Debates of April 30th, 2003

Family Supplement

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise today an issue of the utmost importance for my riding, highway 35.

I am raising this issue again because, not too long ago, the minister gave me an answer that was not quite in favour of this highway and that did not really reflect the facts.

In response to my question regarding the possibility of using money from the Border Infrastructure Fund—which, as members know, was created in 2002—to complete highway 35, the minister said, and I quote:

—Quebec still has not signed the agreement on provincial bridges and roads, unlike the other provinces. We are willing to sign the agreement and to consider investing in any highway.

First, I would like to clarify one thing in this regard. I want to remind the minister that Ontario has not signed the agreement either. The agreement on provincial bridges and roads deals with the national highway system, or NHS, and I suppose that the minister is referring to that as well. I just wanted to tell him that Ontario has not signed that agreement and was still able to have projects funded.

The same is true of highway 30. Quebec has yet to sign the program for the NHS, the national highway system, and yet it received federal funds.

First, I want to say that Quebec submitted its priorities in terms of highways during negotiations with Ottawa. It even forwarded the five protocols for each of these highways to the federal Minister of Transport.

What is unusual about highway 35 is that it is somewhat separate from the issue of the national highway system. The government created a $600 million program in 2002 to promote projects known as border networks or infrastructure. It was to work on Canada-U.S. border crossings, for example. At the time, the government said that highways would also qualify for the funding.

We have always contended that this program could fully apply to highway 35 for the simple reason that it starts at a border crossing at Philipsburg and goes to interstate 89, which goes to Boston.

We submitted this to the government and I wrote several times about it. When municipal politicians from Brome—Missisquoi and Saint -Jean were here, I asked the question and the minister gave me an inadequate answer.

I would like to remind the House that the program set aside $600 million, and of this amount, 50% was allocated to the Windsor crossing. Three hundred million dollars have already been invested in Windsor. It is important that Quebec get its share. I think the geography in this case makes highway 35 eligible for this program.

This involves issues of economic growth for the areas of Saint-Jean and Brome—Missisquoi. It also involves issues of highway safety because there is no boulevard for 20 kilometres leading to the divided highway. It passes through towns. There is a great deal of farming too, and many farmers use the road. So there are certain dangers.

I think the government should make the necessary efforts to allow highway 35 to be completed, for reasons of safety and also for economic reasons, as I mentioned. I invite the government to contribute its half of the funding, and allocate $90 million of the $180 million in total needed for construction.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his very relevant question and some of his comments. There are others I will have to correct.

I am answering the question of the hon. member for Saint-Jean on the funding of highway 35, in Quebec.

In Canada, except for national park highways, highways are under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, including the Trans-Canada Highway and highways that are part of the national highway system. However, let me assure you that the Government of Canada is concerned with the state and safety of the national highway system, as well as with its ability to deal with the increased traffic volume.

It is for these very reasons that, for the last 80 years, the Canadian government has funded several shared cost projects for the provincial-territorial highway system. Since 1993, Transport Canada a contributed over $1.6 billion to highway projects in Canada and $220 million in Quebec.

In the February 2000 budget, the federal government announced an investment of $2.65 billion in the infrastructure program, including $600 million into the strategic highway infrastructure program.

Transport Canada is responsible for this program, which allocated $500 million for highways, $70 million for border crossings and $30 million to set up smart transportation systems. Quebec's share of the highway funding is $108.5 million.

There are ongoing discussions with Quebec to reach an agreement on the road projects that will be funded with Quebec's $108.5 million. Highway 35 is part of the national highway system and is therefore eligible for funding under this program. Unfortunately, Quebec has yet to sign the highway program agreement.

I also want to say that on July 2, 2002, the Minister of Transport signed a $29.5 million agreement with Quebec to repair highway 15 and the Lacolle border crossing with border infrastructure funds from the strategic highway infrastructure program.

Furthermore, on August 9, 2002, the Minister of Industry and minister responsible for infrastructure made public the parameters of the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund for $2 billion and $600 million for the border infrastructure fund announced in the 2001 budget. These moneys will help fund the major infrastructure projects with the provinces, territories, municipalities and the private sector.

In closing, I want to say that, on August 22, 2002, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec announced funding of $525 million to widen higway 175 between Quebec City and the Saguenay to four lanes. As I said previously, highway 35 is part of the national highway system and is therefore eligible for funding under these two new programs.

The Minister of Transport is closely collaborating with his colleague, the Minister of Infrastructure, and with Quebec to identify other transportation projects eligible for funding under these two infrastructure programs.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have noted what my hon. friend just said. I would simply like to tell him that it may be true that Quebec has not signed, but as far as I know, Ontario has not signed either. And yet Ontario benefits from it. I think that it is important that there be some equity among Canada's regions.

If, out of the $600 million border infrastructure fund, $300 million has already been allocated to Windsor, it seems to me that Quebec ought to have its share as well. That is what we are saying.

We need $90 million of the $600 million in this fund in order to complete our highway. We believe we are eligible for this program. We believe that the government should make an effort to improve the quality of life in the Upper Richelieu, to improve economic development and safety. I am still asking the federal government to do its part. Quebec is ready now; its 50% share is on the table. Now we are waiting for Ottawa.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I would like to point out to my colleague. He accepts the fact that Quebec has not signed this agreement. But he wants to go beyond that. I would like to remind him that, unless this agreement is signed, it becomes very difficult for the government to act within this agreement.

However, as we all know—and my colleague knows it very well—a new government was elected in Quebec last week. I think that the newly elected Liberal Party of Quebec intends to deal more openly with the Government of Canada. I therefore hope that we will be able to complete and sign these agreements in the very near future, and move ahead with projects designed to improve the road system in Quebec.

I certainly hope that highway 35 will be considered, and at the same time, I would like the government to include in the national highway system highway 50 in my region.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising in the adjournment debate this evening is that I repeatedly put questions to the Minister for Canadian Heritage but never got a satisfactory answer.

Today again I asked her what she intends to do to remedy the situation, yet she failed to make any real commitment. Tomorrow perhaps, with the Minister of Finance, she may announce the various measures that will be taken to set things straight.

The television production industry is going through a crisis, because the government announced in its last budget $25 million in cuts. If we substract $25 million from the $100 million allocated, this leaves $75 million in funding, and this measure applies not only to the current year but also to the following one. Broadcasting will therefore undergo cuts two years in a row.

Again today, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was unable to be specific about how she intended to deal with the situation. While she has said that an announcement will be made on Thursday by her colleague, the Minister of Finance, and herself to make up for this loss, the crisis shows how the Minister of Canadian Heritage has failed to defend the funding with the Minister of Finance. Given how little he cares for culture, it is no wonder that $25 million was cut in the Canadian television fund budget.

This is a fund that was established in 1997, specifically to support television production in Quebec and Canada. We have been told that several private partners, as well as the federal government, provide funding for television production.

To give an idea of what this fund is all about, in 1996-97, Canadian Heritage contributed $100 million, while satellite broadcasting companies contributed $48 million and Telefilm Canada, $45 million, for a total of $193 million, or nearly $200 million.

Afterwards, satellite broadcasters contributed more to the fund as the number of subscribers went up. It is prorated to the number of subscribers. The share of satellite broadcasters has nearly doubled.

In 2002-03, there were $260 million in the fund. In 2003-04, the fund was cut not by $25 million but by $25 million plus a further $4 million, as the CRTC established new rules for cable operators that were supposed to contribute to the Canadian television fund a certain percentage of their revenues, namely 4%.

But now the CRTC has asked cable operators to put all this money into community television networks because they are managing them. So the fund is now short $30 million.

These cuts hurt a lot. They are unjustified. Who is paying the price of these cuts? Both greater Montreal and the regions. The regions were getting $2.1 million of the $76 million earmarked for TV production in Quebec. This means that this year there will be no money for TV production in the regions.

The government is sending a confusing message. It says TV production must increase so we can have Canadian content, and I would also say Quebec content, but as a result of these cuts there will be less Canadian content on our various networks.

That has hurt artists a lot. It means hundreds of hours less of work for artists. Jobs will disappear. People in this field have every right to be worried. I met with these workers several times during the past few weeks.

I asked these questions several weeks ago. The Canadian heritage minister said Liberal members had been lobbying her, but I must say that, as the critic for Canadian heritage, I have been doing my job and I have urged the minister to act as quickly as possible in this file.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member for Québec. I am standing in for the parliamentary secretary at a moment's notice to answer the question, and, unfortunately, I realize that the question comes from the member for Québec, but that all my notes are in English. I will ask my colleague to be patient and understanding because I will answer her question in French. I believe that francophones from Quebec should speak French to each other.

I am pleased to answer the question asked by my colleague on the issue of the importance of Canadian stories, events and themes that are shown on television, which is one of Canada's favourite pastimes.

The Canadian government has a remarkable record in supporting our Canadian television programs. One great moment occurred in 1996 when the government created the Canadian television fund, a joint initiative of the private and public sectors which provides $200 million every year for productions.

This fund has been sufficiently generous to be able to create considerable impact on prime time programming. Since then, in excess of 2,600 projects have received financial assistance from the fund. That translates into some 13,700 hours of good TV, good Canadian programming, with production budgets in excess of $4.1 billion.

Whether documentaries, children's programs, arts and entertainment, English, French or aboriginal programs, in all parts of the country this programming is in prime time, that is the time when Canadians like to watch good TV.

The Canadian television fund is one of our government's success stories. Is supports and reflects what is good about Canada to the people of Canada.

I see time is passing quickly, but I must remind my colleague that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already stated this week that she is working with the Minister of Finance to review the situation and try to settle the immediate or short term problems relating to this fund.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage has said this week, and I repeat, the Minister of Finance and herself are working closely together cto find solutions to this problem.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some say that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is working, but I would have liked to see her working before there was an outcry in the cultural and television sector.

When I asked her my initial questions, the heritage minister did not seem to understand the problem, because she said that there was enough money in the fund and that we would be fully able to respond to the needs.

What made the minister act was the pressure here in the House and on those who work in television. The minister is campaigning in the Liberal leadership race along with the Finance Minister and they are both well aware that it would have a very negative impact on their campaign if they did not give their approval to this proposal.

The amount of $25 million which the minister will announce tomorrow is not enough. We will have to continue the fight year after year because we are living in a small market. Therefore, profits are not large enough to allow for a television production pool which would meet the needs of broadcasters, who need a sound, viable and competitive product.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the hon. member for Québec that representations have been made. I am aware of several representations made on this side of the House by my colleagues from Quebec and by our colleagues in the Senate.

Indeed, the Canadian heritage minister and the finance minister are examining this situation very closely. It would seem that my colleague already knows what will be announced tomorrow. I will not try to guess what is in the offing, but I am confident that both ministers will examine the situation thoroughly to come up with a solution.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)