, wants to deprive us, French-speaking Canadians living
outside Quebec, of these bilingual institutions which allow us to
enjoy these cultural vehicles to which we are entitled. Why, on
the one hand, does the member claim to protect CBC and
French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec while, on the other
hand, both he and his fellow Bloc members do their utmost to
deprive us of what we have gained?
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the comments
made by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
especially when he said I could not make up my mind. He was
critical of the fact that I was first a Conservative and that I am
now a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Well sir, at least I have the
courage-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. In his previous
comments, the hon. member for Richelieu seems to have been
right about the other place, and I appreciate his comments,
which show his experience, but at this point I must remind him
to speak through the Chair.
Mr. Plamondon: Thank you for calling me back to order. I
was going to say I was amazed when the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said I was someone who could
not make up his mind. I changed parties but I did not change my
way of thinking. The principles that led me into politics were no
longer compatible with the principles of the party to which I
belonged. The party had changed, and to remain true to my
principles, I had the courage to cross the floor of the House and
sit on this side, first as an independent member and
subsequently as one of a group of eight members who formed a
political party.
When the hon. member saw his party renege on its
commitments regarding unemployment, renege on its
commitments regarding agriculture, renege on its commitments
to protect French culture in Canada by cutting 5 per cent of
funding, renege on its commitments to maintaining the public
service, renege on its commitments with respect to the CBC, did
he have the courage to cross the floor and sit down on this side of
the House, as I did in 1990 when the party I served failed to live
up to my principles?
(1520)
That is what I did, but the hon. member, according to an
article in Le Droit, ``this lion in the opposition is now a mere
mouse''. Indeed he is. That is my response.
Now if he really believes in the CBC, I also believe in the
CBC's French network, but if he really believes-when he
mentioned the RDI, I commented that some areas do not have it
yet, but because there is a French network, because there is an
10797
RDI, why would his department jeopardize their existence? That
is what today's debate is all about.
Why would the government not guarantee funding? Why not
guarantee funding for the CBC over a five-year period? That is
what it is not doing and that is what we want it to do. We want the
government to stop operating on the sly and to stop
contradicting itself from one day to the next. That is what we
want from the minister. Give us the facts, give us stable budgets,
maintain what has been achieved by the French network,
consider that the CBC's French network is more productive than
the English network, provide the same funding for the news on
French and English radio stations, provide the same funding for
variety programs and for all sports programming.
What we want from the minister is a fair deal and the same
guarantees he, his party and his prime minister promised the
corporation during the election campaign and in the red book.
That is what we are asking today. Why does the hon. member
who asked me a question not have the courage to say: ``Yes, I did
promise that, yes, we were supposed to do that and we will
support the Bloc's motion to put pressure on the minister who no
longer has a clue what his department is all about''.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as important as the question of future funding levels of the CBC
is, I feel that a more fundamental issue must also be addressed in
the House today, namely, the importance of public broadcasting
in Canada.
I intend to use this opportunity to remind my colleagues on
both sides of the House about why we remain deeply and
fundamentally committed to public broadcasting in Canada.
It is widely recognized that the CBC television services of
tomorrow must necessarily play a much different role than the
role they were intended to play over three decades ago. Today,
Canadians enjoy a wider range of programming and services
than ever before. Although these changes are significant, they
are only a preview of what we can expect in the broadcasting
industry in the future.
In recent months we have been the recipients of many new
services through cable and as the hearings before the CRTC on
convergence attest, much more is to come. Indeed it is
legitimate for members to wonder when we hear so much about
the so-called death stars and the 500 channel universe, what the
role of the public broadcaster will be in this environment of
increasing choices.
As surely as the CBC is a vital topic today, so it will be even a
decade from now. True, the government has a historical position
of supporting the CBC and of supporting Canadian culture. At a
time when a virtual communications revolution is taking place,
Canada needs more than ever a strong cultural identity. No
single instrument is more vital to the development of that
national identity than the CBC.
The corporation is the single most important employer of
writers, actors, musicians, dancers, film makers, directors and
many other talented, creative people who shape our vision of
ourselves. Nowhere else on the television dial can one see the
commitment to quality Canadian programming that one can see
on both the English and French language networks of the CBC.
With two mainstream broadcast television networks, one
French and one English, a television wing of the northern
service and 24-hour all news cable service in both English and
French, CBC television brings Canadians together. The CBC has
the awards, both domestic and international to prove it.
(1525 )
In a country as vast as ours the CBC alone provides some
remarkable services. In addition to the television services
already mentioned, it operates four mainstream radio networks,
AM and FM in French and English plus a northern service
transmitting in many native languages, including Cree and
Inuktitut to name but two. These are the only radio networks in
Canada and they reach about 98 per cent of the population.
If one visits some of our more remote corners it is easy to
understand how much it can mean to a librarian in Iqaluit, for
example, to know that her sister in Chester, Nova Scotia and her
father in Nanaimo, B.C. are all listening to ``Morningside'', are
all sharing that common Canadian experience. It is that sense of
connectedness that is the essence of public broadcasting today.
It is this commonality of experience which we must be able to
continue to share. We live in an era of increasing specialization
but Canadians can obtain almost anything they want on demand.
The question is, are they sharing experiences the way they
once did? Our ability to record what we want and to watch it
later, almost any time, can make for very selective and singular,
some would say isolating, interpretations of our identity. As our
national public broadcaster, the CBC must be strong enough to
produce the quality Canadian programming that Canadians want
to watch, the kind of programming that provokes discussion the
next day, the kind of programming that helps Canadians share
experiences that make us Canadians.
The former chairman of the CBC, Patrick Watson, said it far
better than I can when he addressed the Paul Nitze Centre of
Advanced Studies at John Hopkins University in Maryland in
10798
1994. At that time he said: ``Canadians, like Americans, will be
spending a tremendous amount of time whizzing out to the outer
reaches of this new communications universe''.
More than ever, if the particular kind of civil society that we
have put our money on is going to survive, we are going to need a
foundation to start from and return to, something like a media
hearthstone, so that whenever we select one of the channels that
belong to our own public broadcaster, it will be so clearly ours
that Canadians will be able to say to themselves: ``We are
home''.
After all, that is what good public broadcasting is about:
providing a sense of home in a universe that is expanding all the
time. It does not mean that the CBC can expect increased levels
of public funding. To expect that in light of the fiscal situation
the government is facing would be neither realistic nor
responsible to the future generations who must pay our debts.
Likewise, it does not mean that the CBC must perform exactly as
it has in the past, for this too would be ignoring reality.
Times have changed and so have our tastes and our
expectations. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
has heard from many excellent witnesses about the importance
of public broadcasting and about alternative ways of doing
things. It is time for the government to take the next step, to
review the legislated mandate parliamentarians have conferred
on the CBC to ensure that we are not asking it to perform tasks
which are no longer necessary, given the new services that are
available to us or possible, given the resources available today.
We must decide how best the CBC can enhance our feeling of
connectedness as we enter the new millennium. I look forward
to the upcoming announcement by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage in this regard.
In closing, I would be remiss if I did not salute the men and
women who serve the CBC today and have done so in years past.
Their enduring commitment to public broadcasting and public
service are valued deeply by the government. As we endeavour
to resolve the challenges facing the CBC in the days ahead, we
will do our utmost to act with wisdom, diligence and respect for
the cultural treasure they have so painstakingly created.
(1530 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
very interested in listening to the member as she spoke about the
responsibility of the CBC generating the quality of
programming that Canadians want.
I was also interested that the hon. member is continuing with
the age old idea the Liberals have had that if anything is good it
is going to have to be created by the government, that there must
be government intervention into the creation of the Canadian
identity and that there must be government intervention into
creating a feeling of connectedness. These are wonderful terms
but at a cost of $1.1 billion, I wonder how connected Canadians
really feel.
I wonder if the hon. member could help me understand this
concept. We are spending this gargantuan amount of money to
create the quality of programming Canadians want and at the
same time, the number of viewers, particularly of English
language television, is dropping through the floor. Does she
really feel we are getting the kind of value for the taxpayer's
dollar we should be if she is after quality of programming that
Canadians want yet the CBC is dropping viewers by the
bucketload?
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, I am not
surprised by the opposition member's response to my remarks in
the sense that I did speak strongly about the government's role in
providing public broadcasting and the importance of public
broadcasting.
Unlike the opposition member, I do not share his utmost faith
in the marketplace delivering everything of value to all the
citizens of this country. As a matter of fact, in this particular
industry, that is broadcasting, while the private marketplace
provides a service it has failed miserably to provide the kind of
Canadian programming the CBC has managed to do in both
official languages.
There is nothing preventing private broadcasters from
creating more Canadian programming. However, particularly on
English television, which he chooses to highlight, it is clear they
can make a lot more money, according to the rules of the
marketplace which they follow, by importing American sitcoms
and simply rebroadcasting them.
Mr. Abbott: The CBC can.
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): No. Eighty per cent to 85
per cent of CBC's programming in prime time is Canadian
programming. Just about the same percentage is American
programming on the private networks.
By the latest figures released, we know the market does not
help us to create a national vision of ourselves and does not help
us tell our stories to each other. Therefore, I and this government
still believe there is a role for government in the broadcast
industry and in the creation, encouragement and evolution of
Canadian culture for both francophones and anglophones in this
country.
The member mentioned a gargantuan expenditure of money
on the CBC. I guess that would depend on where one's values lie.
Perhaps the member believes as I do that this country has a
leading role to play in the development of a higher level of
civilization in this world. We have not done a bad job of it
having been named number one in the world by the United
Nations. Perhaps the member values the things that Canadians
10799
have valued over time, things like caring for each other, a sense
of community, an abhorrence for useless war. If he did, he would
not see the expenditure of money on the public broadcaster as
gargantuan.
Some in this country would encourage us to spend more,
believe it or not, and to reduce the gargantuan expenditure of
money for example on our military. To some that is an obscene
expenditure of money. They think the creation of arts and
culture, which makes for a more highly civilized nation, is a
valuable expenditure of money. I guess it all depends on one's
viewpoint as to value for dollars spent.
This nation wishes to retain its identity, to hold on to the
things that make us different from our friends to the south. They
are our friends but we do not want to imitate them, their social
structures, or their social problems for sure. Therefore, it is
absolutely necessary that we strengthen our identity as
Canadians.
(1535 )
It is necessary that we know who we are and that our children
know who they are and that they are different. They are not
English as the English in England. They are not French as the
French in France. They are not North Americans as those
citizens in the United States. They are different and they are
special. We are poised between Europe and the United States as
our main cultural influences. Therefore, it is more important
than ever that we take strong measures as the representatives of
the people in this government to ensure that the public
broadcaster continues to play a strong role, a publicly funded
role, in helping us to determine the vision of ourselves today and
a better one for the future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her
presentation and for clarifying her position and her replies. It is
very gratifying to realize that on the Canadian heritage
committee, we have a member across the way whose position is
not that far from the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the need
to defend public broadcasting, the CBC-SRC as we have known
it, with whatever adjustments will be necessary because of
changing technologies.
I have a comment and a question. What separates us is the
concept of Canadian identity. This is a recent invention. There is
not just one Canadian identity. There are two Canadian
identities, two founding peoples here. More than two, if we
include all our First Nations. In this bilingual country, which is
French speaking and English speaking, there are two national
identities and two cultures, which is reflected in our television
programming. So that is what separates us, and nothing is going
to change that. That is why we want to leave. We want to leave
you with your Canadian identity and assume our Quebec
identity. Those are all fundamental reasons, because we will
never buy this Canadian identity concept.
That being said, I wonder whether the hon. member- Mr.
Cauchon, let me say what I have to say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is a time and a place
for such conversations, but meanwhile, I would appreciate it if
hon. members would speak through the Chair. The hon. member
for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mrs. Tremblay: You are right, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you
for calling me to order. I would also ask the hon. member for
Outremont to speak through you.
This is what I wanted to ask the hon. member. Does she see
public broadcasting as based on the system we know today, as an
entity that will eventually absorb new technologies, or does she
see a PBS style network?
[English]
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, I think from
the committee my colleagues opposite know I am never going to
be satisfied with a PBS style public broadcaster.
I find it appalling that at regular occasions what are probably
fine upstanding citizens have to stand up with a tin cup and beg
for donations. I find it appalling that our neighbour to the south
does not value the PBS programs, which indeed many of us and
many of its own citizens enjoy, sufficiently to fund it without
having the tin cup approach. I would certainly fight against that
to the death. You can count on it.
I cannot let the hon member's comments go unchallenged
from the point of view of the identity issue. My colleague says
there is no single Canadian identity but rather, there is a
francophone one, an anglophone one, and an aboriginal one. She
says that is why she wants to leave.
The thing is, the government does not want to allow that to
happen because when my colleague says they want to leave, she
is referring to those of her people with a francophone identity
who live within the confines of the province of Quebec, which
after all is only a geographic designation.
(1540 )
There are many other Canadians who see themselves with a
francophone identity and live outside the borders of Quebec. I
ask my colleague why she would want to abandon those who
share her sense of identity by leaving them and creating a new
country from which they would be excluded.
I have just one other point. The fact is that all identities and all
nations evolve and emerge with time. While we all have the
identity of our roots, there is such a wonderful opportunity here
for me to try to understand my colleague's identity, the identity
of her birth and for her to try to understand mine and for all of us
together to try to understand the identity of the aboriginal people
and indeed of our newcomers. It is as we understand each other
that perhaps that search for understanding becomes the
foundation of what is truly a Canadian identity for all of us.
10800
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member preceding me commented on
identity saying that our identity in Quebec was simply a matter
of geography. I think other factors have to be taken into
consideration. It must be remembered that we are the people
who arrived from Europe first bringing a French culture to
America, with Quebec as its focus.
There was also a French America in North America as a
whole. The first French to arrive in Quebec, the ones who settled
in Canada, followed the Mississippi, reaching as far as
Louisiana and the Rockies.
If, today, the number of francophones in Canada is less than
what is was 125 or 130 years ago, it is perhaps more because
they were denied the right to be educated in their own language
and to grow in their own language. This happened in Manitoba
and Alberta, among other places, at the end of the 19th century.
Had they enjoyed this right, Canada could have become a truly
bilingual country. We could have avoided the present situation
in which we discover two completely different realities. We
could live as neighbours in harmony. The only way, in our
opinion, is for us to opt for sovereignty and for Canada to find a
way to deal with its American neighbours.
Did the hon. member in her presentation not limit our identity
by making it a matter of geography, in a very restrictive and
rather embarrassing way for Quebecers, when we are in fact as
much a part of Canada's history as the anglophones and the
aboriginal peoples? Is this not limiting us to very little and
admitting that the Liberal Party's knowledge of Canada is
limited to the image handed to it, particularly by the picture the
Prime Minister can paint of it?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The period for questions
and comments is over. At 3.40 p.m. the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup began his speech for a
maximum of 20 minutes.
Mr. Crête: I am sorry, I got confused in my presentation.
I will now go back to the motion presented by the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. It reads as follows:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decision concerning funding for
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for the next three years, thus
causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.
This motion got my attention and my support right from the
start for various reasons. First of all, it clearly identifies the
Minister of Canadian Heritage as being responsible for the very
ambiguous situation the CBC-SRC is in at the present time,
which affects both its listeners and employees. There is great
uncertainty regarding the future role of the corporation and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage is to be blamed for it.
The minister's attitude discredits any expertise that might
have developed within the Canadian public service and the
CBC-SRC. It also discredits the function of the minister since
we have repeatedly and systematically been told by the
president who resigned, Mr. Manera, and by the vice-president,
Mrs. Fortin, that there will be significant and drastic cuts at the
CBC-SRC. These statements were not made on the sly. Mrs.
Fortin held a two hour televised teleconference which was
broadcasted across the country, during which she explained the
impact of the cuts to all the services of Radio-Canada. One of
her listeners said that Mrs. Fortin had shared her anguish and
feelings of powerlessness with her audience. She said she did
not know what the future holds for the French network of the
CBC.
(1545)
Therefore, following this evaluation by an employee which
reflects the feelings of people following this presentation, the
official opposition asked the minister to tell us what the impact
of the cuts would be. The only answer we got was that no cuts
were planned when, in fact, documents available from the CBC
show that a program of cuts is in the works. They mention cuts of
$44 million for 1995-96, more than $96 million for 1996-97 and
$165 million for 1997-98.
Such cuts are already part of the CBC's future and it must plan
its actions accordingly. When dealing with television or radio
production, decisions must be made months in advance to
determine which serials will be shown in the years ahead and
what will be the direction followed by the corporation. The
vagueness of the minister and the lingering uncertainty he is
fostering are doing tremendous damage to the future of the
corporation.
Why did the official opposition consider important to draw
the attention of the House on this subject on a designated day? It
is because we realized that, after all is said and done-and there
is a lesson to be drawn here for both networks of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation-because of the quality of
programming, because of the way Radio-Canada has managed
to identify with Quebec, there is during prime time about 87 per
cent of Canadian programming and only 13 per cent of foreign
programming. Its impact was that TVA, a private network,
followed suit and used a mix of 73 per cent Canadian and 27 per
cent foreign programming. TQS made sure it had 65 per cent
Canadian content. We realize that Radio-Canada really has the
power to promote Canada's and Quebec's culture because of the
content of the programs it airs and makes known.
The English network is much less able to do this because it
does not capture as much of its potential audience and, for
example, networks like Global carry 80 per cent foreign content
during the same time slot, from 7 to 11 nightly. Pay television
carries 94 per cent foreign content. The CTV network, which is
10801
in some ways an overblown take-off from TVA, carries 75 per
cent foreign content. Therefore, there is a significant difference
in the audiences' perceptions, which Radio-Canada has been
able to use to develop a complicity with its audience and to
ensure the propagation of the country's culture in a way that the
English network has not necessarily been able to do.
Some may believe that higher budgets made it possible to
obtain these results. The opposite is true. If we look at the spread
in production costs, the average amount allocated per hour of
programming at the Société Radio-Canada is $18,390; at the
CBC, the amount is $37,496. The average cost of one hour of
news on Radio-Canada is $7,000; on CBC, the same thing costs
$18,000. The average cost of one hour of French variety shows
is $30,000; in English, it is $141,000. Therefore, we cannot
attribute Radio-Canada's success in capturing a bigger audience
and in propagating Canadian culture to its budget. There are
other reasons.
(1550)
If we stubbornly continue to cut the CBC's French-language
network, this will eventually have a direct impact on the
quantity and quality of production. We are no longer cutting fat
and looking for surpluses. This will have a direct impact on
production and, among other things, on the ways we collaborate
with the cultural community.
In the past, the French network often contributed to the
dissemination of all art forms by giving contracts for concerts,
dance performances and other cultural activities. In the future
however-as was announced at Mrs. Fortin's press
conferences-spending cuts will have a negative effect on
cultural production and the potential for adequate cultural
dissemination. The CBC's French-language network is being
unfairly penalized, since cutting 25 cents out of every dollar
does not have the same effect as cutting 35 or 50 cents from $4 or
$5. The cuts will have a much more detrimental impact on the
French-language network. In this regard, I think it is important
for the House, which is preoccupied with sound budget
management, to ensure that the cuts are fair.
The cuts currently planned at the CBC do not reflect a
commitment to the fair distribution of public funds. The first
person responsible for this misinformation is the minister
himself because, by refusing to give us the real figures, he is
adding to the insecurity of CBC employees and of all those who
want this network to continue providing in the future the type of
collaboration for cultural dissemination that it used to offer in
the past.
Mrs. Fortin also said during the closed circuit TV program in
which she explained the impact of the cuts that national
television would never be the same, because there will indeed be
major consequences for francophones in all Canadian
provinces. CBC's French-language network is somewhat like an
umbilical cord linking all French-speaking Canadians to the
national production made in Quebec, while also allowing the
broadcast of regional productions.
During consultations on the social program review, I travelled
across the country last year and I can tell you that, in several
regions, the French network only has the bare minimum to
survive. The decisions to be made regarding CBC's
French-language network could have the effect of depriving, in
a significant way, access to information in French for part of
Canada, and that could go two ways, in the sense that, for
example, French-speaking people in Vancouver, Edmonton or
Charlottetown would neither have access to information from
Quebec, nor be able to familiarize the rest of Canada with their
reality.
The cuts will result in a less varied and more limited
programming for these people, given the drastically reduced
budget of the corporation. Choices will have to be made and the
whole French-speaking community outside Quebec may end up
paying the price, possibly even more so than the majority in
Quebec.
(1555)
Mr. Manera resigned from CBC because the commitments
made to him when he joined the corporation were not adhered to.
After the public announcement of cuts by the vice-president of
CBC's French-language network, and after the minister's
claims that he is not sure whether cuts will be made, the
employees of these networks are even more disheartened.
I much prefer the attitude of Mrs. Fortin, who says they will
sit down together and see if they can still make interesting things
in spite of the cuts to be made, to that of the minister, who
refuses to provide the exact numbers. Indeed, Mrs. Fortin seems
much more aware of the needs of the corporation's employees,
that is those who ensure the daily production.
What can we do to ensure that, in the future, CBC's
French-language network can continue to fulfill its mandate
without being adversely affected to the point where it would no
longer be able to provide the same quality programming for the
Canadian public? I think the minister should provide the
accurate figures regarding the cuts to be made and then ask
employees of the corporation, those who work there, to tell him
where these cuts could be made and what their impact will be.
For example, I was told that, each year, or on a regular basis,
CBC must spend $15 million to get CRTC's approval for its
programming. Considering the anticipated cuts-we are talking
$45 million for the first year, 1995-1996-$15 million could
significantly help reduce the impact of such cuts.
10802
People might be willing to make cuts at corporate
headquarters because, as is the case with other organizations,
it is obvious that in the different branches, different service
points of the CBC, staff is already at the minimum required to
ensure adequate production and adequate coverage of
information, whether it be in the cultural or other sectors.
Would it not be possible for the corporation to make a special
effort at headquarters? Could we not, as a result, possibly delay
the effect the cuts might have on production in the short term? I
think that these are avenues that could be studied in the future.
Maybe we could ask the minister to consider these suggestions.
And let us remember that this is happening in a context where
the federal government is saying that francophone minorities in
Canada are important to it. They want to make sure that they
receive quality services. They want the French fact to be alive
and well everywhere in Canada. On the other side of the House,
and on this point I concur with the hon. member for Richelieu
who spoke before me, they sing two different tunes. There is one
for the election campaign, the election platform, and another,
which is the reality that the Liberal Party is promoting as a
government.
If we take away from the French communities of Canada the
possibility of expressing who they are, we are going to widen the
gap between elements to a point which will not leave the French
fact in Canada enough vigour to survive. By taking even more
from them we would be like depriving them of oxygen. I think
that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is in a way
responsible for culture in Canada, should ask himself very
serious questions before taking such action.
(1600)
We have the feeling that, after telling us during the first weeks
following the election that he was a good friend of the CBC and
would ensure that the corporation had all the resources needed to
develop, the minister became a lackey to the finance minister
whose job is to cut expenditures.
His inability to properly defend culture in Canada and his
narrow vision which encompasses only one Canadian culture are
enough to convince him that we do not necessarily need two
healthy television networks and that we could cut the oxygen
supply to one of them so that we would only have one Canadian
identity. We could come back to the bilingual television network
we had in the beginning, but that would not reflect the reality in
our country.
I think it is important for this House to consider the motion
before us today and to ensure, first of all, that the minister
clearly indicates where the cuts will be made-what seems to
me like a responsible thing to do-and second, that no cuts will
be made in areas that could hurt production and the delivery of
adequate services to Quebecers and Canadians alike.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member. Is culture in Quebec so fragile
that it takes Radio-Canada to keep the culture together? I
suggest the culture has not been built by a radio or television
station or network. The culture has been built by centuries of
people working, playing and living together.
After all those centuries is the culture so fragile that we need a
government owned television and radio network to sustain it?
That seems absurd to me. I would like the member to respond to
the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, there are more than two oceans in
Canada. There is also an ocean of difference between the hon.
member's position and my own. I am starting to understand
some of the identity problems of English Canada. If a member of
this House considers that culture is not transmitted by the
media, by radio and television and the information highway and
the rest, all the different ways we communicate, I am beginning
to understand why some people have trouble distinguishing the
border between Canada and the United States.
What I have just heard gives me the impression that they
could live anywhere on this planet, that being Canadian or
American is the same thing. And I realize why they are so afraid
we will leave. They think that after we have left, the Canadian
identity will cease to exist.
Before the advent of the printed media and the electronic
media, culture was transmitted orally. A people was distinctive
in terms of its artistic endeavours, its inventions, its scientific
progress and its trading traditions. These are the elements that
together represent the culture of a people.
Media like the CBC, both the French and the English
networks, use images to show us the country we live in and the
people who live there with us. Wanting these media to survive
and produce quality programs does not mean our culture is
fragile. It proves the importance of communicating that the
culture.
That is why, for instance, we have networks like TV5 that
group francophone television channels from all over the world.
The English networks do the same. I think it is important to
realize that in the global village of the future, in the world of
tomorrow, networks like the CBC are the tools of the future.
Wanting to maintain the CBC does not mean our culture is
fragile. It means ensuring that it has a future and that it can take
its rightful place, in Quebec or in Canada, depending on what
Quebecers decide.
(1605)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems that
the government has decided to axe the CBC. We are told that
cuts of about $375 million will be made over the next few years.
10803
The minister also seems unwilling to disclose these cuts, but we
do not know why. That is the question that we are asking
ourselves today.
As a member of Parliament who is promoting the sovereignty
of Quebec, and seeing that the current government is axing the
CBC, I ask myself this question: Would it be preferable for the
government to simply privatize the CBC, so that the money
saved could be used to reduce taxes in Quebec and to allow the
government of Quebec to support Radio-Québec?
Radio-Québec could then respond to the needs of Quebecers the
same way as the CBC has done it before, since it will not be able
to do so in the future.
What does the hon. member think of this suggestion?
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is strictly a question
of privatizing the national network. In Quebec and Canada,
there is the issue of production. For example, in order to ensure
an adequate coverage and the broadcasting of programs
reflecting what we really are, it was decided long ago in Quebec
that we would create Radio-Québec. Because Quebecers had
worked for the CBC, they also wanted to be involved in a
television which would picture Quebec adequately in the future.
That probably brought about much higher expenses than what
should have been.
The solution probably lies in better defined jurisdictions. It
should be clear who is responsible for an area, who will have the
power to levy taxes and who will have the spending power.
Someone should have the authority to sign international treaties,
on networks like TV5 for example, in order that we may be sure
the money is really spent on production and not on some
competition which is not always appropriate and which causes
useless expenditures and squandering.
Today, we refuse to question the principle of the existence of
the CBC, but we are cutting its air supply at the source. Well,
why not try to seek the solution elsewhere? Perhaps we should
first understand that there are two cultures in Canada and that
each of them must have the adequate tools to ensure its own
development.
It is also easy to see the ripple effect of the CBC on the quality
of programs and on the fact that the French network airs many
more Quebec content programs during prime time hours. These
programs promote what we are and, for various reasons, they are
quite superior to whatever is shown on the English network.
Therefore, we can be proud of the results, at least on the Quebec
side.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had
a chance to read the motion introduced by the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata and I can say that I was not surprised at
all.
Members across the aisle have a philosophy which is behind
all the actions of their party. I have said and I repeat that the
members of the Bloc Quebecois are not in this House to defend
the interest of Canadians and Quebecers. They are here for one
reason only, their own interest, which is the separation of
Quebec at any cost.
(1610)
Once this leitmotiv and this philosophy are understood, it is
not surprising to see motions like the one we now have before us.
Why such a motion? It is simple. It is because the CBC has for
many years promoted the Canadian identity and our culture and
it has promoted what we are. The CBC has played a role in our
unity and in the development of the French fact in Canada, not
only in Quebec but also outside Quebec, because there are
indeed francophones outside Quebec, a reality that very much
frightens the Bloc Quebecois. Therefore, it is not surprising to
see that kind of motion which is an attempt to adversely affect
the CBC, this national monument and institution of which I am
extremely proud.
Indeed, we are in a period of fiscal austerity. The federal
government is in a period of fiscal austerity and so are the
provinces. The Minister of Finance's budget, and may I remind
you that this budget has been tremendously well received by all
Canadians, which proves that this government is a responsible
government, has lightly touched the budget of the CBC in an
effort on the part of the minister to put some order in the
government's fiscal house.
There is some bad faith on the other side of this House. I think
that this budget indicates clearly the intentions of this
government regarding the CBC that we want to preserve. There
was a small reduction in the budget. As you know, the budget of
the CBC is in excess of $1.1 billion. There is a budget reduction
for 1995-96. What we are saying is that we want to go ahead
with a reform of the CBC that will take into account the
evolution of Canadian society, of our political context and of our
country as a whole.
When we talk about reform, we always talk about changing
the institutions so that they can evolve at the same pace as the
rest of our society. That is what we intend to do with the CBC.
It is not in the interests of the official opposition that we go
ahead with our reforms. Their sole objective is to show that the
system does not work so that they can eventually bring about the
separation of Quebec. They create a very destructive climate
that unfortunately serves no one's interests.
When we were elected to form a new government, we said that
we would proceed with major reforms. Such reforms can be
implemented if everybody works together and pulls in the same
direction. However, that is not good enough for the official
opposition. Of course, they take their orders from their party's
head office in Quebec City and since their party is in power in
Quebec, the orders are not to co-operate with the federal
government. They are afraid that co-operation could lead to a
solution to the present situation and to a slide toward Canadian
10804
federalism which would be in the best interests of all the
provinces and in line with the Canadian reality.
(1615)
Quite the contrary, they chose to withdraw from the process,
unfortunately. The head office, the Parti Quebecois in Quebec
City, has unfortunately done so in many areas, such as the
environment. In that area, they have withdrawn from a
Canada-wide consultation committee-Quebecers should know
these facts-a committee set up to fine tune the relationships
between provincial governments, to fine tune Canadian
federalism and to make Canada grow and also, by the same
token, to make Quebec grow.
Those are the actions taken by these people who want to go
backward instead of moving forward. You know, when we say
we want to go ahead with reforms, and also to strive to create a
better system, this is possible. The Minister of Finance
demonstrated that in his budget.
Let us consider, for example, the issue of social program
reform. How many provinces asked us, in the area of social
programs, for some decentralization in order for them to gain
more autonomy and to be able to shape programs, to a greater
degree, according to local, regional and provincial realities? It
was nearly a unanimous request.
When we look at the finance minister's budget, we find a
positive answer. We see that there is some decentralization and
that we created a new Canadian social transfer, a transfer that
gives provinces more autonomy and that invites provinces to sit
down with the federal government and develop national
standards that would apply coast to coast.
That is what Canadian federalism, an evolving federalism, is
all about. That is the new political reality. It is a reality that
requires politicians throughout Canada to work together in
co-operation. But those people do not want to function, they do
not want to move forward.
Instead of spending their energy on improving Quebec's
position within the Canadian federation, they choose to waste
public funds. That is something. In 1995, instead of trying to get
the public finance in order, instead of trying to take measures so
that Quebec can still have a place within the federation-an
enviable place, an important one-and be influential
internationally, the newly elected government in Quebec simply
tries to achieve one goal, separation, and to do so, it uses public
funds and wastes them shamefully.
The regional commissions on the future of Quebec are a good
example of that kind of waste of public funds. They represent
not only a loss of money, but also an incredible loss of time. I
can assure you that I am a true Quebecer and that when I see
members opposite do what they are doing now, I know deep in
my heart that we are not making any progress with them. They
have a negative vision of things.
Canadian federalism did contribute to the development of the
French language in Canada and to the development of the
French-speaking people living outside Quebec. And the federal
government will keep on doing so, it will keep on improving
Canadian federalism.
(1620)
And that is not all. Not only does Canada permit the
francophone community within its walls to reach out, but, as the
Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned, Canada is also involved
in the international francophone community and enables the
francophone face of Canada to shine internationally.
We do it and we do it alongside the Province of Quebec, since
the Province of Quebec sits at the table of the international
francophone community at the invitation of the federal
government. We are so successful at this that we recently
established TV5 with other francophone countries. Is there any
finer international success than TV5? Is there any finer success
for the francophone community than TV5? Therefore federal
government actions shine forth not only nationally but
internationally.
In closing, I would like to say that, if we work hand in hand,
we could protect our invaluable CBC and, doing so, could also
enable it to provide the same services in the future it has
provided in the past. These services have enabled the French
language to shine forth and allowed Canada to express its
linguistic and cultural duality not only coast to coast, but around
the world.
In conclusion, I would point out that we do not have to listen
to anyone who is not working constructively and who is bent on
destroying the country. We also do not have to listen to anyone
who, when it comes time to act in their own bailiwick, does
something far worse than we can do. Take, for example, the
issue of Radio-Québec. To go back to the beginning, for all of
these reasons, you will see that the hon. member's motion was
predictable when we look at the principles underlying their
political actions, and I find it quite unfortunate that they take
nobody's interests into consideration. The only interest they
serve is their own, and their interest is to see the day Quebec
separates. If we work together, let me tell you because I have
travelled in the province of Quebec many times, we can give
Quebecers what they want, a progressive and constructive
society.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will be here a long time if I
say everything I have to say about what was just said. In any
case, I probably will use up the five minutes I have at my
disposal. On to my reply.
He says that there is a philosophy behind each of our actions.
So much the better. This is what gives us depth and allows us to
think articulately. I just heard a bunch of unrelated comments on
10805
various issues, but almost nothing about my motion. He seized
the opportunity to talk about everything and anything.
Francophones outside of Quebec, of course we know they
exist. We have reminded the House of their existence since we
were elected. The Liberals forgot about them for the nine years
they were the opposition. They forgot about Quebecers. They
forgot about Francophones outside of Quebec. They did not even
speak French in the House anymore. It was us who put French
back on the map. We were the ones who built it up again, not the
hon. member for Outremont, not the Liberals opposite who
forgot about French for nine years. They have nothing on us
when it comes to this issue.
He did not realize that the budget cuts Radio-Canada's
funding by $679 million over three years. He did not even read
the whole thing through. That is only for the Department of
Canadian Heritage, and half of it would have gone to the CBC.
The member accuses us of acting in bad faith. He talks about a
reform. We have nothing against progress. I believe that
everyone should have access to the information highway. But in
the meantime, can we continue to walk on a gravel road? Can we
keep our television? The member also said that if we all worked
together, and went in the same direction-this is beginning to
sound like the ewe the minister spoke of the other day.
(1625)
On a more serious note, he says that the CBC reflects a
Canadian reality. This may be true for the English-language
network, but the French-language network reflects the Quebec
reality. Just ask Mrs. Fortin who, when she appeared before the
heritage committee, was told to try to better reflect the Canadian
French-speaking reality. For example, with adequate funding,
CBC's French-language network could produce soaps from the
Prairies.
The member referred to the head office. He said that we work
for the head office, or as some would say, the mother house. I
was brought up by nuns and I have no problem with the concept
of mother house. In the context of multinational corporations,
we often refer to head offices. But what do they do with their
subsidiaries, with Michel Bélanger, Daniel Johnson and
Stéphane Dion? This is no better. It is exactly the same thing.
The head office in this instance is Power Corporation.
The member also referred to what he called-hear me out, I
want to get this right-the NCST, the new Canada social
transfer. I hope this will not turn out to be what we anticipate.
The member alluded to the costs incurred by the commissions.
He said the exercise was a waste of time. To respect democracy
and consult people is now a waste of money. This is
preposterous. How much is spent on Canadian unity? Two
hundred dollars a day for each of the spies in each of the
commissions. You can figure out the total, Mr. Speaker.
The member crows about the international Francophonie,
which is in fact the result of the efforts of the leader of the
opposition when he was Canada's ambassador to France, as well
as then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and then Quebec
Premier Pierre-Marc Johnson. These three true Quebecers cared
about the future of Francophonie, not about seeing
French-speaking Canadians disappear through assimilation.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize I had annoyed
the hon. member so much. We will return to a situation of calm
and talk about serious things, that is, the CBC.
I will be brief. When they say there is a philosophy behind
their thinking, which gives them vision, it is unfortunate that
this vision is not shared by anyone in Quebec, because they see
things only one way and that is from the standpoint of
separation, which I find unfortunate.
She talks of the hearings of the regional commissions, but we
could say a few things on the subject. All that they have done is
prove the vision of the present federal government right. People
told the opposition member's head office that they wanted
attention to be paid to the debt and to the deficit, that they
wanted attention to be given to the issue of job creation and that
they wanted attention to be paid to economic development.
How is it that only the hon. members opposite have failed to
understand? For the past year and a half we have been busy
organizing public finances and reforming government
machinery, and I must add, successfully. The latest budget of the
Minister of Finance is remarkable.
In opposition, they refuse to hear what the people are saying.
It is quite simple, however. They have to let go of something that
dates from bygone days, from the 1960s. Quebec has changed.
(1630)
Quebec now has its own instruments of economic
development. Quebec is a Canadian power, which now is felt
worldwide. These people are acting as if we were still in the
1960s. They are reacting as if they had been colonized. I do not
feel they are part of my generation.
In conclusion, I am proud to be a Quebecer. I have no
complex. I am proud to belong to the big Canadian family and to
go forth together with these people.
[English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to other government members
talk about the importance of the CBC and what great friends they
are of the CBC. With the government and its members having
10806
introduced a budget that severely cuts the CBC, one could say
that with friends like that who needs enemies.
I listened particularly to the member talk about the need to
reform, the need for a new CBC and how the reform should take
place in a co-operative way. I agree that there are new realities,
modern realities and a need for change, but I would like to ask
the member: Is the government not going at this a little
backward?
Before introducing cuts and changes to the budget, it has to
first think through where it wants to see the CBC end up.
Everybody agrees that with the cuts the CBC cannot fulfil its
legislative mandate.
Why has the government not first thought through what type
of public broadcasting it wants before it introduced the cuts?
Could government members explain what the CBC should be
like with these cuts? What is the vision of the member and the
government of a new ``reformed CBC''?
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is quite
interesting. He says that we are going ahead with major cuts. I
believe we did not read the same budget.
The budget says that we are reforming the CBC budget as a
whole for 1995-96 but we did not talk about cuts afterward. We
are doing exactly what the hon. member would like the
government to do. We are going ahead with major reform of the
CBC's mandate because the government is aware of the
financial situation of the country.
We have to take care of the financial situation. At the same
time we have to look into the future. In so doing we have to look
at reforming the whole system. We have to look at the social
safety net and at reforming the system. We will do the same with
the CBC.
I believe my colleague's question is a bit premature at this
stage because we did not announce any major cuts to the CBC.
There is $1.1 billion a year in the budget for the CBC. There is
something for the year 1995-96 but thereafter we are doing
exactly what the member would like us to do. We are reforming
the system.
I am sure the Minister of Canadian Heritage will come back to
the House after the standing committee looking at the reform of
the mandate makes a decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try to get back to the motion without
getting overly excited. The motion says the following:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the minister of
Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions-
I would like to start from that point. The member for
Richelieu made a brilliant speech regarding the double talk of
the Liberals these last thirty years. He gave us numerous
examples where pre-election decisions are not implemented
after the elections, where pre-election promises are not kept
after the elections. This is in fact double talk, but there is also a
lack of transparency when one refuses to tell the facts, when one
prefers to remain silent. It is the thrust of the motion introduced
today in the House.
(1635)
I would like to read one or two little paragraphs from the red
book, because they make an accurate description of the CBC's
present situation. In the little red book, a few sentences relate to
the CBC- this one, for example: ``At a time when globalization
and the information and communications revolution are erasing
national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself
to cultural development. Instead, the Conservative regime has
deliberately undermined our national cultural institutions''. So
this was a criticism this government was making then of the
Conservative government.
I go on: ``Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film Board,
Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories'
failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial
development''. I draw the attention of members to the fact that
the government is doing now exactly what he considered
unacceptable on the part of the Conservative Party.
This is what Liberals wrote in their little red book, before the
elections, of course: ``Liberals recognize not only that the
promotion of cultural industries contributes to enhancing
Canadian identity, but also that cultural products create jobs at
home and bring in revenues from abroad''. What do we see later
on? Job losses, lay-offs and also, probably, losses of revenue.
Here is a last little sentence, again from the red book: ``Finally, a
Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear
financing for national cultural institutions such as the Canada
Council and the CBC''. That is, the opposite of what we are
doing now. ``This will allow national cultural institutions to
plan effectively''. We can see the consequences of the decisions
made today.
This is why Mr. Manera resigned. Because he could not plan
for the long term. When you are a high level manager wishing to
manage public affairs in a coherent manner, you demand
coherent funding, which was not given. The cuts to the
CBC-SRC fly in the face of the position stated in the little red
book. We are denouncing the discrepancy between the decisions
being taken and the government's stated position, as we have
done every time it has not been true to its position.
I would like to point out that we are not the only ones to do it.
Some government members also denounce this kind of activity.
I will mention, among others, my hon. colleague, the hon.
member for Gander-Grand Falls, who spends the greater part
of his time haunting the corridors at Revenue Canada and who,
every couple of months, explains either in this House or in the
press, how his government refuses to go and get the money
where it should, in the pockets of rich Canadians who are not
10807
paying any taxes. It is not the Bloc Quebecois who is saying this,
but the member for Gander-Grand Falls.
I will also mention the remarks made by my hon. colleague,
the member for York South-Weston, who tells us that every
time the government goes after or wants to go after social
programs, it is doing exactly the same thing it was denouncing
when the Tories were in power. It is not the Bloc Quebecois who
is saying this, it is the Liberal member for York South-Weston.
I am also coming back to the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who delivered a cutting speech in this
House on how Canada's social programs did not cause the
country's deficit. He concluded his speech on this issue by
saying that he would probably vote against the budget. We will
see what happens when the time comes.
This means that this method of doing things, which we
denounce today, was amply decried by the hon. members of the
current government. Of course, the minister does not wish to
disclose anything when answering questions in the House. He
has answered about 10 questions already, I think, regarding the
CBC's budget versus the statements made outside of the House
by the management of the CBC. The minister refuses to get his
feet wet. The CBC's president is forced to resign, saying that
$350 million will be cut, yet the minister refuses to confirm this
figure.
Ms. Fortin says that 750 positions with the French network
will be cut or abolished, yet the minister refuses to confirm the
figure, claiming that it is all still hypothetical. Lastly, the media
state unanimously that the minister's statements are
inconsistent.
(1640)
We are not the ones saying it, it is the newspapers who are
saying it every day. There will be major cuts which will have a
dramatic impact on both networks, but will probably hit the
French network harder than the English one. There are actually
great discrepancies between the two networks. I am referring to
what the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata explained to
us so well when she said that, in general, television programs
produced for the French network cost less than those produced
for the English one, and have a bigger public.
I am also referring to a report submitted to the committee by
the Coalition pour la défense des services français de
Radio-Canada. This coalition represents producers, artists and
others involved in producing French-language services for the
CBC. According to a summary of its agenda-I believe the
House should hear this-the coalition for the defence of CBC
French-language services denounces the disproportionate
distribution of program resources between Canadian public
television programs, depending on whether they are going to
anglophones or francophones.
Further, Canadians are not entitled to public services of
equivalent quality, if they are French speaking or English
speaking. This is not only unfair, but in violation of the
CBC-SRC mandate, as stated in the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Act. The coalition's support to the
renewal of the French and English networks licences is
conditional upon this iniquity being remedied. It recommends
that the CRTC attach to the renewal of CBC-SRC licences the
obligation to provide both networks with equal program budgets
by the year 2001.
In its report, the coalition identifies three specific areas that
require particular attention and to conclude asks that the CRTC
step in to force the CBC-SRC to act on these problems as a
matter of priority. We know where all this leads: to drastic cuts.
All under the pretext of having a budget to produce and an
enormous debt to deal with.
The Minister of Finance has in fact tabled recently in this
House a budget with teeth. This budget does have teeth, but not
for just anyone. It does not have teeth when it comes to family
trusts for example. Family trusts will finally be abolished, but
only in four years from now, to give those who have an interest
in family trusts to get their most trusted tax consultants and
review the whole gimmick that enables them to avoid taxes.
This budget has no teeth when it comes to tax havens. There
are still tax havens and those who use them to keep their profits
outside of the country do not pay a cent in taxes in Canada.
This is not exactly a budget with teeth for the banks either.
Banks will be required to make a small effort. Peanuts, really,
considering the astronomical profits they made this year. While
individual taxpayers are asked to tighten their belts to the last
notch, the banks get away with doing hardly anything.
On the other hand, this budget definitely has teeth as regards
the little people. That is obvious. It bites into the tender flesh of
our farmers, milk producers and wheat producers. Of course, it
calls for some assistance to be provided to allow Western wheat
producers to adjust, but nothing for Quebec.
It bites into UI. The UI system is not for the rich, but they bite
off huge chunks of it anyway, without even swallowing the
deficit. That is the beauty of it that if we have drastic cuts
affecting the little people, it is because we have a growing
deficit and debt.
All the cuts made this year will not prevent this deficit and
debt from growing, which means that more cuts will be required
next year. The effects of the cuts announced this year will not be
felt for another seven or eight months.
10808
(1645)
This budget also compromises the future of our young people
by forcing them to pay more to enrol in school in the hope of
getting the few jobs that will be left when they graduate-and
young people came to the Hill to show us that they understood
this. So we end up with well-educated unemployed workers who
are 80 per cent in debt. That is their lives. A big budget, indeed.
They are already salivating over their proposed reform of the
old age pension plan. A 72-year old man came to see me
yesterday in my office. As a good Canadian taxpayer, he had just
filed his income tax return. This individual earns $23,000 a year.
Because he claimed a capital gains exemption this year as a
result of selling his house on paper, he will have to pay back his
old age pension benefits, which amount to $4,600 for the year.
There are now many people in the same situation who, while
preparing their tax returns this month, will realize the extent of
the cuts that have been announced but will only be felt in a little
while.
I heard my hon. colleague tell us with a smile up to his ears
that this budget had been well received throughout Canada. I am
not sure that we read the same newspapers. Some fairly
well-known people were quoted in the newspapers. The day
after the budget was tabled, Roy Romanow said that it was
``un-Canadian''. And he used this term repeatedly. An indignant
Bob Rae claimed that health care and social assistance budgets
would be cut. All the newspapers headlined that Bob White was
in a state of shock. And the CBC president resigned just after the
budget was tabled.
In the meantime, alone in Quebec in the shadow of Michel
Bélanger, the so-called great defender of Quebec's interests,
Daniel Johnson does not say a word. To stay on the subject of
sheep, this could be called the silence of the lambs.
All these measures do not change anything. The debt will
continue to grow and the government will have to cut even
deeper next year, just to fill in the holes. And the CBC's budget
will be affected.
That is why we tabled this motion, to stress that the heritage
minister should undertake to give us accurate figures in order to
avoid creating an unhealthy climate. The minister himself
claims that he is responsible for this portfolio and that he is a
friend of the house. I think it would be in the House's interest to
be given accurate figures and to know exactly what decisions
have been made by this government.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today, in this House, French-speaking members from
outside Quebec were criticized on a few occasions. We also
heard the Bloc Quebecois claim to be the protector of
Francophonie outside Quebec. I wish to correct that view and
make a comment based on an article published yesterday in a
New Brunswick newspaper, L'Acadie Nouvelle, and written by
the editor, Mr. Nelson Landry. The article is entitled The flower
and the pot:
Following the war of words involving the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, and Bloc Quebecois member
Suzanne Tremblay, the two sides respectively deserve the flower and the pot.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. When we read an
excerpt from a newspaper or other document, the rules are the
same as if the words were our own. Consequently, we have to say
``the member for'', instead of naming the person.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.
Mr. Arsenault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The flower goes to the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadienne du Canada.
Even if the stand taken by the FCFA on the referendum issue is not as firm as it
should be, it is now clear that the federation is on the No side, something which
was not quite clear a few weeks ago.
The FCFA hopes that Quebecers will vote no but, unfortunately, it will not go
any further in its efforts to convince them of the virtues of federalism.
The federation deserves a flower for clarifying its stand, but only one. It will
get the bouquet when it takes on the role that it should assume regarding this
issue and actively participates in the No campaign, as is the wish of the vast
majority of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec.
The pot goes to the Bloc member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
That member should think twice before opening her mouth. That could
prevent her from talking nonsense as she did last week, when she said that the
only way to save the French language in Canada is through a sovereign Quebec.
Such comments clearly show how little Quebec politicians know about the
French fact outside Quebec.
As for the ``meddling'' argument, it is getting pretty thin. The Quebec
referendum is a national issue, no matter what the hon. member and others say,
and francophones outside Quebec have as much right to speak to this issue as
Quebecers.
Francophones outside Quebec have kept silent for too long, which explains
why it took so long before they obtained their language rights in some
provinces. From now on, they will be heard loud and clear on issues which
affect them, including the Quebec referendum.
The article is signed by Nelson Landry.
(1650)
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was a
question or a comment. My hon. colleague just talked about
interference, but I do not know if he is making this quote his
motto or if this statement reflects his opinion. Obviously, there
is one thing which is clearly recognized by everybody in
Quebec, which is that the future of Quebec will be decided by
and only by Quebecers. I want to remind you of a famous
statement made by Mr. Bourassa who is not a die-hard
sovereignist: ``Quebec is now and for ever free to make its
choices and master of its own destiny''. This is exactly our
position.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur-a marvellous
riding I had the opportunity to visit and where a lot of Acadians
make you feel very welcome-quoted an article where it is said
that were are wrong to argue that the only way for a nation to
survive is to become sovereign and that one of my colleagues
should think twice before making such a statement. But I would
10809
heartily agree with such a statement. The survival of Quebecers
will only be accomplished through Quebec's sovereignty.
You only have to think about all the minority groups
throughout French Canada. In almost every part of the country,
they were gradually assimilated over a number of years, and if
there are French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec
nowadays, it is because with Quebec in the Canada
confederation, these people can have a real political balance.
However, we no longer think of ourselves as Canadians. We are
Quebecers, and Quebec is our only country. So, we will become
Quebecers.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we all
know, we are debating a motion on the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation and the cuts it has suffered in the last budget.
The comment I would like to make, and my colleague will
have the opportunity to add to that when I am finished, is that the
budget as a whole does not seem to be based on a corporate plan.
What I mean by that is that the cuts appear to have been made at
random. The CBC has had its share, as well as other government
agencies and programs. There are consequences to all of that.
The Americans have an expression for this type of random
cutting and the consequences that follow.
(1655)
They call it dynamic scoring. What is it exactly? Well, it has
been discovered that when cuts are made in one place, there are
macro-economic consequences elsewhere. It means that in
trying to save money here, we force people into unemployment
there, which creates, in the economic cycle, a decline whose
effects we do not always take the time to measure in advance.
So, do we know how many businesses who provide services to
the CBC will see their sales reduced because of these budget
cuts that will force the CBC to buy fewer services from them?
Do we know how many people will be laid off? Do we know
how many of these people will be unable to find a new job in
their area of expertise or in another area? Do we know by how
much welfare costs will increase in each of the provinces? We
have to realize that what happens with all these cuts-and the
cuts to the CBC are no exception-is that the federal
government is saving some money but is forcing the provinces
to spend more on welfare. Not only have we shifted the problem,
but we may well have made it worse.
No macro-economic study supports the effects of what the
Americans call dynamic scoring. We are making cuts at random,
we do not have specific targets, we do not know where that will
lead us and I think it is something that Canadians have a right to
know. I would like my colleague to comment on my perception
of the way we are not being governed.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to tell
my hon. colleague that this is the first time I hear the phrase
``dynamic scoring''. If I understand well, this is a little like
skeet shooting, or shooting on the fly, at random, haphazardly. I
think there is at least one conclusion that can be made in this
House for the information of everybody here: a government
cannot be run like a business. We often hear business people
telling us that the government should be run like a business.
Unfortunately, that is not possible, strictly speaking. While a
company can lay people off and get rid of a problem because it
has too many employees, the government, acting on behalf of a
nation, can never do that without getting stuck with the problem.
In other words, the government will have the people laid off on
its hands in one way or the other, whether through
unemployment insurance or social welfare; and, in the absence
of major social measures, there will be increased violence and
more social problems, people will go without medication or
have incredible problems.
Therefore, the government can never be totally run like a
business, and I think dynamic scoring works even less for a
government than for a business. Indeed I think budgets are made
and cuts are made here and there-anyway it has been indicated
in a document here-somewhat equally across the board,
whereas we should have very specific cuts, as if made with a
surgeons's blade.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The
hon. member for Ontario, Multiple Sclerosis; the hon. member
for Québec, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women; the
hon. member for Charlesbourg, National Defence; the hon.
member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Land Claim.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate. While I agree with
much of what the motion before us states, I must also hasten to
add that I agree with the amendment introduced by the Reform
Party that would strike out the words after the phrase ``for the
next three years''.
(1700 )
I must chide the Bloc members. As the official opposition
they must also concern themselves with the whole country. The
government has done a disservice to the CBC not just in Quebec
but to the CBC and public broadcasting across this country.
Therefore, I hope the amendment introduced by the Reform
Party will be accepted by the House so we can vote in favour of
the whole opposition motion.
10810
The need for public broadcasting like that of the CBC is
greater today than ever before. Both government members and
Bloc members have mentioned this. Reform Party members
have basically spoken against the CBC suggesting that it should
be privatized and sold. I find them to be a bit sinister or really
naive.
Historically, every political party in Canada, whether from
the left or the right have agreed there is a need for the state to
intervene and to play an activist role in order to maintain a sense
of national identity and a sense of cultural identity. The reality
of a small, populated country like Canada living next to a very
large, dynamic country like the United States means that if we
are going to maintain a sense of who we are, we are going to have
to do something in a collective way.
As I have mentioned before, all the political parties, whether
it was the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the New
Democratic Party or the old Social Credit Party, whether they
were parties to the left or the right, have agreed on this basic
premise, except of course for the Reform Party. That is why I
wonder whether the Reform Party really understands the
national interest in this sense or whether it is naivety or sinister
intent.
If we did not have institutions such as the CBC, if we did not
have a more interventionist government policy when it came to
cultural issues, imagine what Canada would be like. Imagine
what Canada would be like if we did not have the CBC. We
would be totally Americanized. We would not have the jobs. We
would not have the ability of Canadians to hear and see each
other.
It is in the national interest to maintain a strong Canadian
cultural policy and a cultural identity so that we as citizens can
hear and see each other. To let the market decide in the way the
Reform Party advocates is doing a disservice to the country
because we will not be able to hear and see each other.
Market forces will operate and market forces are such that it is
cheaper to have an American program on television during
prime time than it is to have a Canadian program. The
economics are such that it does not make any sense in terms of
profit to have and produce Canadian programs. I would think
that Reform members would understand that.
Let us turn to the record of this government. It has not been a
good one when it comes to cultural matters. It started off with
Ginn publishing. It has the inability or lack of desire to stand up
for Canadian publishing companies to ensure they remain in the
hands of Canadians so that Canadian writers will have their
works published.
Then we come to the budget. The minister of heritage had
given public assurance to the CBC that its funding would not be
cut, that it would have stable funding for the next three years.
Despite that fact, lo and behold on budget night we realized, it
realized and the country realized the dimension of the cuts.
It is now obvious from the budget that the CBC cannot carry
out its legislated mandate. The government and the minister
particularly have done a disservice by giving a false sense of
security to public broadcasting and the CBC by stating that its
funding would be assured for the next three years. It gave public
broadcasting in this country that assurance. It was a false
assurance and the government and the minister have done a
disservice.
(1705)
Instead of the government thinking through what type of new
public broadcasting should be initiated before it announces cuts,
it instead has done the whole thing backward. It has announced
cuts and who knows, maybe more will be coming. Rumour has it
that we might see a budget this coming fall with more cuts.
Rather than having a vision as to what a new form of public
broadcasting should mean in Canada and how we can get the
resources together to fulfil that, the government starts from the
opposite direction. It decides how much it is going to cut and
then lets the pieces fall where and how they may. That is not
careful planning. It is not smart management. It is
mismanagement. It is running the terrible danger of public
broadcasting destroying itself in this country.
The reform and changes government members talk about
occurring out of blind cuts and slashes rather than something
that is being done in an intelligent manner are now occurring
within the CBC. The debate within the CBC now is whether it
can adjust to the cuts other than just by cutting and cutting or by
starting first to rethink what public broadcasting can and should
be and then working from the ground up.
In other words, the government is starting in the wrong
direction and in the wrong way. Rather than rethinking things
through and starting from the bottom and working up, it is
jumping in with cuts and cuts. It is not thinking through what
those cuts will mean and how they will be implemented. There is
no blueprint, no vision about what public broadcasting should
be.
I do not have much time in this debate but I would like to put
on record some of my suggestions and my vision of what public
broadcasting should be.
It should start from the ground up. The regions and regional
broadcasting should be the heart and core of public
broadcasting. I would be furious if all the cuts were done at the
regional
10811
level and the head office was not touched at all. I am critical of
past CBC cuts for not attacking the head office and instead
attacking the regions as was done in the 1980s.
I think we all agree and I think the people within the CBC also
agree that the head office remains bloated. It does not need the
hundreds and hundreds of people in the financial section. I
believe there are 200 people dealing with the relationship of the
CBC, the CRTC and the government. It can be much meaner and
leaner on that level.
The CBC has to be based on the regions, the alliances and the
networking in which producers, creators and reporters can work
at the regional and local community level. The national system
should be an alliance, a bringing together of the different
regions forming a national system.
The internal relations between management and employees
have to change. They are changing. It is already happening. It
has to be accelerated. Sitting in on the committee, I heard some
very positive things of what the CBC is doing.
For example in Windsor, a station that was shut down, the
CBC and the employees got together and said: ``Okay, let us
reopen this''. It is operated in an entirely different way.
Producers, technicians, reporters and performers are all working
together in a non-adversarial, non-hierarchical way. Lo and
behold, even the reporter or the producer will carry the camera,
or plug in the lights. There is not a strict code that differentiates
the jobs that the different unions and the different technicians
and people do. It is a whole different way of operating a station.
(1710)
I understand this is working well and it is exciting. It is a way
the new creative juices can flow. That is exciting. As I see a
reformed public broadcasting and a reformed CBC, I would like
to see the winds of experiment done all across the country.
In the same vein, another point I would like to bring forward is
a more syndicalist approach as a solution to the problems of the
CBC. I know in the first round of cuts in the 1980s the CBC shut
down the Saskatoon station. I understand that the employees in
Saskatoon wanted to run the station. They tried to buy the
equipment to run the CBC station in Saskatoon themselves.
This should be highly encouraged. The workers within the
CBC should have the ultimate control, not some hierarchy in
head office in Ottawa or Toronto. It is the local actors, the local
producers, the local reporters, the local technicians working
together in a co-operative way operating our television and
radio stations. A more syndicalist approach is what I would
advocate as a model for the CBC to seriously consider.
In closing, I must mention my disappointment with the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I am an associate
member and not a full time member on the committee. This
committee has been meeting since last fall and it still has not
tackled the fundamental issues. It keeps going around in circles.
Part of the problem is that this government has no sense of
leadership and no vision to present to the committee.
If anything, I would tend to think that the government
members on that committee are more divided among themselves
as to what direction public broadcasting should be going in.
There is no understanding that the degree of cuts the CBC is
facing will necessitate a total change in the mandates. We have
not had a discussion in terms of seriously looking at the
mandates. I would tend to think that much of the work the
committee has done has now been made obsolete by the speech
the Minister of Finance delivered on budget day. We have to go
back to square one and look at what the legislated mandate of the
CBC is and start from there.
The government's lack of vision and lack of direction when it
comes to public broadcasting is doing a disservice to the CBC.
This government is being driven by the finance department, not
that we do not have a serious problem when it comes to debt and
deficits. Politics in Canada will be defined in terms of how
different political parties propose to deal with the debt and
deficit.
This government's reaction to public broadcasting is not a
wise one. It is not an intelligent one. It is not one that has been
thought through. It is being driven by the finance department. In
the end, it might cost Canada even more money or loss of the
resources we have built up over the years in our public
broadcasting system.
Hopefully, the House will accept the amendment of the
Reform Party and that we will be able therefore to support the
motion as presented to us by the Bloc Quebecois.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question
necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the
House under the provisions of Standing Order 81.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
10812
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 171)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
Williams-44
NAYS
Members
Adams
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young -165
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Marchand
Mercier
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
Szabo
Ur
Volpe
10813
(1745 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think you would
find unanimous consent that the members who have voted on the
previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before
the House in the following manner: Liberal members voting nay.
I understand that the whips of the other parties will be
indicating how their colleagues are voting.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
support this motion.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, most Reform Party members will
vote against this motion, except those members who would like
to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present in the
House today will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the independent member for the
riding of Beauce will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 172)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-37
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
10814
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Young -172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Marchand
Mercier
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
Szabo
Ur
Volpe
The Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.
_____________________________________________
10814
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 16,
1995, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions on the motion of Mr. Manning relating to Private
Members' Business.
The question is on the amendment.
(1750 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the following. The members who have voted on the
previous motion will be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House in the following manner: Liberal members
will be voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote
against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reformers vote against the
amendment.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, as whip of the NDP caucus, the
NDP caucus members present this afternoon vote no.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yea.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, as this is Private Members'
Business, I go on record as supporting the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to
on the following division):
(Division No. 173)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Young -129
10815
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-80
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Easter
Fry
Gaffney
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Jackson
Marchand
Mercier
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
Szabo
Ur
Volpe
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.)
The Speaker: It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
* * *
The House resumed from December 13, 1994 consideration of
the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
evening we are debating a motion put forward by the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River. The motion states that
the operations of the Communications Security Establishment
should be reviewed by another body, notably the Security
Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC.
The Communications Security Establishment or the CSE
carries on two functions. It listens to other people's
communications and tries to ensure that no one listens to us. It is
a spy organization supposedly involved in foreign intelligence.
This sounds very interesting, knowing the kinds of technology
out there, which allow the spies to gather all sorts of private
information.
Today it is possible to intercept any telephone call, any telex
or any fax. In fact, with a fairly inexpensive piece of equipment
in the back of a van it is possible to reproduce through
electromagnetic radiation emissions what somebody is typing
on their computer screen three blocks away. This is called
electromagnetic eavesdropping.
According to a House of Commons special committee report
entitled ``In Flux But Not In Crisis'' dated September 1990, this
technology has important implications-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if we
could ask the co-operation of the House. So we might proceed
with Private Members' Business in an orderly fashion, would
those members who have business outside the Chamber please
take it outside the Chamber.
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, thank you. For a moment I thought
I was still in question period. The report that was commissioned
by the House of Commons special committee entitled ``In Flux
But Not in Crisis'' dated September 1990 said that this
technology has important implications with respect to
individual rights and freedoms.
The report states that it is likely that CSIS uses this
technology in its operations. The CSE is capable of employing it
as well and that it shares information with CSIS. The report
questions whether these intrusive techniques are used against
Canadians and landed immigrants. There is even some question
whether electromagnetic eavesdropping technology constitutes
an offence under the current provisions of the Criminal Code.
People
10816
using this technology can go undetected because there is no need
to break and enter or trespass other people's property in order to
use it.
The report goes on to state that the committee believes the
CSE should get a judicial warrant before using electromagnetic
eavesdropping. Does the CSE do this before beginning its
investigations of foreign governments, foreign companies or
foreign individuals? Who knows?
There are a lot of things we do not know about this
taxpayer-funded operation. We do not know how much it spends
because its budget is buried somewhere in the Department of
National Defence expenditures. We do not know how many
people work there because those numbers are not published. We
do not know whether the CSE is doing what it is supposed to do
because it has no mandate. All we have are educated guesses.
In a background paper entitled ``The Communications
Security Establishment: Canada's Most Secret Intelligence
Agency'' dated September 1993, a parliamentary researcher
concludes that in 1991 the CSE's budget was in the $100 million
to $125 million a year range. This figure did not include an
additional $150 million in personnel and other support provided
by Canadian forces.
The same background paper places the number of employees
at 875 in June 1993 although that does not include the 1,100
persons assigned from Canadian forces to operate in various
monitoring stations in Canada, Bermuda and Germany.
The cold war is over. We may be involved in some minor
external skirmishes over fish and some major internal battles
over who stays in Canada and who does not and what stays in the
federal budget and what does not. The rationale for keeping the
Canadian public in the dark about this secret agency no longer
exists, if it ever did in the first place.
The bigger danger is that this agency gets involved in
something that it has no business in, like spying on Canadians,
or that it does something illegal.
Right now the CSE is accountable to no one. It is true that the
Minister of National Defence approves the major capital
expenditures of CSE and its annual multiyear operational plan
and its major initiatives that have significant policy or legal
implication, but the CSE reports to the deputy clerk of security
intelligence in the Privy Council on policy and operational
management. The right hand cannot be held responsible for what
the left hand is doing and vice versa.
No government agency should escape review. Every
government agency should be accountable to someone or some
body that is accountable to the Canadian public. Canadians have
a right to know whether the CSE actually spent $125 million or
even $275 million in 1991. Right now we do not know that.
Furthermore, they have the right to know how much was spent
last year and what the budget will be for next year.
The CSE has 875 listeners on its payroll who are intercepting
communications of foreign government, foreign companies and
foreign individuals. Someone should be watching and listening
to the listeners.
My colleagues and I will support the motion made by this
member on Private Members' Business and any amendments
that will make this body more accountable to the Canadian
public. My understanding is there are two amendments to this
motion. The first is by the member for Bellechasse which asks
the CSE to table an annual report in the House on its activities.
The second is by the member who proposed this motion in the
first place. The second amendment changes the motion so that
an independent body rather than SIRC reviews the
Communications Security Establishment. This amendment
serves to further strengthen the motion. I commend the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River for putting forward this
motion and I hope he gets the support from all of his colleagues
in the House.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this subject.
I am aware that my colleague is going to prepare an
amendment to the motion, which I am very pleased to see.
Without actually mentioning the amendment I believe he will
pose it by a point of order perhaps after I finish speaking.
I want to make three definitions. I will be using them quite
frequently. CSE is the Communications Security Establishment.
CSIS is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. SIRC is the
Security and Intelligence Review Committee.
I am very pleased about the amended wording. It puts the
intent of what the hon. member wants to do in better perspective.
It is important at this stage because it is really essential to the
understanding of why the amendment to the motion was put
forward.
I want to define foreign intelligence. Foreign intelligence
refers to information or activities concerning the capabilities,
intentions or activities of foreign states, corporations or persons
in relation to the defence of Canada or the conduct of
international affairs of Canada.
(1805)
It may include information of a political, economic, military,
security or scientific nature. Canada, unlike most of our allies,
does not have an offensive foreign intelligence service.
However, like most countries Canada has established modest
means to collect and analyze foreign intelligence. Since World
War II the main departments of the Government of Canada that
have been major actors in the foreign intelligence sectors have
10817
been the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
and the Department of National Defence.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service was established
in 1984 under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It
has a specific mandate as our domestic intelligence agency. It is
charged with protecting Canada's security and is to provide
security intelligence respecting potential or actual threats to
Canada or to Canadian citizens.
There are two principle threats to national security that CSIS
was established to investigate under the authority of the CSIS
act. These threats are espionage directed against Canada by
foreign states and seriously politically motivated violence that
can take the form of terrorism.
The CSIS act establishes a strict regime for CSIS
investigations to ensure that the rights and freedoms of
Canadians are preserved while protecting Canadians from these
threats to their safety and security. It is evident there will be
problems with the Security Intelligence Review Committee's
looking at the Communications Security Establishment.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee was established
specifically to review the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service which, unlike the CSE, does not have a direct role in the
foreign intelligence sector.
The CSIS act spells out exactly what SIRC is meant to do. The
CSE mandate under its SIGINT program is the collection,
analysis and reporting of foreign intelligence in the context of
the government's foreign intelligence policy.
Therefore it would not be appropriate at this time to amend
the CSIS act which falls under the responsibility of the Solicitor
General to incorporate within SIRC's mandate an institution
like CSE which after all falls under the responsibility of the
Minister of National Defence, whose accountability is
established through other means.
Moreover, SIRC already has a variety of investigative duties.
It deals with complaints and acts as an appeal board with respect
to security assessments and security influenced decisions under
the Citizenship and Immigration Act.
The sensitive intelligence responsibility of both
organizations needs separate and distinct oversight
mechanisms. CSIS therefore is Canada's domestic intelligence
agency, with SIRC which has a mandate and the expertise to
oversee such activities.
CSE is a foreign intelligence organization and the skills and
knowledge base required to review foreign intelligence activity
is totally different.
CSE has two programs. First, it provides technical advice,
guidance and service on the means of federal government
telecommunications security, including aspects of electronic
data processing. The elements of this program are referred to in
the business as INFOSEC, information security.
The other aspect is signal intelligence, SIGINT as it is known
in the business. There has been concern raised in some quarters
that CSE operates without adequate accountability. It may be
useful to outline in more detail what I understand to be the
accountability stature of CSE in place right now.
The Minister of National Defence is accountable to
Parliament for CSE. The minister approves CSE's capital
expenditure, its annual multiyear operational program and, with
appropriate deputy minister level consultations, approves major
CSE initiatives with significant policy or legal implications.
The chief of CSE is responsible to the deputy minister of
national defence for financial and administrative arrangements
and to the deputy clerk, security and intelligence and counsel in
the Privy Council Office for policy and operational matters.
Both of these deputy ministers report directly to the Minister of
National Defence for these CSE matters.
In addition, arrangements have been put in place that CSE
responds to the government's foreign intelligence requirements
in a manner that is lawful, effective and sensitive to changes in
international relations. That is very important and it includes the
following provisions.
It has an in house legal counsel from the Department of
Justice and consults with senior justice officials on legal issues.
It submits strategic plans and all new policy proposals for
review by the interdepartmental committee on security and
intelligence. It is subject to Department of National Defence
administrative review mechanisms.
(1810)
CSE operates within all Canadian laws, including the
Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Furthermore, it is fully
subject to review by the offices of the Privacy Commissioner,
the Official Languages Commissioner, the Auditor General and
the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A broad
accountability system for CSE is thus in place.
The special committee on the CSIS act, while recommending
that SIRC oversee CSE, also stated it had found no evidence of
abuses by CSE. Obviously the government would consider
appropriate means to strengthen oversight for the CSE if a clear
need were demonstrated.
CSE is an integral part of the foreign intelligence sector I have
described and plays a crucial role in that sector. What it does not
do, as the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister
have already assured the House, is target Canadians. We must
take care that whatever course of action we decide does not
10818
weaken CSE's ability to support our national interest. That is the
decision which faces us now.
We want to create an efficient, economical and appropriate
form of oversight for this agency, one that enhances current
accountability mechanisms without impeding the intended and
mandated function of CSE or SIRC.
The proposed amendment by my colleague will lead us in the
right direction. I look forward to the support of my colleagues in
the House which I hope and believe is forthcoming.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in relation to this motion there has been significant
consultation back and forth across the House. I think you would
find the consent of the House to make the following
amendments.
I believe we will have the consent of the hon. member for
Bellechasse for the withdrawal of his existing amendment
proposed in connection with this motion; second, that the
motion be restated to clarify intent and to incorporate the intent
of the amendment made by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Therefore, the amendment would read as follows. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word
``should'' and by substituting the following:
Establish an independent external mechanism to review the operations of the
Communications Security Establishment, CSE, similar to the role played by the
Security Intelligence Review Committee for the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service and table a report annually in the House.
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): First of all, I would like to
know whether the hon. member for Bellechasse wishes to speak
on his amendment. Does he withdraw the amendment?
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Yes, Mr. Speaker,
I agree to the withdrawal of my amendment the way the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River described it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment withdrawn.)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
someone said earlier, the member for Bellechasse withdraws his
amendment and subscribes to the amendment presented by the
member for Scarborough-Rouge River, which we, members of
the Bloc, intend to support, as I have already said.
(1815)
Listening to the speech made earlier by the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I asked myself a
few questions on the meaning of what the member said about the
CSE being accountable to the Department of National Defence
at the administrative level and to the clerk with respect to its role
and its latitude, so to speak. I find it a bit strange that we count
on the Department of Defence to monitor the administration of
the CSE.
I made the effort to do some research in the Defence budget
and I will give you a few examples which are very obvious when
we find out that it was the Department of Defence which
monitored the CSE.
I noted a case concerning the acquisition of a Secure
Telephone System-Phase 1 for which the estimate was
established at $8,824,000. When the acquisition was made, the
cost rose to $14,151,000, 61 per cent higher. It was the role of
the Department of Defence to monitor the CSE's administrative
costs.
Here is another example. From April 1 to March 31, 1993,
money was invested in a Restricted Access System for which the
estimate was initially established at $23 million. When the
acquisition was made, the system's cost shot up to $51 million,
117 per cent over budget. And it was still under the
administrative responsibility of the Department of Defence.
One more example. On March 31, 1994, work was finished on
an integrated teleinformatics network, approximately 75 per
cent of which was for the use of the CSE. The projected cost was
$41,650,000, but it ended up costing the modest sum of $78
million. That was also a project under the administrative control
of the National Defence.
I have many more similar examples of purchases of highly
sophisticated electronic surveillance or telephone equipment,
software, etc. Like many other stakeholders in this issue, we
have determined that the CSE was to serve the Department of
Foreign Affairs, the RCMP and also the Department of National
Defence, that its main function was to collect information from
communications outside Canada, but that it was not ever
supposed to collect information from communications
happening within Canada. However, the official opposition
signalled several cases where it had done so and the Prime
Minister denied it at first. Afterwards, he said that orders had
been given so that it would never happen again and that was
corroborated by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of
National Defence.
The Minister of Defence also said that the CSE was under his
trusteeship, and that of his deputy minister, and that no other
form of control was necessary since we knew very well what was
the role of the CSE, the Communications Security
Establishment, and that in no way, shape or form could there
ever be some
10819
eavesdropping into communications between Canadians or
within the boundaries of Canada. And now, a Liberal member
presents a motion for the review of the CSE operations and the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party support it. I support this
motion wholeheartedly and I will even add that, in my opinion,
this motion is a very positive statement that should lead to the
monitoring of the CSE operations. That is very important.
I would also like to add that this is only a motion.
(1820)
Will we take the discussion further and really pass legislation
to monitor the actions of the Communications Security
Establishment? As I was illustrating with some examples, on the
administrative level, I am not sure that the monitoring by the
Department of Defence is adequate.
I have quoted four or five examples where spending of
millions of dollars had almost doubled on three occasions, and
more than doubled on a fourth one. When this motion is
unanimously passed in the House, it will be important to follow
it up and to pass legislation which will allow for the
management of the administrative aspect as well as the specific
role of the CSE. We will then be able to monitor its interference
in Canadian communications in order to insure that it does not
intrude in the private lives of citizens, parliamentarians,
business executives or other prominent people who may be
asked to make decisions and whom the CSE could follow closely
and sometimes monitor or report on, providing information
which, under our Canadian system, is not acceptable.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we support this motion.
However, I would like to indicate that, unfortunately, we will
have to return, in this motion, and probably in this bill, to the
administrative deficiencies within the Department of Defence
which the Auditor General has raised on several occasions.
When we see in the budget of the defense department that the
costs allocated to the CST may vary between $200 and $255
million because Defense budgets contain some sophisticated
material which will be used by the CST and for the
communications of the defense department, I believe that a
separation of some sort between these two elements should be
integrated in the bill which will follow this motion. This will
allow for a better control of the CST spending which, I believe,
is sort of lost and not well administered by the Department of
Defense since in the maze of acquisition of certain material too
modern or ultramodern, it is impossible to say if the material is
used at 100 per cent by the CST or at 20 per cent by the
Department of Defense for the Navy or the Air Force.
I have read the last five year budgets and I had some difficulty
understanding in each case what was linked to the CST. I believe
that situation should be clarified in order to avoid that a budget
be assessed at $200 or $250 million and be confronted, after an
evaluation for the acquisition of material, to increases of more
that 112 to 117 per cent at the time this material is acquired.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Canada's national
security system and on the unique role played in that system by
review agencies.
The amended motion before us calls for the establishment of
an independent external mechanism to review the operations of
the Communications Security Establishment or CSE.
I agree with the motion. It is my view that Canadians would be
well served and would feel safer and more comfortable if they
knew that this component of our national security system was
overseen by both a cabinet minister and by an independent
oversight committee.
Experience gained over the last decade with the Security
Intelligence Review Committee which oversees the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service may hold important lessons for the
future.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC was
designed as a unique body to provide review for one particular
agency, CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It
provides an appeal mechanism as well for matters involving
security clearances that are from time to time required under
certain statutes.
SIRC was to fulfil its responsibilities within the framework of
a national security system that is wider than SIRC and wider
than CSIS and includes the Communications Security
Establishment.
(1825 )
If the motion before us is to be successfully implemented,
care must be taken to ensure that any new review body would
have an appropriate role with respect to CSE. It must contribute
as well in a positive way to what I would suggest is a delicate
balance between the national interest and individual human
rights, the hallmark of Canada's national security system.
In 1984 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and
the Security Offences Act were established. In these statutes a
new legislative framework was created to govern Canada's
national security system. The new legislation was designed to
create the balance I talked about, a balanced and accountable
system for the protection of Canada's national security interests
and for the preservation of the democratic way of life of its
people.
10820
Balance must be a distinguishing feature of any new
legislation involving CSE, just as it is a distinguishing feature
of the CSIS-SIRC legislation. I should like to categorize some
balances that we need to maintain.
First, we need to protect national security that has to be
balanced by respect for individual rights and freedoms.
Second, we need to provide the service with sufficient powers
to produce effective security intelligence which we should then
balance by statutory controls and strong policy direction.
Third, as with CSIS there is a need to employ certain intrusive
techniques. These should be balanced by the requirement for a
prior authorization by a minister of the crown and the Federal
Court, or at the very least that is what we do under the CSIS act.
Finally the need for secrecy must be balanced by ministerial
accountability and informed independent review. The principles
of ministerial control and accountability are central to Canadian
parliamentary democracy. The CSIS act ensured that the
Solicitor General would have full knowledge and power of
direction over policy. The act also equipped the minister with
the means to direct and guide the service.
There is also independent review through SIRC.
Responsibility for the independent external review function was
given to the Security Intelligence Review Committee that
reports to Parliament through the Solicitor General. The unique
role of SIRC is an innovative and important component of our
national security system in the CSIS act. SIRC's review role is a
cornerstone of the accountability framework established by the
CSIS act and an important element of our national security
system. SIRC has a mandate to review the propriety of CSIS
activities with emphasis on the delicate balance between
national security and individual freedom.
Given SIRC's importance as presently constituted, it is my
view that it would be inappropriate to expand its mandate to
encompass review of CSE. Such a change would have the effect
of either diffusing SIRC's functions with respect to CSIS or of
diminishing ministerial accountability.
I am certain hon. members would not wish to see SIRC's
effectiveness diminished by such outcomes. To expand SIRC's
mandate to review CSE would almost certainly mean increasing
significantly the present number of SIRC members. This would
require adding to SIRC's staff that has acquired an enviable
expertise in the domain of security intelligence on a domestic
basis. The skills and the knowledge base required to review
foreign intelligence activity are totally different from that
needed to review a domestic security service like CSIS.
We need to examine closely the significant implications of
what is being proposed in the motion before us. We are not
without guidance. The experience we have acquired over the
past decade with the existing national security system can stand
us in good stead by looking at CSIS and by looking at the roles
that the minister and SIRC play in relation to CSIS. I would
suggest that we look closely at those lessons and apply them to
the motion before us today.
The proven effectiveness of the national security system
designed more than a decade ago is an excellent foundation upon
which we can build. As we consider the motion our intention
should be to continue the good work that has gone before, to
build on that experience, and to create satisfaction within the
community and within our country that the Communications
Security Establishment is also accountable.
(1830 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River has given indication that he would
like to have the final response under right of reply. The House
must understand that no one will be able to speak to this motion
after he speaks. He will close the debate because I must put the
question at no later than 6.34 p.m.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is our hope that the motion we will pass here today
will prove to be a benchmark in terms of parliamentary
accountability.
Under the rubric that nobody in this Parliament does anything
by themselves, I want to note a number of members who played
a part in developing this matter to the present. Among them are
colleagues of ours on the national security subcommittee: the
member for Bellechasse, from the Bloc Quebecois; from the
Reform Party, the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley; on the Liberal side, the member for
Scarborough West, the member for Windsor-St. Clair and the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
I also acknowledge the co-operation and participation of the
Minister of National Defence and his parliamentary secretary,
the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. There is also
the fact that the Prime Minister was not disinterested in this
issue and I acknowledge his role.
I acknowledge members of the last Parliament, the national
security subcommittee and in particular its chair, Mr. Blaine
Thacker of Lethbridge, and various other parties, journalists
both print and electronic, and other soldiers on the issue. They
have worked hard to bring us to the present. Hopefully they will
continue to work in this area. I thank my colleagues in the House
for their support today.
(Motion as amended agreed to.)
10821
10821
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
recent question to the Minister of Health, I indicated that many
Canadians suffer from multiple sclerosis. In fact, 50,000
Canadians have MS. However, through medical research a
number of drugs have recently been developed which have
proven to be effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.
One of these drugs is betaseron. In the United States this drug
has been used to treat certain forms of MS for well over one year.
Here in Canada there are over 15,000 Canadians with MS who
could benefit from betaseron.
Unfortunately, access to betaseron in Canada has been
impeded because the health protection branch of Health Canada
has yet to conclude its review of the drug. Betaseron is currently
only available from the federal government's emergency drug
release program at a cost of $17,000 or more for a year's supply.
In the province of Ontario, the provincial government
recently announced that it will soon be expanding its drug
funding program to help those who require expensive
medication. However, while those who require betaseron would
then qualify for assistance, the drug itself will not be eligible
until the review has been completed.
I realize the health protection branch has specific guidelines
to follow when any new drug is submitted for its approval to be
distributed in Canada. Moreover, I am not suggesting that the
integrity of the review process be compromised in any way,
shape or form.
The reviews undertaken by the health protection branch of
any new drug are vital to ensuring the safety of Canadians.
Nonetheless, Canadians who suffer from MS are understandably
anxious to obtain greater access to affordable betaseron. They
are also frustrated by the slowness of the review, especially
since the health protection branch has agreed to use the
so-called fast track approach.
Berlex Canada Inc., the company which applied for the
betaseron review did so back in February 1994. Yet over a year
later, the review is still ongoing.
(1835 )
It was my hope from the question I asked the Minister of
Health that she could provide additional information on the
progress of the review of this drug. Given the important role this
review plays in bringing about greater access to affordable
betaseron, I know the minister would agree that the sooner this
review is completed the better it will be for those Canadians who
suffer from MS.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, the timely
approval of a new drug treatment is a concern we all share. In
this context I wish to emphasize that the drug he talks about,
betaseron, has not yet been approved for the Canadian market.
The drugs director of Health Canada is currently reviewing
this drug on a priority or fast track basis. The manufacturer did
not submit betaseron for approval in Canada at the same time as
it did in the United States where the drug has already been
approved. However under special circumstances, the
Department of Health authorizes the sale of drugs that are
currently marketed in other countries but have not yet received a
notice of compliance in Canada.
When a medical emergency exists and standard therapy is
ineffective in treating the condition, some drugs, including
betaseron, can be made available through the Health Canada
emergency drug release program.
While safety is the primary concern for Health Canada, the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is responsible for
regulating the prices of patented drugs. The board's jurisdiction
applies not only to patented drugs sold under a notice of
compliance, but also to those drugs sold under the emergency
drug release program.
Betaseron is a patented medicine. Therefore, the price of this
product is being reviewed by the board.
In conclusion and in response to my hon. colleague, I wish to
assure him that Health Canada's drug approval process is aimed
at ensuring that safe and effective medicines are made available
to all Canadians in the most efficient and quick manner possible.
Every effort has been made to expedite the review of betaseron
without jeopardizing the health and safety of Canadians
suffering from multiple sclerosis.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 16, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister how she could
justify abolishing the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status
of Women. My amazement and that of many women's groups at
the government's decision was caused by the fact that this
agency is known for its excellent research in areas of concern to
women.
As you know, the CACSW also analyzed the impact of
policies and legislation on the status of women. Furthermore, it
had acquired an excellent reputation as an independent agency
that, although it was largely dependent on public funding,
managed to maintain an arm's length relationship to
government.
10822
In reply, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the following
to justify her government's decision, and I quote: ``Women's
councils across the country were telling us that they were in
a better position to do political analyses than people appointed
by order in council''. This reply was surprising on two counts.
First, I will deal with the so-called preference expressed by
women's groups for doing their own political analyses.
I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to reveal the names of these
groups to the House. My request is perfectly reasonable, since
all the reactions we have heard so far would indicate that the
opposite is true. Whether we are talking about the Fédération
des femmes du Québec and its affiliates or the groupe
relais-femmes of the Association des collaboratrices et
partenaires d'affaires, whether we are talking about the biggest
national women's organization in Canada, the National Action
Committee on the Status of Women, better known as NAC, the
AFEAS, the University of Ottawa and Carleton University,
grouped under the aegis of the joint department of women's
studies, and finally, about certain editorial writers, they all
regret the decision made by the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women and her government.
So where are the groups that supported the government when
it announced this decision? Women's groups and the official
opposition would be very interested to know who these groups
are.
They also want to know where the funding needed to resume
research will come from. The government may have claimed
that it decided to merge three agencies in order to save one
million dollars, but when we realize that the budgets of existing
organizations will not be increased in any way, we have every
right to ask where the money needed for research will come from
and where it will go.
(1840)
In concluding, I must mention the other reason given by the
Deputy Prime Minister in answer to my question. She said it was
important to let research be done by people who were not
appointed by order in council.
We were absolutely flabbergasted. The question
automatically comes to mind whether the present government
intends to get rid of all organizations and councils whose board
members are appointed by order in council.
There will be a revolution. One also wonders how
open-minded her department will be when research findings fail
to reflect what this government wants in terms of progress on
issues concerning the status of women.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
amalgation of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and
Status of Women Canada took place as the result of a program
review undertaken by the government. Aimed at streamlining
government operations, eliminating overlap and rationalizing
resources, the program review looked at the three principal
government agencies concerned with women's equality: Status
of Women Canada, the equal opportunities for women program
of Human Resources Development Canada and the Advisory
Council on the Status of Women.
We considered that an amalgamation of the three would, for
the government, provide the best opportunity to concentrate and
reinforce its ability to promote women's equality. Furthermore,
by creating a single window, this amalgamation would improve
communications and interaction between government, women
and their associations. The rapports enjoyed by the equal
opportunities for women program at the local level with
women's associations will permit a direct link between the
people and the policy development process.
Transfer of the communications and research functions of the
advisory council to Status of Women Canada will reinforce
these bilateral exchanges. It will also eliminate the expense of a
number of order in council appointments.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 14, I asked the Minister of National Defence about the
dwindling enrolment in the Saint-Jean Royal Military College.
His reply, which surprised me, was extraordinary because of its
contradictory nature.
In fact, in the first part of his reply, the minister says that the
state of the economy is causing enrolment to decline. A
farfetched argument which does not jive with reality or with the
history of Canada's three officer cadet colleges, because during
an economic crisis the proportion of enrolment requests for
officer colleges compared with the number of requests to
become a soldier changes. As usual, the minister is trying to
compare apples to oranges.
In the second part of his reply, the minister really went too far
by blaming the weak enrolment on the official opposition and
the Government of Quebec.
I think it is time to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I will
explain. On February 22, 1994, the Minister of National
Defence announced that the Saint-Jean Royal Military College
and the Royal Roads of Victoria would be closed under the
pretext of savings, although, of all three colleges of the kind, the
Saint-Jean Royal Military College was the least expensive to
run.
The day after, on February 23, the minister shed crocodile
tears over the closure of Royal Roads and the Saint-Jean Royal
Military College and said that it was necessary to close them for
the good management of national defence. If this really were the
case, neither the Government of Quebec, which was Liberal
then, nor the official opposition could have had any influence
whatsoever on this decision. The decision to close the
Saint-Jean Royal Military College was and still is entirely in the
hands of the Minister of National Defence. He should stop
playing
10823
childish political games and assume full responsibility for the
decision he and his government have made.
The defence minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs are really laying it on thick when they try to blame the
Quebec government and the Bloc Quebecois. Many
English-speaking officers have already pointed out that it was a
bad decision. Those who make a bad decision and are not mature
enough to accept responsibility for it blame others, as the
minister is doing.
(1845)
Furthermore, the minister contradicts himself in his March 14
responses. In his first answer, he says that recruitment is down
because the economy is buoyant, adding that ``the normal group
of people who would be attracted to the armed forces has found
other options''. In his second answer, he says that ``because of
the uncertainty surrounding the disposition of the site of the
former college at St-Jean, the advertising-was delayed a
number of weeks-[but] recruitment is picking up''.
The buoyant economy given as one of the reasons for
declining enrolment in his first answer does not appear in his
second answer. This buoyant economy must have been very
fragile since it only lasted two minutes. For example, the
Minister of National Defence also says, at the end of his second
answer, and I quote: ``Twenty seven per cent of members of the
armed forces are francophone and fully 24 per cent of all senior
officers are francophone''. A senior officer is not a corporal or a
sergeant, but a colonel, a lieutenant-colonel, a
brigadier-general, a major-general, a lieutenant-general or a
general.
Only 14.7 per cent of generals and 21 per cent of colonels are
French-speaking. I wonder where the minister's figure of 24 per
cent comes from, unless he is referring to non-commissioned
officers. This shows once again that the minister says what he
pleases, without bothering to check the facts.
In conclusion, the minister is inviting me to visit the
department and the Headquarters here in Ottawa, and see for
myself that people work in French as well as in English. I ask the
minister to stop making fun of French-speaking Canadians by
uttering such nonsense. I did visit the department on several
occasions and what he says is not true, nor is it true as regards
the Kingston College, which is not bilingual and which will not
become so.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to stress that Canadian Forces have always recruited
French-speaking personnel and that they continue to do so. Our
latest statistics show that about 27 per cent of members of the
Canadian Forces are French speaking compared to 15.8 per cent
in 1966. This is a substantial improvement. Also, about 24 per
cent of commissioned officers are French speaking.
As the Minister of National Defence was saying in this House
a few days ago, recruitment for the training program of regular
armed forces officers is lower everywhere in Canada and not just
in Quebec. In the case of Quebec, the uncertainty surrounding
the closure of the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean,
uncertainty created by the refusal of the Government of Quebec
to accept the umbrella agreement of July 19, 1994, has certainly
played a role in the fact that we did not meet our recruitment
objectives.
The new institution, which will be born when this agreement
between the federal government and the Saint-Jean region is
signed, will offer preparatory courses to about 100 officer
cadets, French speaking and English speaking. In order to meet
its objectives regarding the proportion of French speaking
officers, the Department of National Defence has extended the
recruitment period for the training program until the end of
April. We believe that it is still possible to attract the required
number of recruits and that we will meet our objectives.
I would like to stress that the recruitment campaign is not over
yet and that it is still too early to draw final conclusions. I would
also like to say that future French-speaking officer cadets will
receive a very high level of education, in the language of their
choice, at the Canadian Military College in Kingston.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue which was brought
to my attention the morning of March 17. It was reported that the
Six Nation Indian Band has recently filed a lawsuit against the
province of Ontario and the federal government. The suit
reportedly seeks compensation for lost land, money from land
sales, revenue from mineral rights, money taken from trust
accounts and compound interest on these amounts dating back to
1784.
(1850)
A chief councillor of the band estimated the total lawsuit
claim at about $400 billion. Let us put this legal suit in
perspective. $400 billion is about 80-some per cent of the total
current federal debt. The Six Nation Band is also seeking an
inquiry and demands detailed accounting for all transactions
involving assets, funds and real estate since 1784 to present.
During question period on Friday, March 17 I asked the
government for clarification on this issue with the specific
intent of discovering whether the federal government was going
to finance the Six Nation reserve lawsuit.
I was told on Friday that my question would be taken under
advisement and a response would be coming from the
appropriate minister. I have made inquiries at the office of the
minister of Indian affairs and I have been assured that a response
would be available yesterday or at the latest today.
10824
To this moment, I have yet to receive a response. This is a
very serious court challenge and I am astonished that the
government, considering $400 billion estimate, was unable to
respond to my question on Friday. I am shocked by the fact that
I have yet to receive a response from the minister's department
as I was promised. However I suppose this is typical of how
the government and many provincial governments have been
dealing with native issues. They prefer the response of simply
no response.
Questions are left unanswered. Public debate is quashed.
Negotiations are held in private and the taxpayer is left to pick
up the bill. The taxpayers of Canada are seeking accountability.
They want to know what these land claims will cost. They want
assurance that the programs of Indian affairs will be reformed
and altered to make them more effective.
They want to know how the government can proceed with a
self-government and land claims settlement agenda without
first giving a clear indication of how much these land claims
will cost, how much land is involved and clearly defining the
term inherent right to self-government.
These questions have been asked in the House and are yet
unanswered. It is time for this Liberal government to come out
of hiding and reveal to the Canadian people its actual agenda in
respect of native land claims and self-government. Canadians
deserve no less.
In conclusion, the Department of Indian Affairs has sacred
cow status among Liberals. I point to the recent budget as
evidence of this claim. I have no fear in taking up the dagger of
accountability and leading this sacred cow to the altar of public
scrutiny in order to determine exactly where these billions and
billions of dollars in the Department of Indian Affairs go.
On behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, I will continue to press
for clear and precise answers with respect to the expenditure of
public money concerning native issues. Finally, I will press this
case in the House, in the media, in my riding and wherever there
is a concerned Canadian about how federal tax dollars are spent.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley on behalf of the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The hon. member has inquired whether the department has
advanced funds to the Six Nations for a legal action against the
province of Ontario and the federal government. Our hon.
colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk has also expressed a real
interest in this issue.
I would like to first of all answer the very specific question
posed by the hon. member. No funds have been provided to the
Six Nations by the federal government for this legal action. I
would now like to provide some clarification.
The Six Nations Band served Canada with a notice of
intention to commence an action against Canada and Ontario in
December 1994. No statement of claim had been formally filed
against Canada as of March 20, 1995, yesterday.
Based on the notice of intended action the litigation deals with
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty on the part of Ontario and
Canada. These alleged breaches are in relation to land
transactions dating from the Haldimand land grant to the Six
Nations in 1784, as the hon. member said, and extending to the
present day.
The matters now in litigation have been the subject of
approximately 24 specific claims which the Six Nations have
been pursuing with Canada. No dollar amounts for damages are
cited in the notice of intended action and no information has
been provided to substantiate the estimated $400 billion quoted
by the hon. member.
The Six Nations have apparently chosen to pursue litigation
rather than negotiate the outstanding specific claims. Under the
specific claims policy, claims cannot be pursued in court and
considered under the claims policy at the same time. The board
has been informed that all Six Nations claims had to be held in
abeyance and that the files would be closed.
Since 1982 Canada has funded the Six Nations Band under the
native claims contribution program. The program provides
research funding to bands to allow them to pursue claims under
the specific claims policy. Until the filing of the notice of
intended action in December 1994 there was no indication that
the band did not intend to proceed under the specific claims
policy to resolve its grievances.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38 the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.56 p.m.)