Debates of March 26th, 2010

Dean Del Mastro Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the intervention from the hon. member. He actually touched on a number of things on which I would just like to ask his opinion.

He talked about the Canadian content laws and Canadian radio. I would agree with him that that assisted Canadian artists in getting their names out there, getting their materials out there. He talked about the copying levy that was placed on CDs. I would agree with him.

I would also agree with the hon. member that the illegal redistribution and the pirated copies that are going on in this country is wrong. We have to put a stop to it. Creators deserve to be paid for what they are creating and that kind of illegal redistribution has to be stopped.

However, there is a bigger issue here. He talked about the convergence. I appreciate that the member understands that technologies are in fact converging, but the walls that we used to construct in Canada to create a distinct market are really becoming things of the past because we live in a global environment now. Any Canadian, his son, my nieces and nephews, all of them can access whatever they want, whenever they want. That is the power of the mouse. Borders do not exist, so we are going to have to take a look at it.

That is why I am saying this is a complex issue and it cannot be solved with one-off solutions. We need to look at it in a holistic fashion.

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is right. The empowerment of the individual through the computer mouse is incredible. It is at a stage now where I cannot fully comprehend it.

At this stage in the game though, he and I are kind of looking at this from two different directions. I look at this motion as a vanguard, or that beginning spark, in this House to say, “What is it that we are going to do?” We are going to be left behind in legislation, just like we are left behind on WIPO, so the copyright legislation that we are talking about here has to look at all this.

One of the things that Michael Geist talked about in his intervention was that we need copyright legislation that is flexible, one that is illustrative, not exhaustive. That is a valid point. That is where Bill C-61 went wrong because it was overly prescriptive in nature. There are 12 ways in which one can break the law in certain areas, when in fact it should be illustrative, as to say, “This is what we need. This is the spirit of the law, which says that one is stealing something as opposed to using it fairly”.

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor a question.

He is an artist, a musician. He knows how artists think. Can he explain to the members of the House what an artist lives on?

When a musician has a good idea and records music in a studio, he has to pay people. How can he pay these people when he has not yet been paid, and how can he record a CD, which has yet to bring in revenue? What does he live off during this time? How can he make money if he does not perform the following week? An artist takes six months to make a CD and then he promotes it for a few weeks. If he's lucky, he will go on tour, but not everyone is that lucky. How do artists earn a living? How do they make money?

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, that is actually an excellent point. I have to correct her though. I am not really a musician. I was a TV weatherman and I was not a meteorologist, but I managed to convince people I was a meteorologist. I guess now I managed to convince someone I am a musician. Not bad.

The point of what she is saying is to think about the front end. We all get involved in music and for artists who are exceptional at what they do, they spend a lot of time doing it. My opinion is that what funds like this do is create a pool of cash or resources that allows artists, at the beginning of their careers, to tap into that with very little red tape. There has to be some red tape, obviously.

It is a valid point. It is a point I did not think of but that is certainly one thing that this does, and her motion actually alerts this House that we are behind. We need to move ahead for the entire life cycle of a particular artist, beginning, middle and end. If it is only left up to concerts to make money, she is right. How do we start and how do we maintain it at the beginning?

Bill Siksay Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc supports the report from the committee. We know that the NDP supports it. In fact, we have even tabled private members' legislation paralleling the report. We know that the Conservatives are divided on this because the Conservative chair of the standing committee actually supported the report, whereas other Conservatives were opposed to it. We know that the Liberals at committee were divided. Some of them supported it and some did not.

It is still unclear to me today where the Liberal Party stands on this. I would like to ask the member, will the Liberal Party be supporting the concurrence motion when it comes to a vote in the House, and ensuring that artists are fairly paid for their work?

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, listen to my speech and what I am talking about here. I want him to understand that the debate is now coinciding over a period of time. I think my vote is on record. All he has to do is look it up. I think we need to further the debate. The motion goes a long way in doing that.

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

It being 1:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Royal Galipeau Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to once again speak to this bill, which would allow the creation of new regulatory bodies in Canada in areas of communications. I wish to explain why I sincerely believe that such an approach would actually hinder the development of French-speakers across Canada, including those in Quebec.

First of all, I want to stress the importance of communications for Canada and for Quebec. Broadcasting and telecommunications have a significant impact on local and regional distinctiveness throughout the country and in Quebec.

Canadians of all ages have many options for communicating with others, passing the time, getting information and getting to know their fellow citizens, whether they live in Iqaluit, Gravelbourg, Orléans, Saint-Isidore, Shediac or Gaspé. Person-to-person telecommunications make it possible to talk to others and understand them and to transmit information and data that are essential to the development of our communities and businesses.

Quality programming produced here by skilled, creative professionals and made available through networks and broadcasters from across the country provides Canadians with entertainment and information, thereby contributing to their development and allowing them to learn more about the world around them.

The broadcasting system, as we know it, enables the expression of French culture to develop not just within Quebec itself but in every corner of Canada.

In fact, the great diversity in French content created in Quebec and other parts of the country is made available from coast to coast, for the benefit of all francophone communities, including many francophone minority communities.

We firmly believe that the interests of these French-speaking communities are well served by the current broadcasting system. The Broadcasting Act and the regulatory framework reflect the interests and demands of Canada's English language and French language broadcasting markets, particularly through public hearings held by the CRTC.

We are satisfied that the current regulatory framework enables French language communities in Quebec, and elsewhere in the country, to participate in and contribute to the development of a broadcasting system that reflects their needs and expectations, and to express any of their concerns that need to be considered.

I must also mention that when a licence is granted, renewed or amended, the objectives of Canada's broadcasting policy, as stated in the Broadcasting Act, must be taken into consideration. The act states that, “English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements”.

The act also says that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, particularly in terms of official languages.

This is why the Broadcasting Act and the current regulatory structure have managed to protect and promote the social, cultural and economic objectives of our communities and our communications companies across Canada.

The people I humbly represent in this place believe that it is crucial that all Canadians continue to enjoy the benefits through a regulatory framework for the communications industry that is unified, coherent and effective, and that places a great deal of importance on recognizing the interests and aspirations of all our communities, including French language communities in Quebec and throughout Canada.

We believe, without a doubt, that it would be bad for francophone communities in Canada to amend the existing regulatory framework, as Bill C-444 proposes to do.

I am opposed to this bill, as I stated on March 8.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your careful attention and especially for keeping order during the provocative remarks that I have just made.

Lise Zarac LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech about Bill C-444, I would like to take a moment to mention Purple Day, which was started two years ago by a young girl named Cassidy Megan, from Halifax.

I am wearing purple today because of Cassidy Megan. I want to show my support for adults and children with epilepsy, and I want to promote information campaigns about this illness that affects an average of 15,500 Canadians each year. Thank you, Cassidy.

Unlike our colleagues across the way, we understand the value of culture. We know that we not only need to support it, but we also need to strengthen it in every way possible.

Previous cuts to the PromArt program, which allowed Canadian artists to promote their work and their culture abroad, and the Trade Routes program, which provided support to artistic and cultural entrepreneurs, were a slap in the face to artists and all Canadians. These cuts demonstrated the Conservative government's inability to understand the arts and its irresponsibility in this sector.

After seeing their budget, it is even more obvious that the Prime Minister and the Conservatives have no idea about culture and have not listened to the many demands from the public about this. This should not surprise us, however, because their decisions have shown that they have no interest in culture and attach no importance to it. It is the same with environmental issues. They just do not understand. If you keep artists from performing internationally, you are keeping our culture from international recognition. You are badmouthing our heritage.

Our party, the Liberal Party of Canada, believes in increasing support for Canadian artists and cultural organizations, especially in this new era of the digital economy.

However, there is another topic that concerns me today and that is Bill C-444 and the impact it will have on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as well as on culture.

The CRTC was created to defend and promote Canadians' attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic talents. All of these things are the result of our country's history, its geographic location, its institutions and, above all, its linguistic and cultural diversity.

The CRTC's role is to ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public. The CRTC uses the objectives in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to guide its policy decisions.

For instance, one of the CRTC's initiatives is the local programming improvement fund, whose aim is to support and improve the quality of local television programming. This program really meets the needs and expectations of the public regarding information on what is happening in their region.

With new digital technologies, regulatory bodies are losing their powers. Barriers to entering domestic markets are becoming almost non-existent. This situation is bringing in new stakeholders that companies have to compete with.

The lines between the media, businesses, mechanisms, programs and content are blurring, and users are already beginning to control content and actively participate in creating it. In the current context, one might reasonably wonder how such legislation would help us face the challenges ahead. I will come back to this later on in my speech.

In Quebec, the CRTC has been working tirelessly to ensure that our artists can access the media and the world of broadcasting, so that the public can benefit from access to local content and our broadcasting industries can grow.

It is an ideal tool not only for ensuring the survival of Quebec culture, but also for sharing it with the rest of the country.

Bill C-444 would split up the CRTC and have it function in a vacuum in the provinces. It will not strengthen culture. On the contrary, dividing up the CRTC would weaken an institution that works for the survival of that culture. It would divide the population and block up our window on the world.

The CRTC has always been a leader in consulting the public and seeking people's opinions on matters pertaining to broadcasting and telecommunications, in order to be in tune with the needs of the people. Therefore, it is a tool of the people and not a tool of political partisanship.

I would like to know where my colleague got the idea for such a bill. No artist or cultural group could have asked for a legislative measure to create another regulatory body in Quebec. Quebec is not asking for this. It is pure political partisanship at the expense of our artists and creators.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission plays a vital role as the protector of our culture. It would make no sense to weaken it when we should be working hard to secure and strengthen its role and mandate in the current political and economic context. Adding to the number of regulatory bodies would only exponentially increase the problems faced by our cultural communities.

Given the challenges of the future, Bill C-444 is not at all a step in the right direction. It would only cloud the issues and add to existing problems that we have been trying hard to resolve for many years.

Let us not erect walls or stuff our windows. Let us protect our culture by sharing it and making it known to the entire world, not hiving it off and having it become inward-looking.

I oppose Bill C-444 and will be voting against it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I specifically invite my colleague, the member for Repentigny, to work with us. We must focus our efforts on protecting our Canadian culture, and Quebec content makes up a significant part of that culture.

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act (broadcasting and telecommunications policies), so the Québécois identity is reflected in the Canadian broadcasting telecommunications policies of our country. I am happy to say our party supports the bill moving forward to committee where it can be discussed even further.

The reason why this is such a valuable bill is because it helps us talk about extending cultural sensitivities and responsiveness in our country. I thank my colleague from the Bloc for putting this forward. Also, it allows us to debate two very important issues that are fundamental interests of Canadians, and that is public broadcasting and cultural policy.

My party, the New Democrats, is a strong believer in public broadcasting. My party, the New Democrats, is a strong supporter of the CBC and Radio-Canada. I personally am a strong supporter of the CBC and of public broadcasting in every sense of those concepts.

Canada is a large and diverse country. We have strong anglophone and francophone cultures in communities across the country. We have strong, vibrant and growing multicultural communities and first nations communities of every type in every province and territory of our federation.

My riding of Vancouver Kingsway is a wonderful diverse community of communities, where languages and cultures can be heard from every corner of the world. This incredible diversity of culture is never adequately conveyed purely and solely by the private broadcasting system.

Canadians who live in communities, small and large, coast to coast to coast need a strong public broadcasting facility and a strong cultural policy in the country in order to manifest this multicultural mosaic. Geographic diversity is also never adequately reflected in the private commercial broadcasting system and never will be adequately represented solely by the private commercial broadcasting system.

Only a strong, properly funded public broadcaster, informed and backed up by a cultural policy that reflects and embraces multiculturalism and the francophone, anglophone and multicultural and first nations quadrants of our country can actually do so, so we can all, as Canadians, tell our stories.

This bill would ensure that francophone culture and identity are adequately represented in our national broadcasting system. The NDP fully supports this important objective. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I am proud of our country's diversity.

As the multiculturalism critic for the NDP, I also want us to highlight and celebrate this diversity.

I would now like to speak for a few moments about the diversity in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. My friends in Quebec know that my riding is geographically one of the furthest from Quebec.

However, I want all members to know that in my province there is a francophone community that is small, yes, but also vibrant and growing. I wanted to note that, because francophones in British Columbia represent an important part of the multicultural mosaic I am so proud of and all British Columbians are proud of, I am sure.

Quebec culture and literature, as well as the French language, are alive and well throughout the province. We have festivals that celebrate Franco-Canadian culture and excellent French language instruction programs in our schools, and we acknowledge the richness of the history and heritage of Quebec and francophone Canadians.

Going back to the CBC, without adequate funding, it cannot survive. Underfunded by current and previous governments as it has been, it has lost and is losing its ability to fulfill its mandate. Commercialization is not the answer.

The government has mused about putting advertising on CBC Radio. It has sold off the rights to the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. It has dismantled the CBC Radio orchestra. As every Canadian who watches and listens to the CBC knows, there has been a distinct change in the mandate and manner in which CBC delivers its programming.

Canadians do not value CBC because it is just another commercial station. We must not go down the path of commercialization if the CBC is to fulfill its mandate to provide a forum for Canadian voices, music and ideas.

The heritage committee has called for an increase in funding to our national broadcaster. It wants it to go to $40 per citizen in this country, up from the current $33. Think of that: another $7 per person a year so that our country can have a strong national broadcasting voice from coast to coast to coast that brings Canadians together by sharing our music, our stories, our histories, our cultures, our social and political ideas of every type. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians agree with that, because they believe CBC's funding should be increased.

Last year in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, I held a town hall about the future of the CBC. I heard that citizens in Vancouver Kingsway and the Lower Mainland of British Colombia and across the country are passionate about our public broadcaster. They want it to be well funded. They support its mandate. They want balanced, intelligent, public interest media in our country in addition to a wide and diverse private sector.

The bill before us goes beyond Canadian broadcasting. It brings up broader issues of cultural policy. Arts and culture are vital to a healthy society. A vibrant arts community makes cities, towns and rural areas livable. It is another vital avenue for Canadian stories to be told. It is a vital avenue for Canadian voices to be heard.

Vancouver Kingsway has an extremely active and vibrant community of artists and cultural workers who tell these stories and whose voices are heard. We have musicians, actors, painters and sculptors who are an important part of what makes Vancouver such a great city in which to live. Many of these people, who are from every culture, whether it be south Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Caucasian or first nations, contribute to this cultural mosaic for the love of creating culture and for the love of this country. The average salary of an artist in Canada is under $15,000 a year.

These cultural artists who help build our country and who give our country depth and value need a mechanism in which to have their voices and their talents expressed. Producing great works of art or culture without government support has never happened in history. The ancient Greeks supported their artists, dramatists, musicians and their cultural producers. Investing in arts and culture is investing in healthy livable communities. It is investing in our shared history and identity. It is an investment worth making.

I thank the member for Repentigny for bringing this bill forward and allowing us to have this important discussion. We support sending the bill to committee so we can continue the discussion there, so that we can build a country that has a strong culture in Quebec, British Columbia and every other province and territory for every culture that is part of the Canadian mosaic.

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to quibble over whether Quebeckers or Canadians have the stronger, more intense, more imposing culture; not at all. In the House, day after day and week after week, we see that the nation of Quebec is in a different situation and that its needs are different.

For example, this week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revealed a new regulatory policy for television. One aspect of this policy is that from now on, television broadcasters can reduce their Canadian content, and thus their Quebec content as well, from 60% to 55%.

This measure is essentially aimed at Canada and not at all at Quebec. Why? Because in Quebec, Quebec content is much higher than 60%. I do not have the exact figures, but during prime time, Quebec television stations must be broadcasting nearly 80% Quebec content.

Accordingly, Quebec does not face the same problems the rest of Canada does. Are Quebec's problems easier to resolve? I do not know, but they are different and they have to be treated differently.

We have different problems and a different language. However, in Quebec, there is a real star system and everything we need to nourish it. There is an audience that eats up artistic activities of any kind and that loves Quebec artists and their art. Quebeckers keep asking for more; the television ratings prove it. When there is a Quebec production, a new series or a show by a Quebec artist, the public happily tunes in to watch the program.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has heard from many witnesses and we have noted that the same thing is not happening elsewhere in Canada. Other areas have difficulty producing Canadian content and when they do produce it, they have difficulty attracting an audience, likely because of the language. But I am not here to do such an analysis; Canadians can do it for themselves.

Last year the vice-president of CBC/Radio-Canada said that Canadians are the only people in the world who prefer their neighbour's television. That is not at all the case in Quebec. We are very lucky; we have everything we need. Our artists are good, we enjoy them and we do not have such problems.

When we see the CRTC lowering the requirements in terms of Canadian content, we know that this is not for us. While the commission notes that our problems are different, it always ends up proposing solutions that are enforced from coast to coast to coast, in Canada and in Quebec. Yet these solutions do not suit Quebeckers, because they do not correspond at all to our reality.

When we talk about Quebec's problems and values, and about the Quebec nation, the other members of this House believe it is only natural, because we are sovereignists and all we want is Quebec independence. However, I have a letter here from Quebec's Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women, Christine St-Pierre. She is not a sovereignist or a separatist. She is a Liberal, a federalist and a member of Jean Charest's government, Charest being a former Conservative leader, no less.

Ms. St-Pierre wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on March 23, 2009. This letter was sent almost a year ago, and I have never even seen an acknowledgment of receipt. But I will come back to that.

I would like to read the letter because it is extremely important in the history of Quebec culture and communications. It is not the first letter the Quebec government has sent to the federal government. In the letter, the completely federalist Christine St-Pierre is asking the federal Conservative government to transfer responsibility for both culture and communications to the Government of Quebec.

I will read the letter:

Dear Minister,

I am writing to reiterate—reiterate means “repeat” or “do again”—the Government of Quebec's desire to undertake discussions about an agreement on culture and an agreement on communications with the Government of Canada. This request was made in a letter addressed to your predecessor—I cannot name her, but she is a woman, she was the Heritage minister, and she is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—on April 9, 2008, and to her colleagues, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.—The members opposite know about this because several of them received a letter.— Quebec once again stated its position on August 13, 2008, in a second letter I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage—who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—.

In September 2008, the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, reiterated—there is that word “reiterated” again, which is a bit tiresome, but that is the word she used; some might say that more tiresome still is the fact that she had to reiterate anything at all, and they would be right—our request of the federal government to undertake negotiations about agreements on culture and communications with Quebec over the coming year. The Premier stated that Quebec wanted to assume control, within the province, of all federally funded cultural programs. He—Jean Charest, the Premier of Quebec—expressed the Government of Quebec's desire to have funds managed by Canadian Heritage and major federal funding institutions—such as the Canada Council for the Arts—transferred to it, taking into account Quebec's historical share.—I will have more to say later on about Quebec's historical share, which is not a per capita portion because Quebec's historical share of the culture and communications sector is much higher than that. —

—Now we come to a subtitle or subheading:—Agreement on Culture—and later on, we will come to Agreement on Communications. I mention this because it is no fun hearing someone read a letter without being able to see it. I am trying to read it in a way that will help everyone visualize it.—

Quebec is the only francophone state in North America, and it has a culture of its own. —As I said before, these are not sovereignists talking, but Quebec's federalist culture minister.—The Canadian Parliament has, in fact, recognized the Quebec nation. —The minister is asking the government to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. We are a nation, and we want the government to act accordingly.— Culture falls within the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. —Maybe I should repeat that. Culture falls within the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. Is that clear enough?—Quebec's desire to exercise its jurisdiction over culture is inextricably linked to the identity of the Quebec nation. —I will not repeat every sentence twice, but I suggest that everyone listen closely because every word is important.—The Government of Quebec must ensure the long-term survival and development of Quebec culture.—I really want to repeat that sentence because it is well put and perfectly aligned with the Bloc Québécois' thinking despite having been said not by a separatist or a sovereignist or anyone like that, but by a staunch federalist, Christine St-Pierre, in a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.—

Quebec is seeking greater coherence when it comes to government-funded cultural measures. The province wishes to integrate its cultural development in the artistic, industrial and civic spheres. Greater coherence will enable the province to achieve its cultural goals as set out in the 1992 Politique culturelle, the cultural policy passed unanimously by the National Assembly.

The federal government's many cultural measures, though primarily directed to financing, have a definite effect on cultural development in Quebec.

A Canada-Quebec agreement on culture would provide Quebec with control over public funding of cultural activities within the province. The agreement should therefore cover the complete envelope of funds associated with federal programs that subsidize and fund culture and heritage.

As far back as 1992, the Charlottetown Accord stated that “Provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction over cultural matters within the provinces”.

I want to point out that Minister St-Pierre wants to see practical mechanisms for participating in the development and definition—

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.