This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was recall.

Topics

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to take the votes we deferred for this afternoon at 6.30 immediately, ringing the bells for five minutes.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent?

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for First Nations in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Yukon First Nations Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 9, 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the second reading stage of Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for First Nations in the Yukon Territory.

Call in the members.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:

Yukon First Nations Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee.)

Yukon First Nations Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, point of order. I believe that you will obtain unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the second reading of Bill C-34 to the second reading of Bill C-33 and to the third reading of Bill C-16.

Yukon First Nations Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is there unanimous consent?

Yukon First Nations Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid land claims agreements entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain First Nations in the Yukon Territory, to provide for approving, giving effect to and declaring valid other land claims agreements entered into after this Act comes into force, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 55.]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee.)

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid an agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Dene of Colville Lake, Déline, Fort Good Hope and Fort Norman and the Metis of Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and Norman Wells, as represented by the Sahtu Tribal Council, and to make related amendments to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the House will now proceed to the deferred division on Motion No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

The first question is on Motion No. 1. An affirmative vote on No. 1 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I declare the motion negatived.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent that the vote that we just took on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2 and in reverse to the concurrence motion.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is there unanimous consent?

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canadian Film Development Corporation ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Broadview—Greenwood Ontario

Liberal

Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I did not want the remarks of the Reform Party member for Medicine Hat to go by without some mention.

As I mentioned, the hon. member for Medicine Hat talked about the fact that we subsidize the film industry in this country. The member has to be very careful about using the word subsidy because the energy sector in this country probably receives more subsidy than any other sector in the economy.

We do this through tax preferences buried in the tax act. The member stood in the House of Commons and talked about close to $2 billion in subsidies that go into culture related industry. He basically condemned that. He should know that the energy sector receives a lot more than that. The difference is it receives those subsidies buried in tax preferences and the tax act.

I feel very defensive when members stand in this House and take on the cultural industries because in my riding there are close to 5,800 people who work in the motion picture industry.

In the motion picture industry we do not just have actors and actresses. We have cameramen and women, craftsmen and women who do set designs, lens grinders and costume makers. In the last 10 years we have managed to build a world class motion picture industry.

We now have products that we are exporting all over the world. I think of "Degrassi Junior High" which was developed and produced here and is now being exported to over50 countries. It has been cancelled on the Canadian networks but this product is still being exported.

When we go to the 500 channel universe we will have an opportunity to manufacture all kinds of Canadian products. In addition, there are several motion picture producers that come to Canada now and have their motion pictures made in Canada.

The member gave the example of Buddies in Bad Times, a city of Toronto arts grant which I do not want to debate with him today. I do not think he should take one example like that and brandish the whole cultural industry in this country. It is not really fair. It is like taking the CBC and only looking at it for the work it does as a unit. You have to look at the CBC in the sense that it has been a training ground. Many people have left the CBC and gone on to work in the private sector. It has been an

apprenticeship centre which has created the tremendous inventory of talent that supports the motion picture industry.

I could also say to the member for Medicine Hat the CBC is one of the few galvanizing agents in this country. It is very sensitive to bringing together not only information and culture from every region of this country but providing service to remote regions which sometimes may not be seen as profitable for the private sector.

I am not putting down the private sector for not getting involved in unprofitable ventures in this country, but the responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to make sure that every region of this country is covered. We do not run the CBC like a business. It is not like a business. Whether it be the post office, the CBC, or Petro-Canada, if we dealt with them strictly on an earnings per share per quarter basis we would not have the type of service that these agencies of government have provided over the years. They really have been able to bring this country together.

With the 500-channel universe just around the corner from us, we have invested so much in training, in the motion picture industry, we now have a talent pool that is recognized as world class. More than ever as we come close to that period where we have the opportunity to fill that 500-channel universe with Canadian product, we should make sure we do not pull away from supporting the motion picture industry. If anything, I would encourage members of the House to urge the government to not only continue to support it, but to increase its support.

Canadian Film Development Corporation ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of what the hon. member said. However, I would really like to challenge his thinking and the thinking of other members on the other side of the House with respect to the necessity of having to pluck money from the pockets of supporters of these programs in the form of taxation. If a program is really good, if it is really quality, it will win. If it is not, then it should not be subsidized.

I believe that too for businesses and other industries, some of which he mentioned. If we were to have a level playing field tax wise, we could compete very easily right around the world and that is the missing link.

Specifically with respect to the CBC, I have on numerous occasions had people ask me why we support it. They then use words which I am sure are unparliamentary-they are not in my personal vocabulary in any case-about the things they have heard.

I was tremendously offended one Sunday evening when, as we were finishing our day, I switched on my radio as I often do and chose the CBC. Sometimes it has some nice classical music which I enjoy at the end of the day. I cannot relate to you in the House what I heard because it was so offensive. It was tremendously offensive to women and to men, and the explicitness of what was being broadcast at midnight on a Sunday got me so upset that I immediately ran downstairs, turned on my tape recorder in order to have it on record even though I could hardly stand to hear it.

My response was why should I as a taxpayer be forced to fund this without any choice at all. If it were another station I can turn away, it's ratings go down and, as happened to one of the radio stations in Edmonton, it would go out of business.

The CBC should be subject to that same kind of continual scrutiny on a personal basis by all taxpayers, by all the people who are listening. I really think we ought to very quickly phase out the funding of the CBC and many of these other cultural organizations which, very frankly, appeal to a very narrow group of people and are far away from and, in many cases, opposed to what the majority of Canadians want to hear and want to see.

Canadian Film Development Corporation ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I really do not know where to begin because I think we basically have an ideological difference. Nothing personal intended to the member, but I see it in just the opposite light. I see the CBC as an instrument of national unity. I know you do not. I know the member does not.

Canadian Film Development Corporation ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I appreciate that members always feel very strongly about their views, but I think it is in the best interests of all of us if we direct our comments through the Chair.