Maria Mourani

[Telecommunications, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that this statement was made by the Minister of Transport when he was the Liberal Minister of Communications in Quebec. If this was true when the Minister of Transportation was a member of the National Assembly, it is even more so with the development of new technologies and it is even more important to act now.

Does this not prove that the government refuses to move from words to deeds in the case of the nation of Quebec?

[Telecommunications, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the Government of Quebec declared, and I quote, “Quebec cannot let others control programming for electronic media within its borders...To that end, Quebec must have full jurisdiction and be able to deal with a single regulatory body.”

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, a member of the government that recognizes the nation of Quebec, respect the will of Quebec?

[Leonard Cohen, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, Quebec has had a number of women and men who, through their art, were able to make humankind a little better, a little more beautiful. Leonard Cohen is one of them. Yesterday, he was inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, in New York.

Born in Montreal, Leonard Cohen published his first book of poems in 1956, and released his first music album, which included such wonderful songs as So long Marianne and Suzanne, in 1967.

Through his extensive repertoire, he has influenced generations of musicians, who have integrated poetry with folk and rock music. In Quebec, he stands among our greatest poets and singers. Just a month ago, the daily La Presse included the album Songs of Leonard Cohen among the top ten Quebec albums of all times.

Congratulations, Mr. Cohen.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my respected colleague is as follows. I have to say that I, too, am terribly disappointed by this decision. As I understand it, basically, the government does not respect most of the motions we put forward, and it would rather let the Senate do its work because it believes in that institution, and that is fine.

I would like to ask my colleague a question that has been nagging at me. Did the Liberal Party also decide not to vote in case the government made it a confidence vote?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what I gather from what the minister is saying is that this aspect of the bill will not contribute to censorship. If that is true, then why is the entire cultural and film community crying censorship. I am not talking about one or two people. The entire community is up in arms: the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, the Directors Guild of Canada. I could go on. Creators, producers, the entire community is crying censorship.

Could it be that everyone is wrong and the minister is right? She will have to explain that to me.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, once again my colleague is not asking a direct question. I will nevertheless try to reply.

Currently there are pornographic or “offensive” movies. Here again, what is meant by “offensive”? That may mean one thing to my Conservative colleague and another to me. Perhaps it may mean something completely different for my NDP colleague and for my Liberal colleague. What does “offensive” mean?

Once again we have a word that means many things and that can cover many acts in a movie. In my opinion, a porn movie is offensive and I do not agree with funding this type of movie.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question. This is what she said: if the government presently provides tax credits for pornography or child pornography, there is a problem. We must therefore ensure that that no longer happens.

I will simply say to my colleague that, at present, no pornographic movies receive tax credits and therefore are not indirectly funded by the state. With regard to child pornography, whether or not we like it, it is punished by the Criminal Code. It is illegal in Canada and in Quebec. Therefore, why amend a law if it is not necessary? Whether we like it or not, it is so they can introduce censorship through the back door.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

When a decision is made to amend a law, it is because something in the law is not working and something needs to be added. When there is nothing to amend, no law or amendment is made. Like it or not, we have to ask ourselves why the government wants to make this amendment if everything is fine? Like it or not, an expression as general as “public policy” can be interpreted in any number of ways.

For example, if two characters in a film have sex and can be seen slightly, is that contrary to public policy? We have to wonder. Would films like Bon Cop, Bad Cop meet the criterion or not?

In my opinion, when no change is needed, then no law or bill should be drafted. There is no need to do anything.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out what the question is because I did not hear my colleague ask a question. Nevertheless, I will try to answer my colleague, for whom I have great respect.

If there is no problem, why did they put the words “public policy” in the bill? As I said, this kind of thing is already forbidden. Existing exclusion criteria address pornography, as does the Criminal Code. That is the truth. Currently, there is no problem.

However, what I am saying, what we are saying, is that the government is trying to create a problem. Simply put, it is trying to create censorship. But there is no problem. If there were a problem, we would say, yes, it is true, the law should be changed so that we do not fund pornographic films. But that is already the case.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should introduce, as soon as possible, an amendment to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, in order to remove the reference to public policy that is added by this bill to subsection 125.4(1) of the Income Tax Act, because this new provision opens the door to unacceptable government censorship of film and video production.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today to introduce this motion to counter the Conservative government's desire to censor film productions.

The motion calls on this government to introduce, as soon as possible, an amendment to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, with a view to remove the reference to public policy that is added by this bill to subsection 125.4(1) of the act.

We must ask the question: why should the expression “public policy” be removed? Well, this expression is so vague that it is open to interpretation. I will give a few over-the-top examples to demonstrate how it could be interpreted in various ways.

For instance, would a film that shows someone burning the Canadian flag or insulting the Queen conform to public policy? That is one question. What about a film that criticizes the Conservative government or questions our presence in Afghanistan or promotes sovereignty in the middle of or prior to a referendum, for instance? Would such a film conform to public policy? We must ask the question. Thus, the words “public policy” could be taken even further still.

With respect to Bill C-10, what is the Prime Minister telling us through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, of course?

Here is the first argument they keep repeating endlessly: given that this bill has already been passed by the House, and is presently being studied by the Senate, we should have acted earlier. That is true.

Nobody pointed out this section on criteria for film production credits. This section is buried in a 560-page bill to amend the Income Tax Act.

When I say nobody, I really mean nobody. The three opposition parties did not see it and the Senate did not see it at first or second reading. It is now at third reading stage. We can even assume—and I did say assume—that the Minister of Canadian Heritage did not see it because it was her colleague, the Minister of Finance, who was responsible for this legislation.

We must humbly acknowledge, and simply say, that a mistake was made and that we are prepared to rectify the situation. That is the important point: let us rectify the situation.

Yet we see that the government continues to make these kinds of arguments.

The second, and not the least important, of its arguments is that this government does not view it as a censorship mechanism. It would serve to prevent the state from funding pornographic movies, child pornography, hate propaganda and so forth. It is true that the state should not fund these types of productions.

We heard the Minister of Canadian Heritage blithely repeating in all the media and even in this House that we must not fund such productions and that the purpose of the section was to prevent such horrors.

I realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage may not be aware that such movies are not funded in Canada or in Quebec. It is true that we do not have to know everything. In fact, either the Minister of Heritage is acting in bad faith or she is not aware that we have a Criminal Code that prohibits such things. Personally, I prefer to think that she just is not aware of it.

For the benefit of the Minister of Heritage, allow me to briefly summarize the offences found in the Criminal Code in this regard.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code includes provisions on hate propaganda and incitement of hatred. The maximum prison sentence is two years. Section 163 of the Criminal Code on offences tending to corrupt morals prohibits the production and distribution of child pornography and obscene publications.

I could cite other provisions. The famous subsection 163(1)(a) states: “—makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution—”. This all has to do with child pornography.

Subsection 163.1(2) addresses the production of child pornography. Production itself is therefore covered. It also provides for maximum sentences of 10 years for the distribution of child pornography. The Criminal Code also covers other offences, such as defamation and slander.

I also want to remind the minister that the criteria for granting film certificates were changed in May 2005. Section VII, newly created by the Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Film and Video Productions), stipulates that all pornography is excluded. Child pornography is clearly defined in the Criminal Code. Under this new Section VII created by the Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Film and Video Productions), productions exclude all pornography. In other words, no tax credit is given to that type of film.

What current events have prompted us to amend the legislation in question? Why were these clarifications added? In my opinion, the question must be asked. Does this legislation not include hidden objectives that reflect the government's desire for censorship? I believe that people are inherently good and I can believe that the government is well-meaning. I am simply proposing that this bill be amended. It is not too late.

We all agree on one thing: the state must not provide funding for pornographic films. The state must not provide funding for child pornography or hate propaganda films either. We all agree on that.

I have good news for everyone: my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, has tabled a bill to have the CRTC regulate violence on television. He would like violent programs to be broadcast after 9 p.m. when children are already sleeping. The purpose of his bill is to get the CRTC to do its job as a regulator. Broadcasters are currently required to regulate themselves voluntarily. This bill offers a way to control violence on television without having to censor anything.

I would like to bring up an interesting argument from a press release issued by the minister's office. The press release contains something I found rather unusual and it really left me wondering. So I wanted to take a closer look at it. According to this document, the creator of a film that includes content that may be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code “could technically still be eligible for a film tax credit under the Income Tax Act.” The release goes on to say:

This is a legal absurdity; a loophole that successive governments—first Liberal, then Conservative—have worked to close.

I must admit I am rather surprised that a creator who produces a work that includes content that may be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code could receive a tax credit. That is unthinkable. Let us assume that this creator produces pornographic movies. Child pornography is subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code. We do not pay for these kinds of things.

The creator would not receive a tax credit.

I must admit that I am rather shocked by this argument, which makes no sense, and just goes to show that the government is flailing around and saying any old thing.

I think that the Conservative government—and I am sure many members will agree—is still using the back door to impose its far-right values. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is accusing us of blowing this out of proportion, and is saying that the film industry is panicking for nothing. If that is the case, the Conservatives should reassure us and simply amend the bill. We will have been wrong, we will have blown things out of proportion, and they will have fixed this little problem.

Unfortunately, our Minister of Canadian Heritage is powerless. She does not make the decisions in her department; they are made by her colleague, the Minister of Finance. I think she is so powerless that she is strongly supporting aberrations that are taking us back to the time of censorship. Now that is really something. It is very sad, but I think this is the only concrete action the minister has taken for the film industry, which is an action against the film industry. It is truly sad.

Indeed, this minister's record when it comes to the film industry is absolutely terrible, pathetic even. Let me explain. She is a minister from Quebec and she still refuses to recognize the existence of the Quebec film industry. She is the first minister to have abandoned the International Centre of Films for Children and Young People, whose head office had been in Montreal since 1990, and which had to move to Johannesburg, South Africa.

I would also remind the House that there was absolutely nothing for the film industry in the recent budget. Out of a $240 billion budget, she could not convince her colleague in the finance department to reinvest $50 million in the Feature Film Fund or the Television Fund. Furthermore, she still does not want to establish a $10 million documentary feature film fund, as called for by the film industry. It is so unfortunate and I am very sad to have to tell the cultural community that we have a heritage minister who is merely an extra.

Yes, the cultural community should be worried. As Pierre Even, producer of C.R.A.Z.Y, said, and I quote: “Despite the numerous representations we have made over the past two years to make the government aware of our needs, there was absolutely nothing in this budget for the film industry ... The government understands nothing about culture or how cultural institutions operate”.

This is very sad, indeed.

Here is how CTVM's newsletter summarized the general impression of this community, and I quote: “Our federal minister does not appear to like our movies”. We love movies. Does the minister not like movies? We would have to ask her. What I would say to the film community is that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not showing any leadership in this file and is merely a powerless representation of a minister in power, even though she has none. She is a powerless minister.