Mr. Speaker, although the Bloc Quebecois may disagree emphatically with the way certain situations are dealt with at the CBC, it does not support the motion presented by the Reform Party member for Calgary-Southeast to privatize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a name that is indeed more in tune with the cultural profile of this Crown corporation.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, our public radio and television network should be preserved, but the government should oblige the corporation to deal with its problems. We are primarily concerned about the challenge to the corporation in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, especially in paragraphs (l) and (m) and in a number of subparagraphs which read as follows: "The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains". The programming should reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
The programming should be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities. Finally, the programming should contribute to shared national consciousness and identity.
But what is national identity and how should this mandate be interpreted? In Canada, the national identity is Canadian. So what is Canada? What is Canada about? How is it constituted? In addition to its aboriginal peoples, Canada has two founding peoples. There is more than one national identity in Canada and hence a problem for the CBC. Furthermore, the concept of Canadian identity does not include the Quebec identity. In fact, its purpose is to assimilate or even deny it. Canadian identity has the effect of acculturating Quebecers.
Quebec's march towards sovereignty started in 1960 with Jean Lesage. It seems to me that if the CBC had fulfilled its mandate while remaining neutral and objective, if it had tried to inform and enlighten, the rest of Canada would not ask what does Quebec want. We have said many times that we want to control the economic, social, political and cultural levers that are essential to our development as a nation.
Despite the reassurances of CBC president Anthony Manera that the mandate to contribute to a national identity will not interfere with the mandate to provide objective information and reflect the various views held in Canada, we are inclined to be sceptical. In fact, the most senior politicians in this country put a very different spin on this mandate and tend to cloud the issue.
To the Prime Minister of Canada, this mandate means, and I will quote what he said in this House on June 16: "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. Objectivity is all we ask for".
As if objectivity only meant showing the advantages.
To the Deputy Prime Minister, the corporation's mandate to contribute to national identity means, according to what she said on CBC radio on June 17, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a responsibility to acknowledge that one of its responsibilities is to promote Canadian unity.
As for Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, we know now that his political assistants regularly called the CBC to order it to promote Canadian unity, especially, it seems, during the Charlottetown episode.
At that time, CBC management had issued instructions reminding its journalists of current policy on the coverage of the constitutional debate. A document, and I quote: "also contains details concerning analysts and commentators". According to management, any guests who had publicly taken a position on the question at issue were to be clearly identified as such. The document went on to say: "If a political expert is an active sovereigntist, he must not be introduced simply as a professor of political science. If a commentator is a known supporter of unilingualism, this should be included in the introduction. Furthermore, one should point out, as appropriate, whether an editorial writer or columnist has taken a definite stand on the issues to be discussed.
As for the separatist witch hunt within the CBC, this goes back a long time.
In 1969, then president George Davidson was literally besieged by federal politicians who criticized the corporation's coverage that was biased towards the separatists.
Tensions had risen to such a degree that when the Parti Quebecois was elected in 1976, the CRTC held public hearings on the subject, and its report made it clear that CBC reporting had observed the standards of professional reporting. However, many federal politicians, especially Quebec Liberals, argued that these journalists were not doing their job since the corporation had a mandate to promote national unity.
Former president Al Johnson said, and I am quoting Wayne Skene in his Fade to Black: a requiem for the CBC , referring to interference from federal Liberal members: ``They made my life hell''.
Meanwhile, considering the position taken by government members and their interpretation of the corporation's mandate, there is no indication it will be any different during the next provincial election and an eventual referendum, except for the assurances given by the president of the CBC. We will take him at his word, until further notice.
Before the advent of television, Quebecers listened to the radio. They listened to radio serials and to the daily news programs throughout the war. Not long after television appeared, Quebec was coming out of the so-called Dark Ages. Father Legault and his Compagnons de Saint-Laurent, the TNM, the Rideau-Vert and a number of celebrities who came over from France had made Quebecers develop an appetite for culture. The corporation was to continue this work, and the development of Quebec's cultural potential during the past thirty years was possible largely to the existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
We remember travel documentaries with commentary by André Laurendeau, important political broadcasts with Judith Jasmin, "Point de mire" with René Lévesque, "Le 60" with Pierre Nadeau, "Noir sur Blanc" with Denise Bombardier, big variety shows, tv dramas which introduced us to a host of authors and which were also an opportunity for Quebecers to make a living by writing; tv series, either historical or contemporary, with rural or urban settings, concerts of every description, the "Soirée du hockey", and many more.
There is one particular sector I know very well, in which the corporation performed superbly, and I am referring to television programming for children, which has left several generations with some unforgettable memories. Remember "Pépinot et Capucine", "M. Surprise", "Grugeot et Délicat", "Marie Quat'poches", "la Souris verte" and "Bobino"!
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel I must mention one area where the corporation showed poor judgment, and I am referring to its decision to close television stations in eastern Quebec. I hope that as the corporation considers ways to deal with its problems, it will find a way to give eastern Quebec its voice again and thus improve the way it fulfils one of its mandates which is, and I quote: "to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions".