House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
You are a very experienced parliamentarian; you should always comply with the Standing Orders of the House and avoid identifying members of the other place.
Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the Senate but to one particular senator. I think that the Standing Orders allow me to identify one particular senator but not, as you pointed out, to refer to the Senate, that must be called the other place.
In any case, I will drop the word "senator" and use only the name "Rizzuto". This individual, who made the recommendations regarding patronage, is still the party's bagman and advisor on appointments like those of Camille Samson, Michelle Tisseyre and Jacques Saada, who was appointed to a $100,000 a year post with CIDA.
It is typical behaviour for the Liberal Party to use a completely different language after coming to office. Even though they promised to do away with patronage and political appointments, they have since enthusiastically embraced this practice. The party still engages in double talk, especially its leader who, throughout his years in office in the 1970s and 1980s and since 1993, still says one thing before the election and another thing after. They think voters are fools.
This review of Liberals' unkept promises and double talk is clearly reinforced today by our discussion of the funds allocated to the CBC. In this regard, I would like to quote the red book commitments made by the Liberal Party during the election campaign. The red book says on page 88: "Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development. Instead, the Conservative regime has deliberately undermined our national cultural institutions".
The Liberal Party said, and I quote: "Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural development". That is what it said before the election, but after the election, it was the first one to cut, to the tune of $300 million, financing on which the CBC depends, attacking CBC's French network in particular.
Here is what the Liberal Party promised in its red book: "A Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear financing for national cultural institutions such as the Canada Council and the CBC". This is a far cry from what is going on. Yet, the minister continued to claimed in this House that he did not know exactly how extensive the cuts would be at the CBC; it could not be that much. Perhaps it was a little more than that. He contradicted himself at least five times in the past two months regarding possible cuts at the CBC, when a solemn and specific commitment had been made in the red book to stable multiyear financing. This goes to show once again the difference being in an election campaign or in office makes when you are the Liberal Party.
I will conclude on this as I am almost out of time. I know this will make my colleagues opposite very sad because they would like to hear more-I scan see them hang their heads in shame for sacrificing their principles, the ideals they stood for and their red book to the party line. They will stop at nothing to be in power. They take after their leader. Power at all cost: make all the promises necessary to get there, but once in power, never
mind about making good these promises. Sooner or later, they will face the same reaction they faced in 1984, that is to say complete rejection from Halifax to Vancouver of this kind of behaviour, this double talk they have cultivated.
I will leave you with a recommendation the CRTC made concerning the CBC, stating that it will be imperative that the policy proposals to be developed in the coming months focus on a central and fundamental objective, which is to promote and preserve the identity of French Canadians; at present, our broadcasting system demands from its partners that they allow Canadian content to take up much room, which has encouraged the expression of our cultural identity and made possible the development of audiovisual production in both official languages of this country. It concluded that we should not give up any ground in this respect.
That is what the CBC should focus on, and the current minister is away off the track in refusing to give serious thought to maintaining stable financing, at the expense of the CBC's French network in particular, which is the highest performing. They crack open a bottle of champagne on the English side when they reach one million listeners, while on the French side, this many people listen in daily.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the Conservative or rather the Bloc member, since he has a tendency to change his mind, who accuses the Liberals of singing two tunes. Coming from that member, and particularly that political party, this is quite a statement.
Mr. Speaker, today we heard the Bloc Quebecois raise an issue with which you are very familiar, namely the situation of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. This is the last straw. The hon. member and his colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, are now telling us that they are defending French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec who have a right to be heard. However, yesterday, when some French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec made comments which they did not appreciate, they said that these people did not have a right to speak on the issue and should mind their own business.
Have you noticed that those who talk about the Liberals singing two tunes are doing precisely that? Rather than allude to the two different tunes of the Bloc, it might be more appropriate to refer to the two faces of that party. Those who sing two tunes have two-you guessed it, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member opposite claims to be CBC's protector-and I am pleased to see that Bloc members support anything with the word Canadian in it-and accuses the government unfairly and unreasonably. Is he aware that us French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, at least where I come from, enjoy RDI, CBC's French-language network, la Chaîne française, and Quatre Saisons? Indeed, French-speaking Canadians from Ontario can listen to all these channels, in a united Canada.
The member opposite, who talks out of both sides of his mouth, wants to deprive us, French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, of these bilingual institutions which allow us to enjoy these cultural vehicles to which we are entitled. Why, on the one hand, does the member claim to protect CBC and French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec while, on the other hand, both he and his fellow Bloc members do their utmost to deprive us of what we have gained?
Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the comments made by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, especially when he said I could not make up my mind. He was critical of the fact that I was first a Conservative and that I am now a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Well sir, at least I have the courage-
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Order. In his previous comments, the hon. member for Richelieu seems to have been right about the other place, and I appreciate his comments, which show his experience, but at this point I must remind him to speak through the Chair.
Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC
Thank you for calling me back to order. I was going to say I was amazed when the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said I was someone who could not make up his mind. I changed parties but I did not change my way of thinking. The principles that led me into politics were no longer compatible with the principles of the party to which I belonged. The party had changed, and to remain true to my principles, I had the courage to cross the floor of the House and sit on this side, first as an independent member and subsequently as one of a group of eight members who formed a political party.
When the hon. member saw his party renege on its commitments regarding unemployment, renege on its commitments regarding agriculture, renege on its commitments to protect French culture in Canada by cutting 5 per cent of funding, renege on its commitments to maintaining the public service, renege on its commitments with respect to the CBC, did he have the courage to cross the floor and sit down on this side of the House, as I did in 1990 when the party I served failed to live up to my principles?
That is what I did, but the hon. member, according to an article in Le Droit , ``this lion in the opposition is now a mere mouse''. Indeed he is. That is my response.
Now if he really believes in the CBC, I also believe in the CBC's French network, but if he really believes-when he mentioned the RDI, I commented that some areas do not have it yet, but because there is a French network, because there is an
RDI, why would his department jeopardize their existence? That is what today's debate is all about.
Why would the government not guarantee funding? Why not guarantee funding for the CBC over a five-year period? That is what it is not doing and that is what we want it to do. We want the government to stop operating on the sly and to stop contradicting itself from one day to the next. That is what we want from the minister. Give us the facts, give us stable budgets, maintain what has been achieved by the French network, consider that the CBC's French network is more productive than the English network, provide the same funding for the news on French and English radio stations, provide the same funding for variety programs and for all sports programming.
What we want from the minister is a fair deal and the same guarantees he, his party and his prime minister promised the corporation during the election campaign and in the red book.
That is what we are asking today. Why does the hon. member who asked me a question not have the courage to say: "Yes, I did promise that, yes, we were supposed to do that and we will support the Bloc's motion to put pressure on the minister who no longer has a clue what his department is all about".
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville—Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, as important as the question of future funding levels of the CBC is, I feel that a more fundamental issue must also be addressed in the House today, namely, the importance of public broadcasting in Canada.
I intend to use this opportunity to remind my colleagues on both sides of the House about why we remain deeply and fundamentally committed to public broadcasting in Canada.
It is widely recognized that the CBC television services of tomorrow must necessarily play a much different role than the role they were intended to play over three decades ago. Today, Canadians enjoy a wider range of programming and services than ever before. Although these changes are significant, they are only a preview of what we can expect in the broadcasting industry in the future.
In recent months we have been the recipients of many new services through cable and as the hearings before the CRTC on convergence attest, much more is to come. Indeed it is legitimate for members to wonder when we hear so much about the so-called death stars and the 500 channel universe, what the role of the public broadcaster will be in this environment of increasing choices.
As surely as the CBC is a vital topic today, so it will be even a decade from now. True, the government has a historical position of supporting the CBC and of supporting Canadian culture. At a time when a virtual communications revolution is taking place, Canada needs more than ever a strong cultural identity. No single instrument is more vital to the development of that national identity than the CBC.
The corporation is the single most important employer of writers, actors, musicians, dancers, film makers, directors and many other talented, creative people who shape our vision of ourselves. Nowhere else on the television dial can one see the commitment to quality Canadian programming that one can see on both the English and French language networks of the CBC.
With two mainstream broadcast television networks, one French and one English, a television wing of the northern service and 24-hour all news cable service in both English and French, CBC television brings Canadians together. The CBC has the awards, both domestic and international to prove it.
In a country as vast as ours the CBC alone provides some remarkable services. In addition to the television services already mentioned, it operates four mainstream radio networks, AM and FM in French and English plus a northern service transmitting in many native languages, including Cree and Inuktitut to name but two. These are the only radio networks in Canada and they reach about 98 per cent of the population.
If one visits some of our more remote corners it is easy to understand how much it can mean to a librarian in Iqaluit, for example, to know that her sister in Chester, Nova Scotia and her father in Nanaimo, B.C. are all listening to "Morningside", are all sharing that common Canadian experience. It is that sense of connectedness that is the essence of public broadcasting today. It is this commonality of experience which we must be able to continue to share. We live in an era of increasing specialization but Canadians can obtain almost anything they want on demand.
The question is, are they sharing experiences the way they once did? Our ability to record what we want and to watch it later, almost any time, can make for very selective and singular, some would say isolating, interpretations of our identity. As our national public broadcaster, the CBC must be strong enough to produce the quality Canadian programming that Canadians want to watch, the kind of programming that provokes discussion the next day, the kind of programming that helps Canadians share experiences that make us Canadians.
The former chairman of the CBC, Patrick Watson, said it far better than I can when he addressed the Paul Nitze Centre of Advanced Studies at John Hopkins University in Maryland in
More than ever, if the particular kind of civil society that we have put our money on is going to survive, we are going to need a foundation to start from and return to, something like a media hearthstone, so that whenever we select one of the channels that belong to our own public broadcaster, it will be so clearly ours that Canadians will be able to say to themselves: "We are home".
After all, that is what good public broadcasting is about: providing a sense of home in a universe that is expanding all the time. It does not mean that the CBC can expect increased levels of public funding. To expect that in light of the fiscal situation the government is facing would be neither realistic nor responsible to the future generations who must pay our debts. Likewise, it does not mean that the CBC must perform exactly as it has in the past, for this too would be ignoring reality.
Times have changed and so have our tastes and our expectations. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has heard from many excellent witnesses about the importance of public broadcasting and about alternative ways of doing things. It is time for the government to take the next step, to review the legislated mandate parliamentarians have conferred on the CBC to ensure that we are not asking it to perform tasks which are no longer necessary, given the new services that are available to us or possible, given the resources available today. We must decide how best the CBC can enhance our feeling of connectedness as we enter the new millennium. I look forward to the upcoming announcement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in this regard.
In closing, I would be remiss if I did not salute the men and women who serve the CBC today and have done so in years past. Their enduring commitment to public broadcasting and public service are valued deeply by the government. As we endeavour to resolve the challenges facing the CBC in the days ahead, we will do our utmost to act with wisdom, diligence and respect for the cultural treasure they have so painstakingly created.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the member as she spoke about the responsibility of the CBC generating the quality of programming that Canadians want.
I was also interested that the hon. member is continuing with the age old idea the Liberals have had that if anything is good it is going to have to be created by the government, that there must be government intervention into the creation of the Canadian identity and that there must be government intervention into creating a feeling of connectedness. These are wonderful terms but at a cost of $1.1 billion, I wonder how connected Canadians really feel.
I wonder if the hon. member could help me understand this concept. We are spending this gargantuan amount of money to create the quality of programming Canadians want and at the same time, the number of viewers, particularly of English language television, is dropping through the floor. Does she really feel we are getting the kind of value for the taxpayer's dollar we should be if she is after quality of programming that Canadians want yet the CBC is dropping viewers by the bucketload?
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville—Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the opposition member's response to my remarks in the sense that I did speak strongly about the government's role in providing public broadcasting and the importance of public broadcasting.
Unlike the opposition member, I do not share his utmost faith in the marketplace delivering everything of value to all the citizens of this country. As a matter of fact, in this particular industry, that is broadcasting, while the private marketplace provides a service it has failed miserably to provide the kind of Canadian programming the CBC has managed to do in both official languages.
There is nothing preventing private broadcasters from creating more Canadian programming. However, particularly on English television, which he chooses to highlight, it is clear they can make a lot more money, according to the rules of the marketplace which they follow, by importing American sitcoms and simply rebroadcasting them.
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville—Milton, ON
No. Eighty per cent to 85 per cent of CBC's programming in prime time is Canadian programming. Just about the same percentage is American programming on the private networks.
By the latest figures released, we know the market does not help us to create a national vision of ourselves and does not help us tell our stories to each other. Therefore, I and this government still believe there is a role for government in the broadcast industry and in the creation, encouragement and evolution of Canadian culture for both francophones and anglophones in this country.
The member mentioned a gargantuan expenditure of money on the CBC. I guess that would depend on where one's values lie. Perhaps the member believes as I do that this country has a leading role to play in the development of a higher level of civilization in this world. We have not done a bad job of it having been named number one in the world by the United Nations. Perhaps the member values the things that Canadians
have valued over time, things like caring for each other, a sense of community, an abhorrence for useless war. If he did, he would not see the expenditure of money on the public broadcaster as gargantuan.
Some in this country would encourage us to spend more, believe it or not, and to reduce the gargantuan expenditure of money for example on our military. To some that is an obscene expenditure of money. They think the creation of arts and culture, which makes for a more highly civilized nation, is a valuable expenditure of money. I guess it all depends on one's viewpoint as to value for dollars spent.
This nation wishes to retain its identity, to hold on to the things that make us different from our friends to the south. They are our friends but we do not want to imitate them, their social structures, or their social problems for sure. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we strengthen our identity as Canadians.
It is necessary that we know who we are and that our children know who they are and that they are different. They are not English as the English in England. They are not French as the French in France. They are not North Americans as those citizens in the United States. They are different and they are special. We are poised between Europe and the United States as our main cultural influences. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we take strong measures as the representatives of the people in this government to ensure that the public broadcaster continues to play a strong role, a publicly funded role, in helping us to determine the vision of ourselves today and a better one for the future.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her presentation and for clarifying her position and her replies. It is very gratifying to realize that on the Canadian heritage committee, we have a member across the way whose position is not that far from the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the need to defend public broadcasting, the CBC-SRC as we have known it, with whatever adjustments will be necessary because of changing technologies.
I have a comment and a question. What separates us is the concept of Canadian identity. This is a recent invention. There is not just one Canadian identity. There are two Canadian identities, two founding peoples here. More than two, if we include all our First Nations. In this bilingual country, which is French speaking and English speaking, there are two national identities and two cultures, which is reflected in our television programming. So that is what separates us, and nothing is going to change that. That is why we want to leave. We want to leave you with your Canadian identity and assume our Quebec identity. Those are all fundamental reasons, because we will never buy this Canadian identity concept.
That being said, I wonder whether the hon. member- Mr. Cauchon, let me say what I have to say.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
There is a time and a place for such conversations, but meanwhile, I would appreciate it if hon. members would speak through the Chair. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
You are right, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for calling me to order. I would also ask the hon. member for Outremont to speak through you.
This is what I wanted to ask the hon. member. Does she see public broadcasting as based on the system we know today, as an entity that will eventually absorb new technologies, or does she see a PBS style network?
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville—Milton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think from the committee my colleagues opposite know I am never going to be satisfied with a PBS style public broadcaster.
I find it appalling that at regular occasions what are probably fine upstanding citizens have to stand up with a tin cup and beg for donations. I find it appalling that our neighbour to the south does not value the PBS programs, which indeed many of us and many of its own citizens enjoy, sufficiently to fund it without having the tin cup approach. I would certainly fight against that to the death. You can count on it.
I cannot let the hon member's comments go unchallenged from the point of view of the identity issue. My colleague says there is no single Canadian identity but rather, there is a francophone one, an anglophone one, and an aboriginal one. She says that is why she wants to leave.
The thing is, the government does not want to allow that to happen because when my colleague says they want to leave, she is referring to those of her people with a francophone identity who live within the confines of the province of Quebec, which after all is only a geographic designation.
There are many other Canadians who see themselves with a francophone identity and live outside the borders of Quebec. I ask my colleague why she would want to abandon those who share her sense of identity by leaving them and creating a new country from which they would be excluded.
I have just one other point. The fact is that all identities and all nations evolve and emerge with time. While we all have the identity of our roots, there is such a wonderful opportunity here for me to try to understand my colleague's identity, the identity of her birth and for her to try to understand mine and for all of us together to try to understand the identity of the aboriginal people and indeed of our newcomers. It is as we understand each other that perhaps that search for understanding becomes the foundation of what is truly a Canadian identity for all of us.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member preceding me commented on identity saying that our identity in Quebec was simply a matter of geography. I think other factors have to be taken into consideration. It must be remembered that we are the people who arrived from Europe first bringing a French culture to America, with Quebec as its focus.
There was also a French America in North America as a whole. The first French to arrive in Quebec, the ones who settled in Canada, followed the Mississippi, reaching as far as Louisiana and the Rockies.
If, today, the number of francophones in Canada is less than what is was 125 or 130 years ago, it is perhaps more because they were denied the right to be educated in their own language and to grow in their own language. This happened in Manitoba and Alberta, among other places, at the end of the 19th century. Had they enjoyed this right, Canada could have become a truly bilingual country. We could have avoided the present situation in which we discover two completely different realities. We could live as neighbours in harmony. The only way, in our opinion, is for us to opt for sovereignty and for Canada to find a way to deal with its American neighbours.
Did the hon. member in her presentation not limit our identity by making it a matter of geography, in a very restrictive and rather embarrassing way for Quebecers, when we are in fact as much a part of Canada's history as the anglophones and the aboriginal peoples? Is this not limiting us to very little and admitting that the Liberal Party's knowledge of Canada is limited to the image handed to it, particularly by the picture the Prime Minister can paint of it?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The period for questions and comments is over. At 3.40 p.m. the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup began his speech for a maximum of 20 minutes.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
I am sorry, I got confused in my presentation.
I will now go back to the motion presented by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. It reads as follows:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decision concerning funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for the next three years, thus causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.
This motion got my attention and my support right from the start for various reasons. First of all, it clearly identifies the Minister of Canadian Heritage as being responsible for the very ambiguous situation the CBC-SRC is in at the present time, which affects both its listeners and employees. There is great uncertainty regarding the future role of the corporation and the Minister of Canadian Heritage is to be blamed for it.
The minister's attitude discredits any expertise that might have developed within the Canadian public service and the CBC-SRC. It also discredits the function of the minister since we have repeatedly and systematically been told by the president who resigned, Mr. Manera, and by the vice-president, Mrs. Fortin, that there will be significant and drastic cuts at the CBC-SRC. These statements were not made on the sly. Mrs. Fortin held a two hour televised teleconference which was broadcasted across the country, during which she explained the impact of the cuts to all the services of Radio-Canada. One of her listeners said that Mrs. Fortin had shared her anguish and feelings of powerlessness with her audience. She said she did not know what the future holds for the French network of the CBC.
Therefore, following this evaluation by an employee which reflects the feelings of people following this presentation, the official opposition asked the minister to tell us what the impact of the cuts would be. The only answer we got was that no cuts were planned when, in fact, documents available from the CBC show that a program of cuts is in the works. They mention cuts of $44 million for 1995-96, more than $96 million for 1996-97 and $165 million for 1997-98.
Such cuts are already part of the CBC's future and it must plan its actions accordingly. When dealing with television or radio production, decisions must be made months in advance to determine which serials will be shown in the years ahead and what will be the direction followed by the corporation. The vagueness of the minister and the lingering uncertainty he is fostering are doing tremendous damage to the future of the corporation.
Why did the official opposition consider important to draw the attention of the House on this subject on a designated day? It is because we realized that, after all is said and done-and there is a lesson to be drawn here for both networks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-because of the quality of programming, because of the way Radio-Canada has managed to identify with Quebec, there is during prime time about 87 per cent of Canadian programming and only 13 per cent of foreign programming. Its impact was that TVA, a private network, followed suit and used a mix of 73 per cent Canadian and 27 per cent foreign programming. TQS made sure it had 65 per cent Canadian content. We realize that Radio-Canada really has the power to promote Canada's and Quebec's culture because of the content of the programs it airs and makes known.
The English network is much less able to do this because it does not capture as much of its potential audience and, for example, networks like Global carry 80 per cent foreign content during the same time slot, from 7 to 11 nightly. Pay television carries 94 per cent foreign content. The CTV network, which is
in some ways an overblown take-off from TVA, carries 75 per cent foreign content. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the audiences' perceptions, which Radio-Canada has been able to use to develop a complicity with its audience and to ensure the propagation of the country's culture in a way that the English network has not necessarily been able to do.
Some may believe that higher budgets made it possible to obtain these results. The opposite is true. If we look at the spread in production costs, the average amount allocated per hour of programming at the Société Radio-Canada is $18,390; at the CBC, the amount is $37,496. The average cost of one hour of news on Radio-Canada is $7,000; on CBC, the same thing costs $18,000. The average cost of one hour of French variety shows is $30,000; in English, it is $141,000. Therefore, we cannot attribute Radio-Canada's success in capturing a bigger audience and in propagating Canadian culture to its budget. There are other reasons.
If we stubbornly continue to cut the CBC's French-language network, this will eventually have a direct impact on the quantity and quality of production. We are no longer cutting fat and looking for surpluses. This will have a direct impact on production and, among other things, on the ways we collaborate with the cultural community.
In the past, the French network often contributed to the dissemination of all art forms by giving contracts for concerts, dance performances and other cultural activities. In the future however-as was announced at Mrs. Fortin's press conferences-spending cuts will have a negative effect on cultural production and the potential for adequate cultural dissemination. The CBC's French-language network is being unfairly penalized, since cutting 25 cents out of every dollar does not have the same effect as cutting 35 or 50 cents from $4 or $5. The cuts will have a much more detrimental impact on the French-language network. In this regard, I think it is important for the House, which is preoccupied with sound budget management, to ensure that the cuts are fair.
The cuts currently planned at the CBC do not reflect a commitment to the fair distribution of public funds. The first person responsible for this misinformation is the minister himself because, by refusing to give us the real figures, he is adding to the insecurity of CBC employees and of all those who want this network to continue providing in the future the type of collaboration for cultural dissemination that it used to offer in the past.
Mrs. Fortin also said during the closed circuit TV program in which she explained the impact of the cuts that national television would never be the same, because there will indeed be major consequences for francophones in all Canadian provinces. CBC's French-language network is somewhat like an umbilical cord linking all French-speaking Canadians to the national production made in Quebec, while also allowing the broadcast of regional productions.
During consultations on the social program review, I travelled across the country last year and I can tell you that, in several regions, the French network only has the bare minimum to survive. The decisions to be made regarding CBC's French-language network could have the effect of depriving, in a significant way, access to information in French for part of Canada, and that could go two ways, in the sense that, for example, French-speaking people in Vancouver, Edmonton or Charlottetown would neither have access to information from Quebec, nor be able to familiarize the rest of Canada with their reality.
The cuts will result in a less varied and more limited programming for these people, given the drastically reduced budget of the corporation. Choices will have to be made and the whole French-speaking community outside Quebec may end up paying the price, possibly even more so than the majority in Quebec.
Mr. Manera resigned from CBC because the commitments made to him when he joined the corporation were not adhered to. After the public announcement of cuts by the vice-president of CBC's French-language network, and after the minister's claims that he is not sure whether cuts will be made, the employees of these networks are even more disheartened.
I much prefer the attitude of Mrs. Fortin, who says they will sit down together and see if they can still make interesting things in spite of the cuts to be made, to that of the minister, who refuses to provide the exact numbers. Indeed, Mrs. Fortin seems much more aware of the needs of the corporation's employees, that is those who ensure the daily production.
What can we do to ensure that, in the future, CBC's French-language network can continue to fulfill its mandate without being adversely affected to the point where it would no longer be able to provide the same quality programming for the Canadian public? I think the minister should provide the accurate figures regarding the cuts to be made and then ask employees of the corporation, those who work there, to tell him where these cuts could be made and what their impact will be.
For example, I was told that, each year, or on a regular basis, CBC must spend $15 million to get CRTC's approval for its programming. Considering the anticipated cuts-we are talking $45 million for the first year, 1995-1996-$15 million could significantly help reduce the impact of such cuts.
People might be willing to make cuts at corporate headquarters because, as is the case with other organizations, it is obvious that in the different branches, different service points of the CBC, staff is already at the minimum required to ensure adequate production and adequate coverage of information, whether it be in the cultural or other sectors.
Would it not be possible for the corporation to make a special effort at headquarters? Could we not, as a result, possibly delay the effect the cuts might have on production in the short term? I think that these are avenues that could be studied in the future. Maybe we could ask the minister to consider these suggestions. And let us remember that this is happening in a context where the federal government is saying that francophone minorities in Canada are important to it. They want to make sure that they receive quality services. They want the French fact to be alive and well everywhere in Canada. On the other side of the House, and on this point I concur with the hon. member for Richelieu who spoke before me, they sing two different tunes. There is one for the election campaign, the election platform, and another, which is the reality that the Liberal Party is promoting as a government.
If we take away from the French communities of Canada the possibility of expressing who they are, we are going to widen the gap between elements to a point which will not leave the French fact in Canada enough vigour to survive. By taking even more from them we would be like depriving them of oxygen. I think that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is in a way responsible for culture in Canada, should ask himself very serious questions before taking such action.
We have the feeling that, after telling us during the first weeks following the election that he was a good friend of the CBC and would ensure that the corporation had all the resources needed to develop, the minister became a lackey to the finance minister whose job is to cut expenditures.
His inability to properly defend culture in Canada and his narrow vision which encompasses only one Canadian culture are enough to convince him that we do not necessarily need two healthy television networks and that we could cut the oxygen supply to one of them so that we would only have one Canadian identity. We could come back to the bilingual television network we had in the beginning, but that would not reflect the reality in our country.
I think it is important for this House to consider the motion before us today and to ensure, first of all, that the minister clearly indicates where the cuts will be made-what seems to me like a responsible thing to do-and second, that no cuts will be made in areas that could hurt production and the delivery of adequate services to Quebecers and Canadians alike.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Is culture in Quebec so fragile that it takes Radio-Canada to keep the culture together? I suggest the culture has not been built by a radio or television station or network. The culture has been built by centuries of people working, playing and living together.
After all those centuries is the culture so fragile that we need a government owned television and radio network to sustain it? That seems absurd to me. I would like the member to respond to the question.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, there are more than two oceans in Canada. There is also an ocean of difference between the hon. member's position and my own. I am starting to understand some of the identity problems of English Canada. If a member of this House considers that culture is not transmitted by the media, by radio and television and the information highway and the rest, all the different ways we communicate, I am beginning to understand why some people have trouble distinguishing the border between Canada and the United States.
What I have just heard gives me the impression that they could live anywhere on this planet, that being Canadian or American is the same thing. And I realize why they are so afraid we will leave. They think that after we have left, the Canadian identity will cease to exist.
Before the advent of the printed media and the electronic media, culture was transmitted orally. A people was distinctive in terms of its artistic endeavours, its inventions, its scientific progress and its trading traditions. These are the elements that together represent the culture of a people.
Media like the CBC, both the French and the English networks, use images to show us the country we live in and the people who live there with us. Wanting these media to survive and produce quality programs does not mean our culture is fragile. It proves the importance of communicating that the culture.
That is why, for instance, we have networks like TV5 that group francophone television channels from all over the world. The English networks do the same. I think it is important to realize that in the global village of the future, in the world of tomorrow, networks like the CBC are the tools of the future. Wanting to maintain the CBC does not mean our culture is fragile. It means ensuring that it has a future and that it can take its rightful place, in Quebec or in Canada, depending on what Quebecers decide.
Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the government has decided to axe the CBC. We are told that cuts of about $375 million will be made over the next few years.
The minister also seems unwilling to disclose these cuts, but we do not know why. That is the question that we are asking ourselves today.
As a member of Parliament who is promoting the sovereignty of Quebec, and seeing that the current government is axing the CBC, I ask myself this question: Would it be preferable for the government to simply privatize the CBC, so that the money saved could be used to reduce taxes in Quebec and to allow the government of Quebec to support Radio-Québec? Radio-Québec could then respond to the needs of Quebecers the same way as the CBC has done it before, since it will not be able to do so in the future.
What does the hon. member think of this suggestion?
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is strictly a question of privatizing the national network. In Quebec and Canada, there is the issue of production. For example, in order to ensure an adequate coverage and the broadcasting of programs reflecting what we really are, it was decided long ago in Quebec that we would create Radio-Québec. Because Quebecers had worked for the CBC, they also wanted to be involved in a television which would picture Quebec adequately in the future. That probably brought about much higher expenses than what should have been.
The solution probably lies in better defined jurisdictions. It should be clear who is responsible for an area, who will have the power to levy taxes and who will have the spending power. Someone should have the authority to sign international treaties, on networks like TV5 for example, in order that we may be sure the money is really spent on production and not on some competition which is not always appropriate and which causes useless expenditures and squandering.
Today, we refuse to question the principle of the existence of the CBC, but we are cutting its air supply at the source. Well, why not try to seek the solution elsewhere? Perhaps we should first understand that there are two cultures in Canada and that each of them must have the adequate tools to ensure its own development.
It is also easy to see the ripple effect of the CBC on the quality of programs and on the fact that the French network airs many more Quebec content programs during prime time hours. These programs promote what we are and, for various reasons, they are quite superior to whatever is shown on the English network. Therefore, we can be proud of the results, at least on the Quebec side.
Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to read the motion introduced by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata and I can say that I was not surprised at all.
Members across the aisle have a philosophy which is behind all the actions of their party. I have said and I repeat that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are not in this House to defend the interest of Canadians and Quebecers. They are here for one reason only, their own interest, which is the separation of Quebec at any cost.
Once this leitmotiv and this philosophy are understood, it is not surprising to see motions like the one we now have before us. Why such a motion? It is simple. It is because the CBC has for many years promoted the Canadian identity and our culture and it has promoted what we are. The CBC has played a role in our unity and in the development of the French fact in Canada, not only in Quebec but also outside Quebec, because there are indeed francophones outside Quebec, a reality that very much frightens the Bloc Quebecois. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that kind of motion which is an attempt to adversely affect the CBC, this national monument and institution of which I am extremely proud.
Indeed, we are in a period of fiscal austerity. The federal government is in a period of fiscal austerity and so are the provinces. The Minister of Finance's budget, and may I remind you that this budget has been tremendously well received by all Canadians, which proves that this government is a responsible government, has lightly touched the budget of the CBC in an effort on the part of the minister to put some order in the government's fiscal house.
There is some bad faith on the other side of this House. I think that this budget indicates clearly the intentions of this government regarding the CBC that we want to preserve. There was a small reduction in the budget. As you know, the budget of the CBC is in excess of $1.1 billion. There is a budget reduction for 1995-96. What we are saying is that we want to go ahead with a reform of the CBC that will take into account the evolution of Canadian society, of our political context and of our country as a whole.
When we talk about reform, we always talk about changing the institutions so that they can evolve at the same pace as the rest of our society. That is what we intend to do with the CBC.
It is not in the interests of the official opposition that we go ahead with our reforms. Their sole objective is to show that the system does not work so that they can eventually bring about the separation of Quebec. They create a very destructive climate that unfortunately serves no one's interests.
When we were elected to form a new government, we said that we would proceed with major reforms. Such reforms can be implemented if everybody works together and pulls in the same direction. However, that is not good enough for the official opposition. Of course, they take their orders from their party's head office in Quebec City and since their party is in power in Quebec, the orders are not to co-operate with the federal government. They are afraid that co-operation could lead to a solution to the present situation and to a slide toward Canadian
federalism which would be in the best interests of all the provinces and in line with the Canadian reality.
Quite the contrary, they chose to withdraw from the process, unfortunately. The head office, the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City, has unfortunately done so in many areas, such as the environment. In that area, they have withdrawn from a Canada-wide consultation committee-Quebecers should know these facts-a committee set up to fine tune the relationships between provincial governments, to fine tune Canadian federalism and to make Canada grow and also, by the same token, to make Quebec grow.
Those are the actions taken by these people who want to go backward instead of moving forward. You know, when we say we want to go ahead with reforms, and also to strive to create a better system, this is possible. The Minister of Finance demonstrated that in his budget.
Let us consider, for example, the issue of social program reform. How many provinces asked us, in the area of social programs, for some decentralization in order for them to gain more autonomy and to be able to shape programs, to a greater degree, according to local, regional and provincial realities? It was nearly a unanimous request.
When we look at the finance minister's budget, we find a positive answer. We see that there is some decentralization and that we created a new Canadian social transfer, a transfer that gives provinces more autonomy and that invites provinces to sit down with the federal government and develop national standards that would apply coast to coast.
That is what Canadian federalism, an evolving federalism, is all about. That is the new political reality. It is a reality that requires politicians throughout Canada to work together in co-operation. But those people do not want to function, they do not want to move forward.
Instead of spending their energy on improving Quebec's position within the Canadian federation, they choose to waste public funds. That is something. In 1995, instead of trying to get the public finance in order, instead of trying to take measures so that Quebec can still have a place within the federation-an enviable place, an important one-and be influential internationally, the newly elected government in Quebec simply tries to achieve one goal, separation, and to do so, it uses public funds and wastes them shamefully.
The regional commissions on the future of Quebec are a good example of that kind of waste of public funds. They represent not only a loss of money, but also an incredible loss of time. I can assure you that I am a true Quebecer and that when I see members opposite do what they are doing now, I know deep in my heart that we are not making any progress with them. They have a negative vision of things.
Canadian federalism did contribute to the development of the French language in Canada and to the development of the French-speaking people living outside Quebec. And the federal government will keep on doing so, it will keep on improving Canadian federalism.
And that is not all. Not only does Canada permit the francophone community within its walls to reach out, but, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned, Canada is also involved in the international francophone community and enables the francophone face of Canada to shine internationally.
We do it and we do it alongside the Province of Quebec, since the Province of Quebec sits at the table of the international francophone community at the invitation of the federal government. We are so successful at this that we recently established TV5 with other francophone countries. Is there any finer international success than TV5? Is there any finer success for the francophone community than TV5? Therefore federal government actions shine forth not only nationally but internationally.
In closing, I would like to say that, if we work hand in hand, we could protect our invaluable CBC and, doing so, could also enable it to provide the same services in the future it has provided in the past. These services have enabled the French language to shine forth and allowed Canada to express its linguistic and cultural duality not only coast to coast, but around the world.
In conclusion, I would point out that we do not have to listen to anyone who is not working constructively and who is bent on destroying the country. We also do not have to listen to anyone who, when it comes time to act in their own bailiwick, does something far worse than we can do. Take, for example, the issue of Radio-Québec. To go back to the beginning, for all of these reasons, you will see that the hon. member's motion was predictable when we look at the principles underlying their political actions, and I find it quite unfortunate that they take nobody's interests into consideration. The only interest they serve is their own, and their interest is to see the day Quebec separates. If we work together, let me tell you because I have travelled in the province of Quebec many times, we can give Quebecers what they want, a progressive and constructive society.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be here a long time if I say everything I have to say about what was just said. In any case, I probably will use up the five minutes I have at my disposal. On to my reply.
He says that there is a philosophy behind each of our actions. So much the better. This is what gives us depth and allows us to think articulately. I just heard a bunch of unrelated comments on
various issues, but almost nothing about my motion. He seized the opportunity to talk about everything and anything.
Francophones outside of Quebec, of course we know they exist. We have reminded the House of their existence since we were elected. The Liberals forgot about them for the nine years they were the opposition. They forgot about Quebecers. They forgot about Francophones outside of Quebec. They did not even speak French in the House anymore. It was us who put French back on the map. We were the ones who built it up again, not the hon. member for Outremont, not the Liberals opposite who forgot about French for nine years. They have nothing on us when it comes to this issue.
He did not realize that the budget cuts Radio-Canada's funding by $679 million over three years. He did not even read the whole thing through. That is only for the Department of Canadian Heritage, and half of it would have gone to the CBC. The member accuses us of acting in bad faith. He talks about a reform. We have nothing against progress. I believe that everyone should have access to the information highway. But in the meantime, can we continue to walk on a gravel road? Can we keep our television? The member also said that if we all worked together, and went in the same direction-this is beginning to sound like the ewe the minister spoke of the other day.
On a more serious note, he says that the CBC reflects a Canadian reality. This may be true for the English-language network, but the French-language network reflects the Quebec reality. Just ask Mrs. Fortin who, when she appeared before the heritage committee, was told to try to better reflect the Canadian French-speaking reality. For example, with adequate funding, CBC's French-language network could produce soaps from the Prairies.
The member referred to the head office. He said that we work for the head office, or as some would say, the mother house. I was brought up by nuns and I have no problem with the concept of mother house. In the context of multinational corporations, we often refer to head offices. But what do they do with their subsidiaries, with Michel Bélanger, Daniel Johnson and Stéphane Dion? This is no better. It is exactly the same thing. The head office in this instance is Power Corporation.
The member also referred to what he called-hear me out, I want to get this right-the NCST, the new Canada social transfer. I hope this will not turn out to be what we anticipate. The member alluded to the costs incurred by the commissions. He said the exercise was a waste of time. To respect democracy and consult people is now a waste of money. This is preposterous. How much is spent on Canadian unity? Two hundred dollars a day for each of the spies in each of the commissions. You can figure out the total, Mr. Speaker.
The member crows about the international Francophonie, which is in fact the result of the efforts of the leader of the opposition when he was Canada's ambassador to France, as well as then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and then Quebec Premier Pierre-Marc Johnson. These three true Quebecers cared about the future of Francophonie, not about seeing French-speaking Canadians disappear through assimilation.
Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize I had annoyed the hon. member so much. We will return to a situation of calm and talk about serious things, that is, the CBC.
I will be brief. When they say there is a philosophy behind their thinking, which gives them vision, it is unfortunate that this vision is not shared by anyone in Quebec, because they see things only one way and that is from the standpoint of separation, which I find unfortunate.
She talks of the hearings of the regional commissions, but we could say a few things on the subject. All that they have done is prove the vision of the present federal government right. People told the opposition member's head office that they wanted attention to be paid to the debt and to the deficit, that they wanted attention to be given to the issue of job creation and that they wanted attention to be paid to economic development.
How is it that only the hon. members opposite have failed to understand? For the past year and a half we have been busy organizing public finances and reforming government machinery, and I must add, successfully. The latest budget of the Minister of Finance is remarkable.
In opposition, they refuse to hear what the people are saying. It is quite simple, however. They have to let go of something that dates from bygone days, from the 1960s. Quebec has changed.
Quebec now has its own instruments of economic development. Quebec is a Canadian power, which now is felt worldwide. These people are acting as if we were still in the 1960s. They are reacting as if they had been colonized. I do not feel they are part of my generation.
In conclusion, I am proud to be a Quebecer. I have no complex. I am proud to belong to the big Canadian family and to go forth together with these people.