Debates of Nov. 15th, 2004

Criminal Code

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support Bill C-16. Although there are some aspects of it that concern me and to which I will refer, on the whole it is a bill that is long overdue.

Probably all of us have been affected either directly or indirectly by impaired driving. I would like to think that no hon. members who serve in the House have done it, but I am not naive enough to think that is true. I would like to hope that none of us have taken that dreaded phone call that tells us a family member or a friend or the child of a friend has had his or her life cut short because of a driver impaired by alcohol or drugs. I am not unrealistic enough to think that is true either.

A Quebec study found that more than 30% of fatal accidents in that province involved drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. I have no reason to think that it is any different in my province.

Every day innocent lives are lost. I was reminded of that almost daily when I drove to my office in Mission and saw a roadside memorial to a vibrant, gifted young lady of 18 who was the victim of an impaired driver. Her twin sister, her family and our whole community have changed and will never be quite the same.

As legislators do we not have a moral obligation to do all that we can to address this scourge that is the leading cause of death of our young people? Sadly it is a problem that is not going away.

A study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that in the previous year nearly 20% of Canadian drivers admitted to having driven a vehicle within two hours of using a potentially impairing drug. We are not talking just about illegal drugs, but other drugs as well. Prescription drugs and even over the counter drugs can impair one's ability to drive safely.

The Ontario student drug use survey conducted in 2003 found that about 20% of students reported having driven within one hour of having used marijuana at least once in the previous year. No, the problem is not going away.

Bill C-16 would provide us with one more opportunity to remind Canadians of the lethal danger of impaired driving. The bill is not about making drug impaired driving a criminal offence. It already is. In fact, the Criminal Code provides for severe maximum penalties, even life imprisonment if it causes the death of another person.

The problem with our current law lies in obtaining proof that the individual is under the influence of drugs. Until now, law enforcement officers could only offer descriptions of driving behaviour, or hope to find a witness willing to testify. A driver could only be tested for impairment if he or she volunteered for testing. The honour system is not working. Bill C-16 would allow officers to do an evaluation of an individual and if necessary, demand a sample of bodily fluids such as blood, saliva or urine.

Briefly, this is how it appears the process would work when the measures proposed by Bill C-16 are fully implemented. There would be three methods of evaluating a suspected impaired driver. The first, called standardized field sobriety tests, is done at the roadside and consists of such tasks as standing on one leg, or walking in a straight line, or other multi-tasking challenges, hardly a scientific method.

If the individual fails these simple coordination tests, leading the officer to reasonably assume that an offence has been committed, step two follows at the police station. This step is called drug recognition expert evaluation. It consists of, among other things, a physical examination in which a trained officer looks at the individual's pupils, checks vital signs and searches for injection sites. If after this evaluation of 45 minutes or so the officer still has reason to believe the individual is under the influence of a specific drug, only then will the third most scientific method be used when a sample of a bodily substance will be taken and tested.

I have to admit that this sounds pretty good on paper, but will it work? It behooves us to ask if we can foresee any obstacles or problems with this new testing protocol. Let me ask some questions.

First of all, do we have enough trained officers to do the tests? Actually, we have had some officers trained to do these evaluations for almost 10 years but they have not been busy because the law allows them to test only those who volunteer to be tested. Not many have volunteered. The answer is we do not have enough now but the plan is by 2008 or so to have about 3,500 who could do the roadside test and another 400 to 500 who could do the recognition test at the station. Will that be enough? The Senate special committee on illegal drugs found that 5% to 12% of people have driven under the influence of cannabis, so the chances are that it will not be enough.

Second, can these tests be carried out in a timely manner? I am thinking that the short answer is no. From the roadside to the station and then to the sample testing will take a significant length of time, and the longer it takes, the less likely it is that the presence of drugs can be accurately detected.

Third, will these tests be considered reliable enough as the basis for a charge and subsequent conviction? One would expect the bodily sample tests to be the most reliable, but are they? A 2002 report from the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs looked at the effectiveness of blood, urine, saliva, hair and even perspiration testing for marijuana use. The general conclusion was that they all fell short of giving any clear answers. The only thing that seems to be clear is that their reliability is questionable at best.

For example, blood testing for traces of marijuana would be most effective if done within 10 minutes of smoking. After one hour, concentrations of THC in the blood are down to 5% to 10%, and after two hours it becomes difficult to detect at all.

What about the urine test as another possibility? The unfortunate truth appears to be that the results of urine tests for marijuana are even less promising. Traces of marijuana can remain in urine for weeks and it is very difficult to determine whether marijuana has contributed to the apparent impaired driving.

Perhaps the most prominent method of drug testing is with saliva. The THC remains detectable in saliva for an average of four to six hours and saliva testing is more reliable than blood or urine testing. Again the problem is that there is no technology available to do this test roadside.

Fourth, is there a way to determine thresholds for drug impairment? Is there something equivalent to the .08 for alcohol? Unfortunately it appears that the jury is still out, pardon the pun, on the question of what concentration of a drug in one's system is considered impairing. Until some of these issues are resolved, and we need to make a commitment to do so, we should not be surprised if law enforcement officers continue to be frustrated and if defence lawyers make a lot of money demonstrating why their clients' test results cannot be trusted.

Fifth, before concluding, let me make one final more general point that was actually made by my constituents. During the off week I held a town hall meeting in which I reviewed most of the legislation now before the House. I also had a meeting with one of the school boards where we talked about the government's so-called drug strategy. In both meetings we talked about Bill C-16 and Bill C-17.

I know it must seem completely logical to the government on the one hand to decriminalize what it calls small amounts of marijuana, and on the other hand to attempt to crack down on drug impaired driving, but my constituents could not see the logic. “Is this not sending a mixed message?” they asked. “Is the government against drugs or not?” “Will decriminalizing marijuana not mean that more young people will use it?” “And will some of them not drive?” Those are some very good questions.

My constituents are very concerned about the ever increasing drug use in our communities. Recently a wide cross-section of citizens have come together to establish task forces to fight the growing problem of crystal meth. Marijuana grow ops are also rampant in our communities. Drugs are hurting us and we are struggling to fight back.

I support this bill because I hope it will help to raise awareness and reinforce the message that drugs are not acceptable and impaired driving will not be tolerated. We cannot legislate good behaviour so some people will choose to do drugs and some of them will choose to drive. But we can do our best to encourage one another to make smart choices, and doing drugs and driving while impaired are two dumb choices.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to speak to Bill C-16, the drug driving bill.

As some in the House may know, my community of Surrey is currently overrun with marijuana grow ops. Organized crime has moved in and is operating in my constituency. That is why this legislation is of such critical importance to my constituents. The key points of this legislation are as follows.

One, drivers suspected of being under the influence of a drug will by law have to submit to a roadside assessment test administered by a police officer. Two, if drug impairment is suspected, the individual must be detained at a police station and submit to another drug impairment assessment and a sample of bodily fluids may be taken for testing. Three, the penalties for failing to submit to testing for drug impairment would be equivalent to the penalties currently in place for failing to submit to an alcohol breathalyzer test.

We all know of the wonderful work done by advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, on the subject of driving while impaired by alcohol. This has helped to bring into focus the terrible damage done to society by alcohol impaired driving that happens every day across Canada.

Over the past few decades, drunk driving has gone from a socially unacceptable but tolerated norm to a cause for shame and serious penalties from our justice system. Our police conduct spot checks. There are radio and TV campaigns urging people not to drink and drive. There are rules for advertising alcoholic beverages. There are courses taught in schools. There are role models. There is peer pressure.

Alcohol impaired driving, while certainly still a significant and very important issue, does not suffer from lack of attention. The same is not true for driving while impaired by a drug other than alcohol. While groups such as MADD do work in this area, there remains much to be done.

There is, for example, no scientific consensus on the threshold drug concentration level in the body for drug impaired driving as there is for alcohol. Length of time of use, tolerance, metabolism, height, weight, body fat, et cetera, all may have an effect on whether a drug might be impairing a driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

It gets even more complicated because we are dealing with so many different kinds of drugs. With alcohol, the comparison is the same wherever one is and whatever the drink. Alcohol is alcohol, whether it comes from beer, wine or spirits. Drugs, on the other hand, come in all shapes and strengths, which makes setting a threshold standard for actual impairment much more difficult. Different drugs have different effects.

Fortunately a good deal of work has been done by law enforcement officials on these and other issues surrounding the detection of the drug impaired driver. It is not a stretch to suggest that the biggest form of impairment our law enforcement officials find on the road, outside of alcohol, is cannabis.

We do not have the vast studies and statistics for drug driving that we do for the alcohol impaired, but what we do know is that people driving under the influence of drugs are just as dangerous and just as potentially deadly as those who are impaired by alcohol.

I single out cannabis not only because it is the most prevalent drug in use on our roads, especially in my riding, but also because the government has introduced Bill C-16 as a companion bill to Bill C-17, the legislation decriminalizing small amounts of cannabis.

One of the chief complaints when the government last tried to introduce legislation regarding the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana was that nothing was being done about drug impaired driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Canadian Professional Police Association in particular at the time noted the bill contained no measures to increase police powers to combat drug impaired drivers.

Despite the government's attempt to rectify past mistakes, there are still a few problems with this bill. One of the main concerns I have with this legislation is that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Bill C-17 seeks to decriminalize small amounts of cannabis, and that would lead, by any reasonable conclusion, to an increase in cannabis-impaired users on our roadways. But Bill C-16 does not foresee the completion of training for law enforcement in the techniques to conduct field testing for drug impairment until 2008, so we unleash more cannabis-impaired drivers on our roads with Bill C-17 without giving our law enforcement personnel the proper training to enforce this new law immediately.

The bill authorizes police to demand a standardized field sobriety test when they suspect an individual is driving while impaired by drugs. It also allows for a sample of bodily fluids to be taken at a police station if impairment is suspected. This is simply allowing the police to make the same demands of someone suspected of drug-impaired driving that they make of someone who is suspected of alcohol-impaired driving.

Refusal to submit to this testing would become a criminal offence, punishable by the same penalties currently in place for failure to submit to an alcohol breathalyzer test.

My colleagues and I support any legislation that improves police officers' ability to detect drug impairment and detain suspected drug-impaired drivers for testing. As I noted earlier, however, we are concerned that this legislation does not train enough police officers in detection methods before 2007 or 2008, long after the Liberal government intends to decriminalize marijuana.

A key component of any anti-drug-driving initiative must include significant funding for research into new technologies that would assist officers in detecting drug-impaired drivers on site, such as currently exists for alcohol. I would encourage the government to earmark such funding and work with the provinces to help develop these new technologies to make catching and prosecuting drug-impaired drivers easier.

The cannabis epidemic is sweeping my constituency and the entire lower mainland of B.C. and now we have the government about to decriminalize small amounts for personal use.

If members will pardon the pun, it is high time the government brought in legislation of this nature giving our law enforcement officials the tools they need to fight drug-impaired driving.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to keep the ball rolling in the debate on Bill C-16, which amends the Criminal Code and makes consequential amendments to other acts to deal with drug-impaired driving. The bill authorizes trained police officers to test whether a person is impaired by drugs or alcohol and drugs in combination. It also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily fluids to test for the presence of drugs or drugs and alcohol.

Let us look at the background of this bill. Currently the Criminal Code criminalizes alcohol- or drug-impaired driving and imposes greater punishments on repeat offenders. Under section 253 one cannot operate or assist in operating a motor vehicle if impaired by alcohol or a drug. Anyone who commits an offence under section 253 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

While drug-impaired driving is illegal, there is no “legal limit” offence for drugs. The police may not demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples for drug-impaired driving investigations. The police usually rely upon symptoms of impairment, driving behaviour and witness testimony. As a result, convictions for drug-impaired driving are very rare.

Under Bill C-16, a three-step protocol is given, allowing police to intervene if they believe someone is driving while drug impaired. Clause 2 of the bill would allow police to demand standardized field sobriety tests where there is a reasonable suspicion that a driver has a drug in his or her body. These are physical coordination tasks administered roadside which measure whether a driver can multi-task. It would also allow police to demand drug recognition expert evaluations where the officer reasonably believes that a driver committed a drug-impaired driving offence. These are administered at the police station by a trained evaluation officer. Last, clause 2 would allow police to demand a sample of a bodily substance if the evaluating officer identifies that the impairment is from a specific type of drug.

Under Bill C-16 the result of an evaluation by an evaluating officer may be admitted as evidence in a criminal proceeding involving driving under the influence of an illegal psychoactive substance. Research indicates that 5% to 12% of drivers may now drive under the influence of cannabis and that this may increase to as much as 20% for male drivers under 25 years of age in British Columbia.

An examination of blood samples, driver records and crash records of 227 fatally injured drivers in B.C. showed that 11% involved alcohol and drugs and 9% involved drugs only. The most frequently found drug was, as members can guess, THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. The Vancouver police have concluded that the involvement of drugs in driving is a significant factor adversely affecting highway safety and consequently should be of major concern to all Canadians.

A criminal case wrapped up last month in Surrey involving a youth who crashed his Ford Mustang into a rock fence in the 6,200 block of 264th Street, killing two of his passengers, both 16 years old, and seriously injuring a third one. According to a toxicologist, the young man had 144 micrograms of THC per litre of his blood. A level of 35 micrograms would affect a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle; his level was more than four times that.

However, despite the evidence, the Crown was unable to obtain a conviction for driving while impaired by marijuana. It was simply too difficult under the current law. It is shameful for the lawmakers in the House.

The youth still has his driving licence and the parents of the deceased must watch this young man drive past their homes knowing that he was responsible for taking the lives of their sons. It is a pity.

The government has chosen to decriminalize marijuana without first ensuring that the necessary training, the tools and the ability to prosecute people for drug-impaired offences are in place. This legislation comes as an afterthought to the government. It is a delayed response to the intense criticism levelled against it by my party and other groups.

But even with Bill C-16, the training of law enforcement officers in the techniques to conduct field testing will not be complete until as late as 2008. The Liberal government of course intends to decriminalize marijuana long before that. Officers should be trained before the government proceeds with decriminalization.

According to data provided by the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, only 0.8% of marijuana users are charged with possession. That is less than 1%. Based on those numbers, there seems to be little excuse for rushing into decriminalization before the police are ready to deal with it.

As well, of the $11.9 million in funding being spent to address drug-impaired driving, some funding should be allocated for research into new technologies that would assess drug impairment on site, such as those that currently exist for detecting the presence of alcohol in blood.

In October 1995, ICBC sponsored the training of approximately 30 police officers in the field of drug recognition. This was the first course of its kind to be held in Canada. The intent of the drug recognition expert or DRE program was to give police officers the skills to detect and prosecute drug-impaired drivers. ICBC saw a need for this program because B.C. studies indicated that impairment due to drugs was involved in 15% to 20% of all driver fatalities.

So far the program has been extremely successful. Hundreds of 24 hour driving prohibitions have been issued to drivers affected by drugs. Several criminal court charges for driving while impaired by drugs have also been approved, resulting in court convictions. Since 1995, 15 of the original DREs have become DRE instructors. In March 1998 another DRE course was held in B.C., bringing the total number of DREs to over 50.

The government appears determined to proceed with loosening the laws concerning the use of marijuana. Decriminalization of marijuana, especially without an effective national drug strategy in place, will undoubtedly result in increased use, especially among young people.

The Conservative Party supports legislation that improves police officers' ability to detect drug impairment and detain suspected drug-impaired drivers for testing. We are concerned, however, that Bill C-16 would not train enough police officers in detection methods soon enough. As it stands now, sufficient officers will be trained only by 2007 or 2008, long after the Liberal government intends to decriminalize marijuana. That is not effective legislation.

Officers should be trained before decriminalization, not after. If we decriminalize the use of marijuana and then start training police officers, what is going to happen on the streets? There will be more accidents, more deaths and more innocent lives lost. That is not acceptable.

The Liberals are putting the cart before the horse. They have failed to recognize the need to lay the groundwork before proceeding with the decriminalization of marijuana. They have not even studied the consequences of decriminalizing marijuana to the extent of the quantity they have allowed. The Liberals are in the process of risking increased marijuana usage and opening up the possibility of an increase in deaths on our highways. Canadians expect better from the government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

(Bill C-18. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 1, 2004--The Minister of Canadian Heritage--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another act.

Telefilm Canada Act

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

moved:

That Bill C-18, an act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to Bill C-18 which contains amendments to the Telefilm Canada Act.

It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada is committed to Canadian culture and I am personally committed to Canadian culture. Most of my political career has been spent in advocating on behalf of and for the arts and cultural sector.

In fact, in my private sector life, and even today, I have been and am a subscriber, donor and an art supporter to many of the cultural institutions in the city of Toronto and indeed, also in Ontario.

I have had the privilege to serve on the board of directors, and later as chairman, of CanStage, the largest not for profit theatre company in Canada which performs throughout the year. In addition to that, CanStage produces Dream In High Park , Shakespeare in the park, annually every summer and opens it up to everyone.

During my private sector life I have also served as a member of the Canada Council's taskforce on income tax reform and I was also a director of the Arts and Business Council which promotes private sector giving for the arts. I also had the pleasure of serving on the organizing committee for the annual meeting of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, PACT.

In the 20 years that I practised law in the city of Toronto, my husband used to tease me that I only practised law to feed my hobby and my passion for the arts.

I, too, feel very privileged, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to have the opportunity at the federal level to dedicate my energies to a sector that is so near and dear to my heart.

The Government of Canada supports Canadian culture with energy and enthusiasm. We believe that government indeed has a role to play in promoting the development of our culture and in strengthening our own identity.

Every country has a right to ensure that its languages, traditions, symbols and myths remain vibrant. Telefilm Canada is one of the institutions that plays a crucial role in helping the government to achieve our cultural policy objectives, namely the production of quality Canadian content and ensuring that this content reaches all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As a cultural investor, Telefilm Canada is dedicated to development, production, promotion and distribution of popular Canadian television programs, films and new media products. It is committed to supporting Canada's audiovisual industry to create cultural works that reflect and celebrate the diversity of Canada and are widely appreciated, not only in Canada but internationally recognized abroad.

Through its investments, Telefilm encourages excellence while creating a portfolio of products that reflect a diversity of format, budget, genre, content and talent. Telefilm is unique among many government institutions. It is part of a policy toolkit that includes several other government initiatives to encourage the production and dissemination of Canadian stories and the development of Canadian talent.

In its role, Telefilm provides financial assistance and strategic leverage to the industry in producing high quality works that include feature films, drama series, documentaries, children's shows, variety and performing arts programs, and also new media products. All of these reflect Canadian society, including our linguistic duality and our cultural diversity.

Telefilm's investments have made it possible for thousands of Canadian screenwriters, directors, producers, distributors, technicians, performers and multi-media designers to pursue their careers right here in Canada.

Let me share a few statistics with the House. In 2002-03 more than 225,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the country were generated by the audiovisual and sound recording sectors. Keeping these creators at work in our country enriches both our cultural landscape and our economy. These innovative workers are very much part of a knowledge based economy of the 21st century. They are helping to build the kind of creative communities that can best attract new investment in the marketplace of today.

Last year, theatre box offices in Canada took in more than $950 million, of which Canadian films accounted for 3.5%. So far this year Canadian films have earned $36 million, or almost 5% of the total box office. These numbers are good news for our economy and cultural sector, but there is still much more to achieve.

Canadians were extremely proud earlier this year when Denys Arcand won the best foreign language Oscar for Les invasions barbares . In fact, in 2003 this film opened the Toronto International Film Festival. This movie has thrilled both critics and audiences across Canada and around the world. It will come as no surprise to members that Telefilm Canada helped finance this ground-breaking academy award winning production.

With an annual budget of approximately $250 million, Telefilm Canada aims to ensure the widest possible audience for Canadian works, both here and internationally. It does this through support for distribution, export, marketing and industry promotion at Canadian and foreign festivals, markets and other events.

At the same time, the Government of Canada is committed to the highest standard of management. We want to ensure that the administration of government programs is the best that it can be.

Telefilm Canada was created more than 35 years ago, in 1967, with a mandate to foster and promote the development of a feature film industry. I am sure it will come as no surprise to members that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister at that time. Over the years, successive governments have expanded its responsibilities to include television, new media and sound recording.

Telefilm's activities have changed as technology has evolved. This bill reflects that new reality. As a consequence, this bill would formally extend the mandate of Telefilm to the entire audiovisual sector in recognition of the important role that it has undertaken over the years. The proposed amendments to the Telefilm Canada Act would thus constitute adjustments which would confirm in law Telefilm's current activities.

Telefilm's role and activities would remain the same: to support all the audiovisual industries, including film, television and new media, and to administer the music entrepreneur program on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I am extremely proud and privileged to be entrusted with responsibilities related to Canadian culture. As the recent Speech from the Throne said, and as I noted during my debate on the Speech from the Throne:

What makes our communities vibrant and creative is the quality of their cultural life. The Government will foster cultural institutions and policies that aspire to excellence, reflect a diverse and multicultural society, respond to the new challenges of globalization and the digital economy, and promote diversity of views and cultural expression at home and abroad.

I am proud of institutions like Telefilm Canada, which are helping to keep Canadians employed in Canada in creative jobs, strengthening our innovative economy, and reflecting Canadian realities both to audiences at home and around the world. I therefore ask hon. members to support Bill C-18.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Telefilm Act is a technical bill, an exercise in housekeeping for this agency.

When Telefilm Canada was created in 1967 its mandate was to foster and promote the development of a feature film industry in Canada. Over the years, as technologies evolved, Telefilm has been assigned new responsibilities, not by mandate or legislative reform, but by convention. These responsibilities are in other film related fields but fields which were not mandated by this agency. I am certainly not suggesting that Telefilm was not equipped to handle these additional responsibilities but simply that it was not mandated to do so and should have been.

The bill would provide the legislative permission to expand its mandate from only feature film into television programming, new media and sound recording. In fact, it has been doing these without a mandate in some cases for over 20 years. The government is again demonstrating a lack of accountability in the heritage ministry.

Telefilm Canada was created 37 years ago and there has been no move to update its legislation since. This suggests to me that for 37 years there may have been little accountability and transparency in the use of tax dollars. This agency has been operating outside its mandate for two decades in some cases. This is not acceptable to the Canadian people.

The legislation is being introduced to bring the act into compliance with the Auditor General's observations and concerns regarding the technical inconsistencies in the current Telefilm Canada Act but the bill is a first step toward fixing the problem. If the government were serious about governing and not only addressing inconsistencies within Telefilm when caught, the legislation would be bringing forward a new vision for Telefilm and not simply correcting the past. The legislation should be part of a greater process of modernization of Telefilm. It should be part of the process of ensuring that Telefilm is relevant for the next 35 years, not simply catching up for the past 35 years.

Bill C-18 is a housekeeping act which, I certainly believe, should lead to a bigger process, a process that we have been demanding in so many of the broadcasting and cultural areas. For example, it took on television in 1983, new media in 1998 and sound recording in 2001.

When a crown corporation has been acting outside of its mandate for over 20 years, it clearly suggests that there needs to be more work done than simply making these activities legal, as the bill would do.

The film industry is a valuable part of the cultural and entertainment business in this country. Canadians would like to be assured that Telefilm is not only acting in a way that is accountable to the Canadian public, but that it has been successful in meeting its mandate.

Are there more feature films being made in Canada today? Is the industry bigger, better and stronger? On this side of the House we would like the answers to these questions. We would like a process to review the role of Telefilm and the film industry support programs within the heritage ministry and a process of consultation and debate in the House on that role.

If these industries are stronger, then great. Have they been able to adapt to the changing environment and business realities of the new entertainment world? If not, can the existing programs be refocused to ensure that support programs in place are effective and responsive to the industry's needs?

The ministry cannot plan to replace a real dialogue on the future of the film industry in this country with only this exercise in housekeeping. Now that Telefilm has been given a mandate that matches its activities, we expect that Telefilm will show measurable outcomes, clear objectives and transparencies, which is expected of all crown corporations.

While the government is responsible for offering a leadership role, it is once again only acting in a reactionary way. What Canadians need from our federal government is a vision and the courage to take hold of the future and ensure Canadian creators have a significant part to play in that future.

The bill is adequate for what it is, which is a first step, but make no mistake, support of the bill does not imply that the challenges have been met. There is much more work to be done.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. This being my first occasion to speak in the House, I would like to thank the electors of Kootenay—Columbia for expressing their confidence in me and returning me for the fourth time. The people of Kootenay—Columbia obviously have great taste.

In the last couple of Parliaments I have had the privilege of serving in the capacity of the heritage critic for the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance and now, of course, we are the Conservative Party. Many of our policies and attitudes have rolled forward. We have stayed true to where we are coming from on questions like this, particularly as it relates to Telefilm Canada.

The question that has been raised by my colleague from Edmonton about the fact that this is an overdue bill is very clear. The point that this is in fact 20 years overdue should be underlined. As was written in our dissenting opinion on the review of Canadian broadcasting, it states:

New technological developments have created an environment giving Canadians access to more radio and television choices than ever before. More options mean audiences for any one channel are smaller than 10 years ago.

Broadcasting companies have responded to the challenge of audience fragmentation with a number of strategies. Some are attempting to become media conglomerates. Others are attempting to assemble a broad base of customers through cross media ownership. No one knows how successful either of these initiatives will be.

The Conservative Party is convinced that the next 10 years will offer incredible opportunities.

Clearly, what we are dealing with here, as has been described, is a housekeeping bill that is absolutely essential.

However, unlike my friend from Toronto who spoke earlier, I have perhaps a little bit more pragmatic approach to what we can actually do in terms of Canadian content. I look at Telefilm Canada as being an opportunity to move forward the whole issue of Canadian content and to respect Canadian content, but then I first have to ask whether we have ever actually sat down and defined what Canadian content is.

The second question I have, after we go through the exercise of determining what Canadian content is, is how practical are the ways that we are trying to direct Canadian content by Telefilm Canada by the other funding agencies and the funding directions that we have within our system?

The current system designed to promote Canadian content is cumbersome and inefficient. The witnesses' testimony in the review that we did about the problems with the existing structure for defining and supporting Canadian content were well described in chapter 5 of our cultural sovereignty. Obviously the creation of original Canadian programming is important but the impossible question consistently eluding an answer is, who judges what is Canadian. This has led to unaccountable bureaucracies enforcing vague definitions of Canadian content. This results in an unproductive dampening of creative innovation.

I notice that the bill is good in terms of its technical support for Telefilm Canada and it is a very direct and very sincere effort to bring Telefilm Canada into the realm of what is doable and what is workable, but at the same time, and I know I will be circling back and circling back, how do we define exactly what Canadian content is? Is Canadian content, for example, a tractor pull? Is Canadian content taking apart scallops on the east coast? Is Canadian content singing about taking apart the scallops on the east coast? Exactly what is Canadian content?

Until we take an actual, factual hard look at defining what Canadian content is, I do not think we will ever be able to come forward with things that will culturally work within Canada.

Current Canadian content definition determines access to various public support programs, and that is the clue to it, such as Telefilm Canada, feature film fund, Canadian television fund, tax credits, and it measures television broadcasters' conformity with CRTC regulations. What can we say about the CRTC?

As it should, Bill C-18 would update and upgrade the Telefilm laws, but the government seems to have an aversion to getting away from the reality. I recognize that my examples of a tractor pull or a demolition derby are extreme in the minds of some members in the House, but they are not. Canadian content is what we do. Canadian content is who we are. Canadian content is how we choose to express ourselves. Canadian content is how we relate to each other within the confines or the boundaries of our great nation.

Far too often the members on the other side of the House are given to these expressions of how valuable and important the participation by the Canadian taxpayer through funding and grants and all of this overview. I do not question the sincerity of these comments but it seems to me that they have a tendency to kind of underplay or undervalue the whole of who we are as Canadians.

The Conservative Party supports Canadians producing content for film and television but we would create a simpler system. We would remove content definition regulations. Subsidy and tax credit benefits to the Canadian entertainment industry would be based on substantial involvement by Canadians as opposed to specifically what it is that they are producing.

The Conservative Party has faith in Canada's creative community. Our primary objective is to exhibit Canadian productions to a larger audience. We believe Canadian content is an issue of cultural development. We intend to enable Canadian creators to reach an expanded international audience in broadcasting.

If we were to take a broader view of what Canadian content is and what we can do with the resources that the Canadian taxpayer gives to us, if we were to allow the creative community a broader sense of ownership of the product that it is putting out, and if we were to have more faith in Canada's creative community, I believe at the end of the day we would have a far greater and broader reflection of Canada within our creative community.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the world we live in is hypermediatized, globalized, dominated by market logic; it is a world exposed to cultural darwinism, a world where film and other audiovisual media appear to be extremely powerful and popular means of communication.

For years, in keeping with the approach of intruding into others' realms of responsibility, Telefilm Canada has imposed itself upon Quebec as a federal cultural body mandated with the development and promotion of the film and television industries.

Bills C-18, on which there is a motion for reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, is intended to integrate into the mandate of Telefilm Canada the entire audiovisual industry, that is film, television and the new media. Among other things, it also provides thecorporation with the authority to act in the sound recording industry underagreements made with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

In fact, all Bill C-18 does is to update and render official the increased responsibilities Telefilm Canada already has. The current legislation is not, in fact, reflective of the actual mandate of Telefilm Canada and needs to be updated. So Bill C-18 makes official the new Telefilm mission that has in fact been in place for years.

In its 1997-98 annual report Telefilm Canada presented its mission, including in it development and promotion of the Canadian film and television industry and new media products. In its March 2002 survey on client satisfaction and needs, 21% of respondents reported that they worked in the new media sector among others.

The main purpose of this bill being to act with respect to the audiovisual industry, that is mainly film, television and new media, and to provide thecorporation with the authority to act in the sound recording industry underagreements made with the Department of Canadian Heritage, that objective does not present any problem for the Bloc Québécois.

We must remind hon. members, however, that essentially the bill replaces the expressions “pecuniary interest in film activity” and “feature film production” with “any pecuniary interest in the audiovisual industry”. Let us also recall that it provides Telefilm with the authority to act in the sound recording industry underagreements made with the Department of Canadian Heritage, and provides it with the powers of a natural person. As well, everything done before thecoming into force of this enactment is deemed to be valid to the same extent asit would have been were it done after this enactment comes into force. It also adds a dubious point at 10(9), reading as follows:

The corporation shall, to the greatest possible extent consistent with the performance of its duties under this Act,

(a) carry out its mandate in the broader context of the policies of the Government of Canada with respect to culture;—

The Bloc Québécois is wondering about the addition to subsection 10(9) of a paragraph referring to federal policies with respect to culture.

At present, no such policy exists formally, although the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated, on August 21, that she was considering it and would be consulting on the matter. The Bloc Québécois would like to know what this reference to cultural policies is all about.

As far as the Bloc Québécois is concerned, there is a Quebecois culture, which is one of the essential elements of Quebec's difference. It is recognized both in Quebec and abroad for its vitality and originality. Quebecers are fond of cultural productions made in Quebec, be it on radio or television, in film, theatre or dance, and very open to foreign cultural productions.

The federal government, however, refuses to recognize the unique reality of the Québécois culture. As far as it is concerned, it is nothing more than a regional component of Canadian culture. In addition, the cultural policies of the federal government often have the utilitarian purpose of promoting Canadian identity, pride and unity.

That is why, for former heritage minister Hélène Sherrer, the federal government's focus was no longer on cultural events or activities, but rather on using any and all cultural, multicultural or culturally diverse activities to make every citizen feel like they were fully Canadian. It is in that sense that there will be investments into culture, she said.

The Bloc Québécois' position on government support to culture is that it should be free of any political objective. It should allow those in the cultural sector to express themselves on any issue concerning humanity, rather than fund productions that simply glorify whatever is Canadian.

The Bloc Québécois will continue working for the defence and promotion of the Québécois culture, supporting Quebec's artists and craftsmen and working toward the recognition of the principle of Quebec's cultural diversity, both nationally and internationally.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois will continue to expose any attempt by the federal government to use cultural programs for political purposes and to recognize Quebec as the sole authority in the area of arts and culture within its territory.

Stakeholders from cultural and film organizations—Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec, Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, Mouvement pour les Arts et les Lettres, and the Union des artistes—that we have contacted see nothing wrong with Bill C-18. However, they are worried about the possible 5% budget cuts by the federal government in its departments and agencies, including Canadian Heritage, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board.

In a press release on November 3, 2004, the APFTQ said:

—in a context where federal budgets for the film and television sector have not increased in a few years, and inflation has never been taken into account, such a cut would further reduce our ability to produce and to create jobs and would make artists, artisans and production companies even more vulnerable.

The public here benefits daily from access to national productions that are broadcast on the small and big screens. Canada can be proud of the international presence of its artists and television and film productions. Renewal of the government's support remains indispensable to continued success.

On November 4, 2004, Michel Coudé-Lord of the Journal de Montréal described these budget cuts to culture as another crisis for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and said in conclusion:

It remains to be seen whether the former Radio-Canada host turned Minister of Canadian Heritage will remember the demands of television and grasp the importance of the message. This is certainly a story to follow.

At the Bloc Québécois, we know that artists often have a very modest income. According to the department of culture and communications in Quebec, in 2001, three artist groups, artisans—$18,751—dancers—$20,215—and visual artists—$27,741—earned far less than the average taxpayer in Quebec.

Given the fact that the bill does not get into defining a possible federal policy on culture or issues related to funding for Telefilm Canada, and is limited to adjusting the mandate of the crown corporation in order to bring it in line with its current mission, the Bloc Québécois feels it must support Bill C-18.

That said, I want to remind hon. members that Quebec, through the Bloc Québécois, will insist in its demand for control over matters of communication, culture and telecommunication.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince Albert, Taxation; the hon. member for Essex, Taxation; the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley, National Defence.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill to amend the Telefilm Canada Act. The bill that would clarify Telefilm's mandate and provides for the corporation to carry on its current activities in the audiovisual industries, specifically film, television, and new media.

Because the bill is far more significant than just a simple housekeeping bill, I would like to take a few moments to describe these activities in more detail and show how they translate very concretely in the cultural lives of Canadians. One could say that the bill is overdue, but that would be cynical and we should be glad that it is here and we are dealing with it today.

Telefilm programs support the development and production of approximately 45 Canadian feature films in English and French each year. In an extremely competitive theatrical market, many of these Canadian films have posted remarkable successes, both critically and at the box office throughout the decades. In the seventies, The Rowdyman , La mort d'un bucheron , Black Christmas , and The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz all generated great reviews and returns on Telefilm's investments. More recently, Canadian films such as The Sweet Hereafter , The Red Violin , The Fast Runner , Les Boys , Hollywood/Bollywood , Séraphin , Mambo Italiano , and the Academy award winner Les Invasions barbares have confirmed an attentive and consistent audience at home for our films and raised our national share of the overall theatrical market to almost 5%, up from only 2% just a few years ago.

I know some members opposite are hoping for a feature on scallops and perhaps someone will come out of his or her shell and produce such a film.

In addition to fostering a national film industry of which we can all be proud, Telefilm has provided meaningful support to the television sector since the early 1980s. In recent years the crown corporation investments, through the Canadian television fund, have brought Canadians some of the most provocative and entertaining programming available anywhere, including Da Vinci's Inquest , Un gars, une fille , Road to Avonlea , Les Filles de Caleb , Million Dollar Babies , and North of 60 . I am sure that most members are familiar with, some more intimately than others, the irreplaceable This Hour Has 22 Minutes .

Another example many members will recognize is La Petite Vie . It was such a big hit that at one point more than half of all Quebeckers were tuning in to see it on a regular basis. More recently the miniseries Trudeau captivated record numbers of Canadians across the country, demonstrating just to what extent our own stories can bind this nation together. I know many members opposite really found that most enlightening.

Many of these television productions have won awards for their creators here in Canada, and some have even attracted audiences abroad. Da Vinci's Inquest , for example, is now broadcast in 45 countries on five continents. The format for Un gars, une fille has been sold and resold to 30 countries including Germany, France, Bulgaria, and Italy.

Telefilm has been involved in the new media sector since 1998. In addition to the new media content associated with television programming that are becoming more and more popular, such as Degrassi and The Toy Castle , Telefilm has supported the development and production of unique new film media content that Canadians and people the world over can access and enjoy, from interactive educational games such as Mia Mouse to databases full of facts about Canada and its diverse peoples.

In 1967, when Parliament created Telefilm Canada, Judy LaMarsh, then secretary of state, observed that, “Motion pictures are an important element in our cultural life. They should serve a national purpose and reinforce a Canadian identity”.

Technology has indeed evolved since 1967 and the activities of Telefilm Canada have kept pace with this evolution and has successfully ensured that more than just motion pictures serve a national purpose, and speak to our sense of identity.

The examples I have provided today should demonstrate just how important it is for the government to continue its support of audiovisual industries no matter how they evolve down the road. Simply stated, Telefilm is a cultural institution that encourages and promotes excellence. It has done so since 1967 and with this bill it will continue to do so.

I therefore ask the hon. members to support the motion to refer this bill to committee before second reading.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-18. I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the 35th anniversary of Telefilm and its major achievements.

Some of its huge successes have already been mentioned, such as Da Vinci's Inquest , Un gars, une fille , Road to Avonlea , Les filles de Caleb , Million Dollar Babies , North of 60 , La petite vie and, of course, the miniseries on Pierre Elliott Trudeau, which we all liked and will remember for a long time.

I want to tell the House about another miniseries called FranCoeur . It is being shot in the beautiful community of L'Orignal, Ontario. I thought that the Speaker currently in the Chair would have a special appreciation for the community of L'Orignal, his home town, where his father and his grandfather were born, both of whom were elected in the riding of Prescott a number of years back. Your ancestors, Mr. Speaker, lived in L'Orignal.

With FranCoeur being shot in our part of the country, francophones outside and inside Quebec have the opportunity to learn about the French fact in the region I represent.

Like every francophone outside Quebec, I grew up watching television programs produced by the French CBC, in Montreal. All we knew was that post office box 6000 in Montreal meant “Radio-Canada” and that kids watching children shows could write there to take part in a weekly draw, but I do not remember what the prize was. Never in those shows did we recognize anything from back home, from the region I have known all my life.

Today, it is different. Not only TV series such as La petite vie and others were filmed where they were supposed to be happening, but we also have a TV series originating in my area, Alfred, L'Orignal as I said, Lefaivre or other communities in the riding I have the honour and privilege to represent in this House.

Like me, Mr. Speaker, you will recognize, if you have the opportunity to watch the TV series FranCoeur , how pleasant it is to watch something on TV you know in real life. It is a rare occurrence for francophones outside Quebec. It does not happen often. At any rate it never used to happen before.

Even for people living in rural Quebec, it is probably not a common occurrence. Just about everything was filmed in Montreal. As a matter of fact, a while ago, the whole structure to fund cinema depended on audience ratings, which meant that if it was not filmed in Montreal it was a flop. All that to say that people in our area felt cheated in this respect.

I would be remiss not to congratulate the hon. Sheila Copps—now that she is no longer a member of this assembly, at least for now, I can call her by her name—for personally intervening on May 26, 2003, to grant extra funding to keep the mini series FranCoeur alive. It was so successful that this year Radio-Canada bought it to broadcast it across the country.

I would like to go back to something a Bloc Québécois member said earlier. I hope I misunderstood him. He said that somehow culture should come under the authority of the Quebec government and not ours. That would mean in fact that, since the critical mass of francophones in Canada is in Quebec—any francophone in Canada knows that of course and is proud of it—without favourable audience ratings in Quebec, French programming in the rest of the country would disappear. This is the Canadian reality. When they speak, Bloc Québécois members should not forget, as they so often do, the francophones living in a minority situation such as those in the riding I have the honour and privilege to represent in this House.

This is what it is important to point out. Telefilm has an important role to play, as has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has an extremely important role to play to make this linguistic duality a reality in Canada.

I cannot agree with some of the remarks by Conservative Party members that we can eliminate all definitions of Canadian content and it will still work. If we did this, they would be the first to say that people have abused the system and have broadcast programming that was not really Canadian, because the rules were not tight enough. We know them; this is what they would say in such a situation.

It takes strict rules to define Canadian content. We agree that these rules are developed in consultation with the industry. Otherwise, the strongest people would get the subsidies, would do most of the work elsewhere and would maintain that there is Canadian content because one of two scenes from Canada were added. So there is a reason for these clauses.

Personally, I support the minister and this bill. I want us to keep the proper rules that we have now.

In conclusion, I take the opportunity not only to express my support for this bill, but also to congratulate Telefilm Canada for its good work in the past. I invite it to keep a vigilant eye on the issues of minority language communities. This was done in the case of Francoeur , which I mentioned earlier. It was difficult to ensure that those in charge of these programs will recognize that we exist, although this is happening now. This vigilance must be maintained not only for francophones in my region, but also for Acadians, Franco-Manitobans and other French communities.

I want Canadian francophones to learn to know each other. I want Quebeckers, our cousins, to learn to know us also, because we exist. This is also important.

The same applies to the English-speaking minorities across the country as well, if they live in a particular region of Quebec, so that the rest of the country can get to know them as well. This is all part of Canada. This is all part of the Canadian reality.

Perhaps we watch too much television. Perhaps all these things are true. But the fact remains that so long as people do that, that is to say, watch television or use those kinds of vehicles to learn about one another in this great country, this is the way that we become aware of each other's existence. That is why it is important for the minorities across Canada, all of them, to be properly recognized, because that is the Canadian reality. Telefilm Canada can help and has helped us achieve that and so has public broadcasting in general in this country. That is why I support the bill.

Business of the House

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties. I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of oral questions on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, the House shall hear a brief statement by a representative of each party to pay tribute to the late Hon. Ellen Fairclough.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Telefilm Canada Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the members of the House.

On behalf of our heritage critic, the member for Timmins—James Bay, we would like to offer the NDP's support for this initiative, although there is one glaring error, which has been mentioned by our critic, and we would like to straighten that out as we go along. The reality is that there is no professional artist on the board of directors of Telefilm. We think that to be more open and transparent, especially to Canadian taxpayers and the Minister of Heritage, there should be a professional artist on that board. It would add more diversity and we think the board would actually be improved by it.

I cannot think of a better professional artist to be on that board than the great Wendy Lill, a member of Parliament from 1997 until 2003 and the last election. She is an artist. She is a novelist and a wonderful playwright and I believe she would be an excellent addition to the Telefilm board of directors.

I see my colleague nodding her head indicating that she is an absolutely good choice. We would hope that the Liberal Party and members in other parties would take that recommendation. Although Wendy would probably kill me for saying this, I think she would be an excellent person on that board to fix it up and move it along.

I want to correct something that has been said in the House many times by members of Parliament. It is a glaring error. One hears the term “the two founding cultures of Canada” and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. There are actually three founding cultures: the aboriginal people, the French and the English. We always forget the aboriginal people when we talk about culture.

As a person who grew up in B.C., I have to admit that my favourite show was The Beachcombers . Who could forget the great Relic? My British Columbia colleagues would know of that beautiful town of Gibson's Landing, British Columbia, with Molly's Reach and everything else. It was a fantastic show. For 17 years that Canadian show was on television. As a kid growing up, I could not wait to see it every week. It was absolutely fantastic. That is part of Canadian content.

Then I moved to the Yukon where I listened to and watched CBC North and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Watching the culture of the aboriginal people on their own television network was an absolutely wonderful way to understand native and aboriginal culture in this country, especially that of the north.

Moving now to Nova Scotia and the wonderful films and shows that are coming out of there, it is absolutely fabulous. It makes one even more proud to be a Canadian citizen. The culture and diversity in this country are spellbinding and know no limits. This is why we think the Canadian government has a role to play in Telefilm.

We are throwing this little salvo out to the finance minister, or Scrooge McDuck as some would call him, to say not to touch the CBC budget. In fact, he should enhance the CBC budget. There was a time in this country when we used to speak to each other through the CBC. Now we seem to be getting away from that. I think that is something that should be reversed and enhanced.

With regard to this bill, we in the NDP support the initiative in the bill, but again, we would like to see a professional artist on the board of directors as an enhancement to that board.

I want to say that aside from growing up watching The Beachcombers , as a little kid I had another favourite show, which I forget the name of right now off the top of my head, but we all know his name. He was a great guy. He had the rooster and his comfy chair.

[Some hon. members]

The Friendly Giant

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

The Friendly Giant

, that is it. Who could forget Rusty? I want to put on the record right now that my favourite chair was the comfy chair. That was fabulous.

Those are the types of memories I have from being a kid watching Canadian television. I think our kids and our kids' kids should be able to grow up watching great Canadian television. We think Telefilm Canada and the Government of Canada should play a role in that in a very positive way. Wendy Lill as a professional artist on the Telefilm board of directors would be an outstanding choice for all of Canada.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has pointed out, the NDP is prepared to support Bill C-18.

I take this as an opportunity though to talk about the importance of culture and the arts community in Canada. I am very fortunate to come from a vibrant community, Nanaimo—Cowichan, that has produced the likes of Diana Krall and many other very successful Canadian artists.

While I was in my riding last week, I had the opportunity to meet with some members of the writer's union. They talked about the plight of the artistic community in Canada. Although this initiative does support the development of culture in Canada, we must recognize that there is a very clear role that the government must continue to play in supporting arts and culture in Canada.

Some of our writers are suffering from the mega success stories that make everyone think that writers are all making big bucks. The reality is many of our writers in Canada are making less than $11,000 a year. That is a shame.

We need to look for ways to enhance and support writers, musicians, film producers, artists and actors in Canada to ensure that we maintain the vibrancy of our Canadian culture.

Max Wyman recently put out a book in which he talks about the importance of culture in Canada and the need to ensure that we continue to support arts and culture. He specifically talks about things such as the economy and the impact that arts and culture has on it.

I will use the example of a community in my riding called Chemanis. A number of years ago the town of Chemanis suffered as a result of a mill closure. It revitalized its community by building on the artistic community. It became the little town that could. What it did was develop murals and from those murals a number of painters, writers and potters helped reinvigorate that community. The artistic investment in our community has allowed the economy to grow and expand. That is just an example of an effort by all levels of government to support the arts community and to reinvigorate a community. There is a definite economic benefit to protecting our arts and culture.

The other issue around arts and culture is to ensure that we also protect the intellectual life in our communities. The federal government could play a critical role in providing funds for grants, providing educational opportunities and assisting artists and writers in residence at universities. We would expect this role could be revitalized over the next couple of years.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore also talked about the role of the CBC in culture. In may cases we can thank the CBC for bringing on local artists and promoting local writers and other organizations. Over the last number of years we have seen the erosion of that vital role of the CBC. We would look to the government to reinvest in the CBC and reinvigorate it.

My colleague also talked about films such as The Beachcombers . I am lucky to come from British Columbia. We have seen such films as The Beachcombers and Da Vinci's Inquest . We have a very vibrant film society there. We would like to see more investment in it. Not only is it an economic driver, but it is an opportunity to provide training and education and it is an opportunity to enhance the kinds of artistic endeavours our country can provide.

The NDP supports Bill C-18 and we look to the government to reinvigorate our arts community.