House of Commons Hansard #72 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.

Topics

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

On the same motion, I recognize the hon. member for Témiscamingue.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Madam Speaker, it is no insult for me to be called the member for Témiscamingue, but I will let him speak for himself shortly.

I am pleased to speak on the third part of the omnibus bill concerning the CBC's borrowing authority. As my colleagues just said, the Bloc Quebecois is not here to gum up the works. The Bloc Quebecois presented a motion for more openness in the management of the CBC, but since we are good managers too, we understand that the Crown corporation needs borrowing authority to be able to operate. Whether this borrowing is on a line of credit or they have to acquire more assets to finance new things, we will support it.

What bothers us, though, is the lack of openness in CBC management. Although management has done certain things and revenue is rising and some things are being cut, they still have a deficit. It is a structural deficit and it is like a cancer constantly eating away at the CBC.

Why am I talking about cancer, Madam Speaker? It makes me think of a loss we had in the Gaspé. As a result of this lack of openness and this unwillingess to listen to the people, the CBC closed three television stations in our region, in Sept-Iles, Rimouski and Matane.

I am criticizing it for lack of openness; it is as though the government asked or allowed the corporation to do its dirty work. "You be the one to do it." It is as though they wanted to cut the means of communication of people in eastern Quebec, especially in the Gaspé peninsula.

This time, we might say that the government is a little ashamed to come and borrow money itself. It is telling the CBC to go and do it this time. I am sorry; as long as Quebecers are in this federation and part of Canada, we pay taxes and we have a say.

They took from us what was our pride, that is our means of communication. Now, we are asked to close our eyes and to say: "Okay, you will allow CBC to borrow up to $25 million", but we will not be allowed to knowthing any more. The purpose of this motion is precisely to make sure that we know what will be done with that money, and particularly how CBC intends to repay such loans because, as I said, as long as Quebec remains part of Canada, we will have to pay part of that loan and part of the deficit. We can argue later about what that part will be. In the meantime, however, as long as we are here, we will ask for greater transparency.

Canadians and Quebecers certainly deserve some explanations from the Parliament of Canada. People can understand. They are not dummies, to use a common expression, and this is demonstrated by the fact that news and information programs get the best ratings. People want to understand what is going on. They want to know what is happening and, as a parliamentary institution, the House must be receptive. But I do not think it was receptive enough in the past.

We are concerned by the fact that the government is prepared to give a blank cheque to the corporation, without knowing what it will do with the money. If I was told that the corporation needs authority to borrow $25 million because, following the mistake made by closing regional TV stations, it now has to recapitalize regions and part of that $25 million would be used to that end, I would say fine, because I would at least know what is going on. But here we are only told: "We borrow $25 million". What will those millions be used for? This evening, some people will listen to the parliamentary channel, since they do not always hear directly from their MP on the local news.

So this evening, they will hear their own member, the member for Gaspé, say that he wishes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would seriously consider reopening the regional stations it closed down, which was a big mistake; that it would indicate, as any good manager would, how the $25 million would be spent; and that we as parliamentarians could see how the money is allocated.

If the CBC's requests were sufficiently detailed and included the proper justification, the Bloc québécois would be among the first to say: Well, your request is very reasonable, and since your $25 million authority is not sufficient, we would be willing to increase it. But you must understand our concern. A blank cheque for $25 million is out of the question. This is 1994, and the public has a right to know.

Why this emphasis? I referred to the stations that were closed, and I said that we would agree to give them the $25 million borrowing authority they want, but the problem is lack of transparency.

I would be the first to acknowledge the excellence of the performers on Radio-Canada. We all have our favourites. We have Marylin who discusses municipal politics at 7 p.m., and we have newscasters like Bernard Derome. I think we can say that Quebecers, and I imagine Canadians generally are like that, enjoy a variety of programs. They want entertainment but they want the news. I realize that getting the news costs money. Through these administrative measures, Parliament enable the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to fulfil the mandate it was given by Parliament. However, as far as news programming is concerned, people in the Gaspé and Eastern Townships, and I said this before, feel left out.

Today, we get local news bulletins from Quebec City. I do not mind getting the Quebec City news, because I have some good friends in Quebec City, including the members for the local ridings, but news from these areas is not as interesting as our own local news. That kind is just as important. I am sure, Madam Speaker, if you had to listen to the local news from the Gaspé, you would say: What a wonderful region! But you would not be as interested in the local news from that area. Oh, sure, at the end of the news bulletin they give you two or three minutes worth about your own community, but that is not much. And in our case, that is what happen.

And that is why, as a member of the Bloc québécois, I wanted to say in the House today that from a manager's point of view, I agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation needs management tools. However, I am outraged at the lack of transparency in the government's proposals, and I want to make it clear that if all Canadians are supposed to be involved, I think we should not forget that the people in the Eastern Townships and the Gaspé are very upset about the fact that their regional stations were closed, and if the government wants to convince me that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has come of age, then it should do something about correcting these mistakes.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to expand on what my colleague was saying. As a member for the same area I also wonder, when I see that the CBC is being allowed to borrow, what they are going to borrow for? We have been burnt before.

Just think that $46 million were cut when regional stations were closed, 100 specialized jobs in communications and radio and television were abolished, but at the same time $61 million were added to the networks. There is some imbalance there.

After that experience we wonder: "If this was done in the past, and if we now add this borrowing power, what are they going to do with the money?"

The next Olympic Games, in Atlanta in 1996, are another good example. CBC submitted a tender for $28 million. This is a totally unacceptable overbidding if you consider that TVA had offered $10 million for the same coverage.

Is the $18 million difference going to come from money it borrows? Is it what is going to be used to pay a somewhat inflated price to cover an event which, after all, will only last a short period of time, whereas the cuts which are depriving our regions of adequate coverage will last all year long?

I would willingly trade three weeks of Games in Atlanta for a TV station in Eastern Quebec and on the North Shore, which would provide year-round coverage and would allow us to know how our own people are managing, how they are coming to grips with the situation and how they see their future.

You will not be surprised then to learn that what the Bloc Quebecois is asking is that this new borrowing authority be transparent. We know that for the past few years, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been presenting its business plan to the minister, but we have never seen such business plans in this House. The CBC does not produce canned goods. It is a corporation with a Canada-wide communication mandate.

Consequently, one would expect that it should be accountable to the Canadian Parliament for the manner in which it carries out its business, not with a view to censuring it, but rather to see how it spends its money. Now is the time to start doing it, especially regarding the use the Corporation is going to make of its new borrowing authority.

How is it going to spend this $25 million plus interests? Will it be for projects Canadians and Quebecers generally approve of? Will these projects provide better service to the people in Quebec and in Canada, or will they be like the icing on the cake, something extra for areas which already receive service?

So, I think it is important to know how this money will be spent. In fact, we are very concerned about the openness of this process, all the more so given the estimated deficits of the CBC. Despite cuts made especially in regional stations over the last few years, the estimated deficit should reach $41 million in 1995-1996; $54 million in 1996-1997; $65 million in 1997-1998; and $78 million in 1998-1999.

So, if this borrowing authority is going to increase the deficit without improving the service, I do not see how we can support such decisions. We want to see the CBC budget and we want to know in what direction the CBC is going, how it intends to spend the money and mostly how it will manage to provide services in Quebec and in Canada to ensure the public gets adequate information.

Let me give you an example. Two weeks ago, I was asked to act as commissioner during community hearings held by Rural Dignity and an organization set up to maintain the train service in Chaleur, in the Gaspé Peninsula.

The newspaper coverage we got was quite interesting. However, the television coverage was not so good, not because the technicians, communications experts and announcers in Eastern Quebec are not capable, but because when you have only two or three reporters to cover such a large territory as ours, that is thousands and thousands of kilometres, it is obvious that you cannot provide the same adequate service as if you had regional stations.

That shows the extent of social disintegration that can occur if we do not have a communication network which the people in the regions can relate to and identify with. You can be sure that we will never renege on our commitment to provide adequate television services.

And since the closing, we are taking steps to make sure that the services will be offered once again and that we can have in our region some experts, some people who can provide the adequate broadcasting for the people within the region as well as elsewhere.

So, indeed, we could say that the borrowing authority of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is relevant, as for any other business that may have to borrow money at a given time. But, in order to get that money, that business must prove to us that, indeed, it is using the funds in an adequate and fair manner and is also fulfilling its mandate, which is to provide communications throughout Canada.

We must get away from the image left to us by the previous Conservative government which, whether in the case of VIA Rail, Post Canada or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, decided to define the mandate of these national corporations as if they were private companies, when their mandate should reflect the realities of the country as a whole.

In that context, we would like to make the government aware of the fact that, if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a borrowing authority, the uses of the amounts provided for by that authority, whether in the form of credit lines or other, should be tabled here in the House.

I hope that government members will be sensitive to this amendment and will vote with us to make sure that, at least, we know where our money is going.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the House ready for the question?

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, are you referring to my colleague's motion?

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

We are on motions Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22. The question is on motion No. 19, standing in the name of Mr. Solberg.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 20 to 22.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

[Translation]

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 10, with the following: (a ) 57 per cent of the claimant's average''.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 11, with the following:

"(ii) the greater of 57 per cent of the".

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-17, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 26, on page 11, the following:

"(1.1) For purposes of paragraph (1)( b ), a claimant need only establish a prima facie entitlement to application of the rate of weekly benefit provided under that paragraph, whereupon the onus is on the Commission to establish that the claimant is not entitled to application of the rate of weekly benefit provided under that paragraph.''

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-17, in Clause 26, be amended: a ) by replacing line 22, on page 13, with the following:

"48.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 48, the rate"; b ) by replacing lines 25 to 27, on page 13, with the following:

"(a) for the five month period beginning on January 1, 1994, 3.07 per cent of insurable earnings in that period;

(b) for the seven month period beginning on June 1, 1994, 3 per cent of insurable earnings in that period; c ) for the year 1995, 3 per cent of insurable earnings in that year; and d ) for the year 1996, 3 per cent of insura-''; and c ) by adding after line 31, on page 13, the following:

"(2) For the purposes of applying subsection 50(1), section 51, paragraph 75(1)( p ) and subsection 75(5) in respect of the year 1994, each period referred to in paragraphs (1)( a ) and ( b ) shall be deemed to be a year within the meaning of those provisions.''

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-17, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 13, with the following:

"the House of Commons given by resolution of that House, make such regula-".

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Madam Speaker, I wish to explain to the House once more the reason for our motions. We are opposed to the government's use of an omnibus bill to implement the budget rather than introducing separate bills for each act it proposes to change.

Today I would like to comment specifically on the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I spoke to Bill C-17 on April 14 during second reading stage. At that time I said that the Reform Party was generally in favour of the changes to the UI Act, but argued that the government did not go far enough with its amendments. Even though we think that further improve-

ments to the unemployment insurance provisions could have been made, we are prepared to vote in favour of the UI changes.

However, there are other changes in Bill C-17 which we cannot support, such as the CBC borrowing authority provisions. Therefore, in order to register our opposition to certain legislation contained in the bill, we have to vote against the whole bill.

How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when we are forced to vote yea or nay to a block of legislation with such diverse concerns? How can we do that? Dividing the bill logically into its various components would facilitate the democratic process. It would also allow for meaningful votes based on the analysis and voter reaction of each part of the bill.

That is the reason for our motion. We are not trying to be obstructionists; we are being practical. We want the procedures of the House to be understood by the voters. An omnibus bill is not a common sense way of doing things. People sent us here to bring common sense ideas to Parliament. I think the voters would agree with our position on omnibus bills and the motions we have introduced today.

I would like now to specifically address each of the changes to Bill C-17 that we would implement in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am going to comment on these as I go along.

First, the bill would roll back UI premiums for 1995 and 1996 to $3 for every $100 in insurable earnings, down from $3.07. The Reform Party generally supports this measure but would ask the government to consider further reductions in payroll taxes. If jobs are created by doing this, why not find other ways to reduce payroll taxes?

Second, the bill will reduce UI benefits to 55 per cent of insurable earnings, down from 57 per cent. The Reform Party supports this measure but would ask the government to further reduce benefits to bring them in line with benefits paid by other OECD countries and to lessen dependency on the system.

Third, the bill will increase the benefits for those UI claimants with low earnings and with dependants to 60 per cent of insurable earnings, up from 57 per cent. The Reform Party supports this measure because it states: "to target payments to those people who are most in need". That should be the aim of our social program.

Fourth, the bill will increase the minimum amount of time a person needs to qualify for UI from 10 weeks-