Debates of May 30th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Cultural Diversity

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the conflict is between the private interests, which would wish to control what is broadcast to every Canadian, versus the public interest of having a variety and multiplicity of voices.

I fall in the second category. I believe that in a democracy such as this, the government, through the voices of its elected representatives, has a right to determine that there will be policies to encourage a multitude of voices on our airways and not just, if left to itself, a diminishing number of voices, as we have seen.

In the private sector, time and time again, decade after decade, there is a tendency to reduce the competition by acquiring it. That is likely the phenomena we would see in cultural industries, in broadcasting in particular. That would be a crime if we allowed that to happen.

A country that does not control its own airwaves through publicly governed institutions such as Parliament, and in this case the CRTC, is a country that has given up. That means its airwaves and whatever Canadians get to consume on their television sets or radios would be dictated by foreign interests, and likely private foreign interests.

I surmise and I put to the House that the airwaves are a public good and that they should be controlled by public entities, such as the Parliament of Canada. By and large, we have demonstrated a willingness to intervene and to say that there shall be restrictions in foreign ownerships and that there shall be requirements for Canadian content. In doing that, we have created a cultural space that is much more amenable to a variety of voices and to a diversity. The convention is all about that. It gives the state the authority to protect cultural diversity. Maybe it goes beyond that and gives the state the duty to protect cultural diversity, and it is about that.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I rise today to address the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Before I do that, I reflect on the fact that this is the fifth time I have had the privilege of being the member for Kootenay—Columbia. I thank the people in my constituency for their continued confidence and commit to everybody, whether they voted for me or not, that I am their member of Parliament and I will reflect their views and their wishes in this chamber.

As I have also suggested on another occasion, Mr. Speaker, I think you look just fine in that chair. It is a job well overdue.

I cannot support the motion for a number of reasons, but since I only have 10 minutes to speak, let me concentrate on its potential effect on one of Canada's most important cultural industries, broadcasting.

The member's motion fails to consider the pace of technological change faced by broadcasting. The pace of change is bewildering, everything from TV on our cellphones to digital satellite radio. I suggest that the challenges and the changes are probably only restricted by the size of our imagination.

The government is committed to addressing those changes, but to do so, we need to develop a new policy framework. I cannot say exactly what the framework would look like and neither could the member opposite. The government is committed to work with the industry, the producers of television, radio and the people of Canada to develop those solutions.

There are many good ideas on these new challenges and the motion would slam the door on most of them. Just because something may have worked in the past, there is no guarantee that it will continue to work in the future.

Make no mistake, the government will not abandon Canadian content requirements, restriction on foreign ownership or financial support for the public broadcaster. We will keep those tools ready, but we will use them when appropriate. None of them are a complete solution to the challenges we face in the broadcasting sector. This is the essence of good public policy: consider the issues and adopt focused measures, a lesson the former government could have learned.

The motion seeks to deny the government the freedom to adapt those new policies or to modify old ones. I consider it an irresponsible motion. While I am prepared to accept he is an honourable gentleman, as I want to be, he probably did not have any intent for it to be irresponsible. The fact is, it ends up trying to paint the government as somehow being un-Canadian.

He protested a couple of minutes ago that the debate should be above politics. The motion basically attempts to create the impression that somehow the Conservative Party is un-Canadian and that it is not committed to cultural options. I will not take any lessons from the member on how to protect Canadian culture.

The motion talks about ensuring or expanding funding for the CBC. Where was the member when the government, led by his party, slashed the funding for the CBC in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998? Where was he when his party presided over a government that denied the CBC stability in the years since then?

It is truly sad that the member tries to pose as a friend of the CBC when his own party failed to deliver stable funding to the CBC, even when the stable funding was supposedly part of his election platform. Again, we are faced with the meaning of Liberal promises: much committed; little delivered.

The government will not be bound to fund the CBC at any level, especially in light of the fact we are about to undertake a review of the CBC`s mandate. The kind of commitment contained in the motion will not allow the CBC to develop a strategic plan. The government will ensure that the CBC breaks out of the cycle of short term plans that it has been locked into for the past decade by the former Liberal government. Based on a mandate review, we will ensure the corporation plans ahead and then we would deliver the appropriate support.

The government is committed to provide the needed funding for the CBC. In the last days I think we have shown we keep our commitments.

We will go further than simply promising cash to the CBC. We want to ensure it is truly working as a public broadcaster. We intend to ensure that not only does the CBC continue to exist. We want to ensure that it is genuinely relevant to Canadians. A public broadcaster that does not have the support of the public cannot be called a success.

With respect to commercial radio, there is no doubt that Canada's broadcasting sector is healthy. We know the numbers. There are more than 750 radio and television stations delivering news, entertainment and information to Canadians. Those stations use conventional signals, cable and satellites to get their programming into Canadian homes and as stated earlier, there are many more new, technological advances and challenges that are facing that industry.

In that respect the distribution networks are changing and changing dramatically. TV over the Internet is not with us yet, but I would be prepared to guess that it is only just very likely around the corner. If this motion were to pass, it would deny the government the tools needed to face that challenge. New solutions will be needed to solve these new problems and this motion denies the government the freedom. It puts us in handcuffs.

Much more is at stake than simply Canadian government policy. The industry employs thousands of Canadians and generates some $11.5 billion in economic activity each year. The opposition motion would jeopardize all that just to make a political point in the House.

The hundreds of broadcasters who make the industry vital know that we have to develop new business plans and strategies to ensure future success. I would advise the hon. members opposite to take the example of the broadcasters and to withdraw this backward motion.

The best way to ensure that there is Canadian content on the airwaves is not solely through regulation, though regulation has its part. It is through ensuring there is a vital broadcasting system. The government believes in finding a place for Canadian voices on the airwaves and we believe those voices must be heard.

However, there is also a place for healthy competition on the airwaves. We do not believe in monopolies. We believe in necessary government regulation, but we do not believe that all regulation is a good thing. We want to encourage Canadian talent so that it wins a place on the world's airwaves.

We will invest in artists to ensure that they can reach a level of excellence that sees the world coming to their doors. Canadians will have more choices in the future. Technological change makes that almost certain. We cannot simply pass a motion today that would ensure a significant number of those choices would be Canadian.

The government is committed to a strong Canadian broadcasting system which is why I cannot support this motion. It sounds like a proposal that will help Canadian broadcasters and cultures, but in reality it denies the government the tools it needs to develop the policies that will take our broadcasters to new levels of success.

Canadians always rise to the challenge. Canadians always succeed when they are challenged, and we want to maintain an open door for Canadians to succeed, not be tied down and handcuffed with a motion such as the member has proposed.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member repeatedly referred in his comments to broadcasters, yet I do not believe I heard him once mention producers of shows. For broadcasters to stay in business, they need a whole production industry and that comes from requirements of Canadian content, from financial support and so forth. I did not hear him mention any concerns regarding producers.

He did mention that the broadcasting industry is doing very well financially, and that is true, but the producers in the country, independent ones and others, are not doing very well. Their margins have been reduced to almost non-existence.

Would the member acknowledge that if we do not have constant funding and requirements, that producers will be in jeopardy and therefore the whole edifice could crumble if we do not have the content for broadcasters? We would then be relying strictly on foreign content which is already quite pervasive on our airwaves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is very well aware of the so-called industrial production. This would be production for American producers in particular coming into Canada where we are looking at $10 million, $50 million or $100 million projects. That keeps the production facilities. That keeps the technicians at a very high rate of employment. There are dips and there are excesses, but that side of the industry is healthy.

I am inclined to agree with the member with respect to the question of ensuring that we have a place for Canadians in the Canadian industry. We have to be flexible. If the member were to take a look at our budget, he would not see the doom and gloom that had been forecast by some people, perhaps not by him but some people in his party, as to what we would be doing.

We are very much aware of the fact that Canadians have a place in Canadian production and certainly in Canadian broadcasting.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I find some of it hard to fit into what he is promising, what the delivered results will be, and the fact of being flexible. How much more flexible do we need to be when our domestic film audience in English Canada has deteriorated to about the 5% market?

We have seen in terms of cultural policy in Canada that if we do not have regulation, the private broadcasters simply do not step up to the plate as the hon. member promises. We have seen with Cancon that 30 years ago there was virtually no Canadian music being played on the airwaves by the private broadcasters until the Canadian government insisted. Cancon has created an international star system because of regulation and because we set clear rules in place.

We have not had nearly the same set of rules in television and neither have we had them in film, and our industries continue to lag. We only have to look back to 1999 and the CRTC decision which had devastating impacts for domestic television production in this country.

I am trying to get a sense of why it is that we should let the government have all the flexibility it needs to open the market without having clear commitments from it on what kind of regulations it will enforce in order to maintain a vital domestic cultural industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member would want us to seek input and ask questions to find out where we should be going in the minds of the people in Canada and the people in the industry.

Surely the member would recognize that it was January 23 that the government took over after 13 years of Liberal government. I believe that he is referring to the failed policies of the Liberal government and certainly not to ours because we are still in the process of developing what is going to be best for Canadians, Canadian content and the Canadian industry.

I do not think we are diametrically opposed to where the member is, but he must recognize the fact that the Conservative government is going to put its stamp in a very progressive way on this aspect of Canadian culture. We are in the process of developing that and I think he will be quite pleased when he sees the final result which will be in a matter of a very short period of time in the future.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the motion presented by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I also want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for sharing his time with me.

The intent of the motion is to compel the government to maintain the existing program policies and regulations:

--by maintaining or enhancing: (a) existing Canadian cultural content requirements; (b) current restrictions on foreign ownership in the cultural sector; and (c) financial support for public broadcasting--

Let me state from the outset that we do support the convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. The issue for us is its misuse and misapplication in the motion before the House.

I would suggest that the motion is misguided and should be defeated for three reasons. First, it is premature and prejudges the outcome of numerous mandate reviews which have been requested by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Second, it essentially restates the status quo when, in fact, on January 23 Canadians voted for change.

Third, it completely ignores the time and effort which went into the preparation of the Lincoln report, a comprehensive and time consuming report on Canadian broadcasting which was completed in June 2003.

Let me first address the issue of mandate reviews. As the House knows, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is in the process of initiating a complete review of the CBC's mandate. The results of that review are critical to determining the future direction of Canada's biggest public broadcaster.

In fact, as recently as May 16 the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage unanimously passed a motion that the minister provide committee members with an opportunity to review and offer modifications to the terms of reference for the CBC mandate review.

The government is committed to long term, stable funding for Canadian broadcasting and the arts. Unlike the previous government, which promised to support the CBC and then slashed its budget, we will continue to deliver on our promises.

I also note that at the same May 16 committee meeting the members unanimously agreed to review the mandates of all crown corporations under its purview to ensure their capacity to carry them out properly.

The purpose of course of mandate reviews is to determine whether new policies and approaches need to be implemented to allow Canada's artists and creators to adapt to rapidly changing technology and fierce global competition.

Sadly, if the motion before us today were to pass, it would essentially render the mandate reviews meaningless, since the motion prejudges the outcomes of those reviews.

On the second issue, I note that the motion is focused on preserving the current status quo. It demands that existing Canadian content requirements be maintained. It demands that current foreign ownership rules be maintained.

What the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier conveniently forgets is that on January 23 Canadians voted for real change. Canadians rejected a Liberal agenda that ignored new technological realities and failed to help Canadian artists compete on the international stage.

The Conservative government on the other hand is committed to working with the cultural sector to develop policies that will ensure that this sector thrives. It is important that we work with cultural communities to ensure that they are equipped for the new technological realities of the 21st century.

The old solutions no longer work, yet that is exactly what this motion does. The motion guarantees that Canadian artists and cultural communities will fall further behind the rest of the world in pursuing their aspirations and their artistic goals.

My third reason for speaking against this motion is perhaps the most troubling one. It is the complete disregard, which this motion shows, for the comprehensive work done by a previous heritage committee. Case in point is the Lincoln report which was issued in June 2003 and is a sweeping and exhaustive review of the broadcasting industry in Canada.

The report highlights in great detail a host of challenges facing the broadcasting industry as it seeks to reflect our cultural identity and heritage while remaining viable and competitive in a global environment.

Audience fragmentation; loss of local, community and regional programming; rapidly changing and emerging technologies; consolidation and convergence of broadcasting entities; and challenges to our Canadian cultural identity are all issues that received extensive treatment in the Lincoln report.

Furthermore, the report makes numerous recommendations aimed at preserving and enhancing the viability of a distinctively Canadian broadcasting industry. The recommendations also address many of the needs of the producers and artists who deliver the product to Canadian televisions, radios and computers.

The motion, on the other hand, ignores several years of painstaking committee work and consultation. The motion simply reintroduces an outdated set of platitudes which serve no purpose other than to perhaps promote the particular political objectives of the tabler.

The motion is quite unnecessary. If there were any question as to the government's commitment to invest in culture and the arts, one would need look no further than the government's recent budget which provided an additional investment of $50 million into the Canada Council for the Arts. It also introduced tax exemptions that would help create a pool of donations to charities equal to approximately $300 million. It is also important to note that it was this government that dealt directly and effectively with Quebec's participation at UNESCO.

The timing and content of the motion do not bode well for the future work of the heritage committee. It is important to note that the motion does not emanate from the work of that committee. I perhaps had naively assumed that the work of our committee would be conducted in good faith with the interests of all Canadians at heart. I had assumed that the usual process of examination and review would be followed. Unfortunately, the motion appears to be a brazen attempt to circumvent the committee's mandate by reasserting a failed Liberal agenda.

If the motion passes, it places the work of the committee in a box. It implies that the minister and the committee members cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of Canadians. Essentially, the motion renders useless any further work of the heritage committee. In that sense, it is vexatious and I ask members of this House not to support it.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions but I will limit myself to two.

The member from Abbotsford referred to Canadian content restrictions on foreign ownership in public broadcasting as a set of platitudes. I presume that was a slip of the tongue and he may want to correct that statement.

He also said “that he and his government are committed to stable long term funding for public broadcasting”, and yet those members do not want to vote in favour of the motion. Is it because they are only prepared to commit to reduced stable long term funding? That is the concern out there.

When the minister promised during the campaign to respect the commitment to fund the Canada Council it was not for $50 million. It was to double its budget over three years. What the council received instead was less than one-third of what was committed to.

If the member reads the dissenting report of the Lincoln report he will know what I am talking about. The current parliamentary secretary to the minister favours the privatization of the CBC.

Are those members only in favour of reduced stable long term funding? If that is the case I can understand why they do not want to vote for the motion. We have no problems with reviewing the mandate of CBC in a universe where its level of funding is stable and predictable but not reduced.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that it was his government that slashed the funding to the CBC. It was also the hon. member who just a few minutes ago talked about cheap political points. In fact, that is what the motion does. The motion turns the process on its head. It puts the cart before the horse.

Work is typically done within committee and the minister does her or his work. Policy is then formulated out of that process. Conclusions are not reached before that process is complete, which is why we are voting against the motion. It is inappropriate and it invalidates the future work of the heritage committee and the work that the minister wants to do in the interests of all Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for at least one or two particulars. He is talking about platitudes and saying that this is some kind of meaningless exercise that undermines the Lincoln report.

I would remind him that the parliamentary secretary for his party opposed the Lincoln report. I am confused. Is he saying that his party will now support the recommendations of the Lincoln report when the parliamentary secretary, chosen by the Prime Minister, was against the Lincoln report?

I am looking at the report to see what particular platitude bothers him so much. We are asking the government to ensure that we maintain or enhance existing Canadian cultural content requirements. Is that some kind of outdated platitude that will affect our artists? We are asking to maintain current restrictions on foreign ownership in the cultural sector. Is that the issue? We are asking for continued financial support for public broadcasting in both official languages is that the platitude that is bothering him and that he thinks is handcuffing Parliament and his party?

He seems to be bothered somewhat but I cannot quite get my finger on what it is exactly he feels is so outdated and restrictive that it is taking away the mandate that was won by the Conservative Party on January 23.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Lincoln report sets out a host of recommendations, some that I personally support strongly, some that I would consider and some that I would not. I am sure the government will review the Lincoln report and the minister will receive a copy of it. In fact, I believe a motion will be tabled at our committee in the future to refer that report to the minister for a response within 120 days. We will know then what recommendations the minister supports.

How can we come to the conclusions that are set out in the motion without doing our homework? That is the puzzling part of it. The motion has no place on the floor of the House today because there is so much work to be done yet. We already have the Lincoln report, which will be reviewed by the minister, and we have mandate reviews to be undertaken for every crown corporation under the mandate.

What we are opposed to is the fact that the cart has been put before the horse, which is no way to conduct business. I encourage the member to withdraw the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I want to point out that I personally do not consider this motion a platitude, nor do I consider the comments and arguments of my colleagues platitudes.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion. It is nonetheless convinced that it would be more realistic to consider that Quebec, in matters of cultural regulation, is better positioned to properly defend issues related to its own culture.

The Bloc Québécois considers it essential to regulate broadcasting and telecommunications. The Bloc Québécois reminds hon. members that the worst attack on Canadian content was carried out under, and with the approval of, the Liberals in the satellite radio case. Although the Bloc Québécois is in favour of appropriate financial support for public radio and television, it is nonetheless opposed to their use for the purposes of federalist propaganda.

The Liberal motion is based on the convention on the diversity of cultural expressions.

The official title of the proposed UNESCO convention is “Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions”. It will:

Recognize in international law the distinctive nature of cultural goods and services as vehicles of values, identity and meaning.

Clearly affirm of the right of countries to have cultural policies to ensure genuine diversity of cultural expressions domestically.

Include provisions by which developed countries undertake to support developing countries in nurturing the development of their own emerging cultural industries.

Assert the principle of non-subordination—meaning the legal status of the convention in international law will be equal to that of other international treaties, including trade agreements.

Commit countries to take the provisions of the convention into account not only when entering into other international agreements, but also when applying and interpreting agreements to which they are party.

Include a basic dispute settlement mechanism, creating the potential that in the years ahead the convention will accumulate a body of written decisions on issues of cultural policy that will ultimately influence how culture is treated in trade agreements.

This introductory text being what it is, until Quebec's sovereignty becomes a reality, the viability of major aspects of Quebec's cultural interests is unconstitutionally and intimately linked to the position the federal government will take in each issue related to culture and communications domestically and abroad.

As far as UNESCO is concerned, it is too bad that Quebeckers are unable to make the necessary representations directly to the other member nations of UNESCO so that we could encourage them to ratify the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

This Convention needs to be ratified by 30 countries to become operational. At this very moment, there are only two countries that have ratified it: Canada and Mauritius. Does its inaction in convincing other nations to ratify this convention mean that the federal government, traditionally an international leader in this area, has already given up on the matter? I wonder.

Are we in this House once again going to be the privileged witnesses of the Asia-Pacific axis syndrome regarding this sensitive issue, as we were for the Kyoto protocol?

Let us briefly recall the crucial details that informed the debates surrounding this convention during the 38th Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois, nurtured and supported by the Quebec wing, its cousin and ally, the Parti Québécois, has waged a battle precisely to defend this issue, because it was important, decisive for its identity, for its culture, within this large North American family dominated by our large neighbour, the United States. So with tremendous passion we initiated representations among figures other than Canadians to raise their awareness so that, once back in their own countries, they could carry the message that this is a convention that will help to save us from cultural homogenization and standardization, from alienation and acculturation.

Because, what would we be tomorrow if by chance we let ourselves get lost in the cultural frames of reference and products that come to us from our big neighbour, which exports close to $7 billion worth of cultural products annually? What would become of our children’s and our grandchildren’s identity if we allowed ourselves to be nourished by these references and models of identification?

That was the rationale for our struggle and we were glad to see that the previous government did not drop the ball until we found satisfaction on our side.

With its accountability neurosis, the new government, the Conservative government, should begin to set its own house in order by demonstrating its “sense of state”. In other words, it should honour and actively promote the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, secured with hard work, and signed and ratified by the previous government. It should make sure in particular that this convention is not sacrificed on the altar of the WTO and that it keeps a mechanism for settling disputes so as to ensure that trade tribunals do not end up determining what an “acceptable” cultural policy is.

If culture were regarded as merchandise, we would end up with a form of cultural Darwinism in which only the strongest and the most powerful would survive.

The federal government must therefore confirm that it will not take part in such an undertaking by taking specific action here and now. This means—for us, until Quebec deigns to say yes—that federal government departments and agencies must maintain the programs, policies and regulations that support the artistic sector and cultural industries, specifically by maintaining or promoting the current requirements for Canadian cultural content. This point warrants a little fine tuning. In this regard, I will revive the matter of satellite radio.

The main problem in developing Canadian and francophone content in commercial radio arises from the advent of satellite radio. If it remains on the fringe, the licensing conditions set for it are considerably less stringent than those set for commercial radio and have considerably impressed conventional broadcasters, who have every opportunity now to call for relaxation of their own conditions of licence.

We must remember that the Liberal government could have rejected the CRTC's decision, and that by not doing so, it in fact supported its decision. In other words, the Liberals, who today are presenting this fine motion—I am not saying that ironically, but quite sincerely—helped weaken Canadian cultural sovereignty and struck a hard blow against cultural diversity.

The Liberal member for Bourassa, who disagreed with the position of his own government and with the CRTC, advocated the abolition of the CRTC, purely and simply.

In an open letter in September 2005, with the matter not yet settled, I set the problem out clearly, as heritage critic. The letter was entitled The Threat comes from Space. I will quote part of it.

The decision by the CRTC in June to award licences to Sirius Canada and CSR satellite digital radio services is most definitely bad news for radio in Canada and Quebec, but worse still, it illustrates the position of the federal government in its decision of September 8 to refuse to ask the CRTC to review its decision, as the law permitted it to do.

By deciding to ignore the many joint requests for review, in particular that of ADISQ, the Union des artistes, SOCAN and five other signatories in the entertainment sector, and by deciding not to instruct the CRTC to re-examine its decision, the federal government, by its own initiative, has surrendered both Canadian and—despite our best efforts—Quebec cultural sovereignty.

The Liberals modified the satellite-use policy to allow licensing, thereby enabling two U.S.-run companies, Sirius Satellite Radio and XM, the parent companies of SIRIUS Canada and CSR, to basically control this new medium.

I repeat that the worst blow to Canadian cultural sovereignty was dealt barely a year ago by the party that introduced this motion today.

I remember introducing a motion before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to encourage my Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat colleagues to react to what was going on behind closed doors. I did not intend to go on at length about the circumstances surrounding the decision ratifying the CRTC's move to issue these two operating licences. However, I must point out that the committee unanimously adopted the motion, which read as follows:

That in the opinion of the committee, the federal government must tighten its policies in broadcasting, as the Committee said in the report named Our Cultural sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting, so that Canada entirely controls broadcasting in radio and television on its territory.

This motion was adopted unanimously by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on November 22, 2005.

I would now like to discuss foreign ownership. As my colleagues across the way no doubt expect, the Bloc Québécois is against any loosening of the foreign ownership rules in telecommunications. Because the telecommunications system is vital to any nation's sovereignty, it must be controlled by countries.

In its June 2003 dissenting report on Our Cultural sovereignty, the Bloc Québécois pointed out that

In our opinion, increased foreign ownership would not solve the problem of media concentration. On the contrary: weaker restrictions on foreign ownership and an influx of new capital would accelerate the concentration process.

Quebec creators who testified before the committee agreed unanimously with this position. I quote:

Without Canadian ownership of broadcasting companies, it would be impossible to maintain the integrity of the system and its fundamental mission, which is to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social, and economic fabric—

We are extremely concerned by the fact that the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology has recommended the liberalization of foreign ownership in the telecommunications sector and indirectly the liberalization of ownership rules for broadcasting distribution undertakings.

At the time, the Bloc Québécois recommended that the Minister of Canadian Heritage actively lobby her industry colleague to maintain the existing foreign ownership rules for telecommunications and broadcasting.

However, the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, which submitted its report in March 2006, recommended relaxing controls on foreign ownership, as indicated in a March 26 article published by the Canadian Press:

The three experts also issued a series of recommendations regarding two more controversial topics that did not fall within their mandate, namely, broadcasting policy and foreign ownership.

According to them, it is extremely important that a group of independent experts take a close look at those two issues because they are inevitably linked to the telecommunications sector.

While awaiting the report, Ottawa should authorize foreign investments in telecommunications companies that are not subject to the Broadcasting Act.

The industry minister could therefore use the report as an opportunity to open the debate on foreign ownership, to which he claims to be somewhat sympathetic. In an interview with The Globe and Mail, the industry minister said that he would be open to discussion on that issue.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will fight against any relaxing of controls that will inevitably affect telecommunications in Quebec.

Let us now speak of current restrictions on foreign ownership in the cultural sector. When ordering a report with recommendations on the issue, some questions must be asked. In what direction were the Liberals really headed? Would foreign capital be seen more favourably? The question bears asking. Another step closer to the destruction of Canada's and Quebec's cultural sovereignty? This other question must also be asked.

The Conservatives have inherited this file. What will they do with these recommendations? In the event that this new government relaxes or eliminates restrictions on foreign ownership in the area of telecommunications, I am absolutely convinced that it will be creating serious difficulties for generations to come. With regard to the convergence of radio, cable and telecommunications, changes in ownership of telecommunications equipment will have serious repercussions for the current broadcasting legislation.

If the Bloc supports the Liberal's motion today, it is worthwhile remembering that, in September 2005, the Liberal Minister of Industry—the current Conservative Minister of International Trade—stated that he was open to more relaxed foreign ownership rules, as I mentioned earlier. That is what we were looking for in their election platform during the campaign: their vision for a cultural policy, and more specifically, their vision for broadcasting.

It should be noted that it is because of this Conservative perspective—that of integrating the market, bringing in the private sector and lowering our guard with respect to our neighbour, a large exporter of cultural products—that members of this House anticipate this weakening of Canadian, and consequently Quebec, cultural sovereignty. I know that the opposition will vote unanimously in favour of this motion.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in many aspects of the member's speech.

I want to ask him how realistic he might be with respect to the question of satellite. Without my making any comment on the decision of the CRTC, I wonder if he would not recognize that some of his ideas are a bit pie in the sky, so to speak. One example is the difficulty the commercial broadcasters presently on the ground are having in the province of Quebec. Because they are restricted with their French radio stations and they are restricted to a higher limit on the popular music, they are finding that their audience is actually moving to the English radio stations because the audience wants to hear the different music that is available to them. The audience will go where it wants to go.

When I was in Edmonton last Christmas, I happened to be in a mall and was offered to buy a satellite receiver for my automobile that would either be on the American or the Canadian program. I had that choice in Edmonton. I have no idea whether or not it was a legal choice, but I had the choice. I could have made the choice on the basis of what I was being offered by the American satellite broadcaster or the Canadian broadcaster.

Is the member not rather expecting these regulations to solve the problems, which of course is the point of the Conservative Party? There is a place for regulations but regulations will not resolve the issue because Canadians have every right in the world to make choices as consumers.

Is he being realistic when he is talking about giving up Canadian sovereignty with respect to satellite broadcasting?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify one thing: I have not asked that we give up sovereignty. I do not know if the translation was accurate, but I did not ask that we give up Canadian cultural sovereignty with respect to satellite radio: on the contrary. Am I being realistic? Yes, from the perspective of Quebec. Quebec is the fragile oasis here in North America.

When the hon. member opposite says that certain commercial radio stations are complaining that the audience is fragmenting and looking on the Internet for what it cannot find on commercial radio, I quite understand that. However, it is our duty, as representatives of the people and as representatives of the identity of a people who have French as their common language, to ensure that their presence, their voice, can make itself heard, whatever the medium, be it conventional radio, commercial radio or even satellite radio. We are looking through the lens of identity, anticipating all the dangers and all the assaults to cultural identity.

It is not from the financial perspective, or the profit motive, that we look at things. No, our sensitivity to the issue is anthropological in nature, something which probably is not shared by my colleague across the way.

What shall we leave as our legacy tomorrow, after our time here? Shall we all be appalling simpletons who leave behind an identity cloned from that of the United States? That is what I ask myself. It is a matter of perspective. I will respond very simply to his question by saying that it is a matter of perspective. We are all concerned about problems of identity. We are concerned about the problem of cultural heritage in the medium and long terms.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question the parliamentary secretary posed in terms of choice. We see in this world of privatized culture often the choice of do we want a Coke with our fries or do we want a Sprite with our fries.

The question being put forward with the example of the cars is that we have now mandated in Canada a notion of choice where of 100 stations that the CRTC gave licences to, how many were set aside for Canadian programming? Perhaps eight or ten. How many of those were francophone? Perhaps four. There was no obligation to provide aboriginal radio programming. There was no obligation to provide any kind of real consumer choice.

At the end of the day, when the consumer buys a Chevy car, turns on the radio and there are 92 stations playing all America all the time, for the parliamentary secretary to suggest that is choice is a complete abdication of the fundamental rule that we have maintained in Canada, that our airwaves belong to the people of Canada and the people of Canada have a right to hear their voices on their airwaves.

I suggest to the member if he is being accused of being pie in the sky, what is pie in the sky when we have five or six stations in French across the entire country? I am being very generous with my examples of how many stations are being set aside for Canadian francophone content, because there is no real choice on the stations that are being offered right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is in fact a question which already contains its answer.

It was revolting to see the speed and the rashness with which the CRTC granted these licences in spite of our opposition, in spite of our initiatives, in spite of the interventions of the former minister of Canadian Heritage.

We have here a new vehicle, the radio of the 21st century, satellite radio. It offers 120 channels of which only 10% play Canadian content. Within that percentage we find 5% francophone content. In the beginning, it was 2.5%. We exerted the necessary pressure to get the francophone portion bumped up, and it was done. However that is still inadequate.

We should look at this new radio of the 21st century as we looked at the evolution of the Internet. In its development, the Internet slipped through every mesh of regulation; it is today an instrument that is uncontrolled and uncontrollable. Today that instrument conveys a certain culture to the detriment of other cultures. In my presentation just now, I spoke about cultural Darwinism. That is the logic of the Internet, and it will be the logic of satellite radio as well, if those who govern us today never come to a realization of these risks, never develop a critical rationale for the cultural heritage they want to leave.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that some of the discussion that has been occurring in the last few moments has indicated that satellite radio was similar to broadcasting. Perhaps that needs to be reconsidered in the sense that broadcasting is delivered free over the air. Satellite radio is delivered on an individual customer basis and the customer pays on a monthly basis for this service.

There is no question there is a key difference between satellite radio and general broadcast radio which licensors are able to broadcast freely over the air. There is no service charge for that.

My question for the member opposite is in relation to some of his points on reaffirming our protection of Canadian content in our broadcasters, both television and radio. There is no question that this has helped our lists in these areas over the years.

As we peer into the future it seems that both radio and television will be delivered over the Internet. I am not sure there is anything that can be done, but I would like to hear the thoughts of the member opposite as to what could be done in the future in the sense that both television and radio will likely be delivered entirely over the Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, the perspective of my colleague opposite is probably realistic. It is possible that two generations from now—or perhaps even in one generation—the Internet will be replaced by something else since everything changes so quickly. This new vehicle integrates every televisual and broadcasting means. What are we to do? Now is the time for debate. That is why we are here: to prevent the worst.

That is the purpose of the motion the hon. member from the official opposition is proposing. It is an opportunity for us to get together to express, through our vote, a sort of moratorium on this deviance in which we are losing.

If members opposite are comfortable with the idea of becoming cultural clones of the United States, then that is their problem. In Quebec, we have other ideas. I talked about them earlier, so I will not go over it again. However, we are here today to debate these issues. What should we do?

They were elected to govern. They are in a minority in Canada and in Quebec. So, it is up to them to come up with ideas to fulfill their mandate.

Earlier I heard another member opposite talking about the legitimacy of exercising the power they have today. He thereby dismissed today's exercise. I want to remind hon. members that they were elected to a minority government in the rest of Canada and in Quebec and that humility, under the circumstances, would be appropriate for reflecting calmly and providing the answers to the questions their counterparts opposite have just asked.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to once again rise in this House and represent the people of Timmins--James Bay and the New Democratic Party in a discussion on the importance of maintaining cultural diversity.

I appreciate the motion put forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa—Vanier, because it is clear we need to give direction as the majority in this House to the government on where we need to go in terms of our obligations with UNESCO. Certainly over the last dozen years we have seen a mere lip service paid to cultural programming in this country. While we had some of the biggest surpluses in Canadian history, we saw steady cuts to the Canada Council, the CBC, regional programming and other arts programming.

In Timmins—James Bay, for example, under the Liberals, organizations that worked to promote Franco-Ontarians' language and identity lacked support. These organizations—the ACFO, ARTEM and the La Ronde cultural centre—fought for the vitality and heritage of families living in rural, isolated northern communities. The government must make commitments to these communities and these programs.

There is an obligation for governments to be committed, but we have to look at this in terms of a larger issue which is taking place right now, which is the trade component and foreign ownership issues related to cultural practices. All over the world countries are struggling against an ever-decreasing gene pool of cultural experience. They are fighting in every country to maintain a sense of regional identity and regional voices in the face of this mono-cropping Disney culture.

What we have seen in Canada is that paying lip service is not enough. Clear policies have to be in place. It is meaningless to talk about our support for UNESCO if we as a Parliament do not, number one, support our cultural policies very clearly on the ground, and number two, give very clear direction to our trade negotiators to insist that our cultural rights will not be traded away. What is very clear is that after UNESCO the United States has moved much more aggressively to get cultural issues on the table in terms of bilateral agreements. The U.S. does not support what is happening at UNESCO, and we see at the GATS in Geneva the ongoing efforts to undermine these rights.

The negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services run counter to our commitments to UNESCO. For example, why offer Quebec a seat at UNESCO when the Conservatives have already eliminated our cultural diversity?

The ongoing negotiations taking place at the GATS right now will have profound implications on our ability to maintain a cultural identity. For example, in March, when the industry minister received the recommendations on changes to telecom, he said that it would take weeks and months to study and to come back with recommendations on lifting foreign ownership restrictions. Yet we know that at the same time he was receiving that, Canadian trade delegations in Geneva already had been given very clear instructions.

Canada is part of a pluri-lateral request to the countries of the GATS to strip foreign ownership restrictions on all telecom industries. The trade request, as put forward by the Conservative government, is a radical change in telecom policy. It runs counter to present Canadian law and it will have profound implications on our ability to maintain domestic cultural policy in Canada. The Conservative government has already begun pushing ahead with these talks without a debate in Parliament, without input from stakeholders and without telling Canadians what is on the table.

We must look at the Conservative agenda for restrictions on media, telephone and cable ownership. I think that the Conservatives will want to open the markets to foreign ownership.

The NDP recognizes that Canada must support cultural industries. It must support broadcasting, the arts and magazines because they are vitally important to Canada's identity and its survival in a privatized global market.

When the telecommunications review was going on, questions were asked. We have not heard answers. GATS discussions are ongoing, but we have not heard any answers.

We have to look at who are the main people on the file. We look at the industry minister. Before he was elected, he was with the right-wing Montreal think tank that was committed to the complete free market deregulation of telecommunication. The other key player on the file is the member for Vancouver Kingsway. The pluri-lateral request had to have been initiated when he was the Liberal minister in charge of the review of telecom. Now he is the key figure on the trade talks on deregulation of telecom. Perhaps he did not have to cross very far on the ideological floor to fit in with the Prime Minister's agenda.

The question that has to be asked is, what do changes to telecom have to do with our ability to maintain cultural policy and our obligations at UNESCO? Given the convergence of telecom, the same companies that are open for foreign takeovers in terms of cable television and Internet services are the same companies that provide most of our radio, television and even newspaper services. Would we expect that these companies will divest themselves of their broadcast obligations if we change the foreign ownership restriction. It is a joke to suggest that somehow we will be able to maintain domestic Canadian content quotas, build a firewall around our domestic industry, if we allow the sellout of the ownership of that to U.S. giants.

In light of this, whatever promises we get from the government in terms of its support, it is meaningless. At this point Canada is on the receiving end of a GATS pluri-lateral request in Geneva in the area of audio-visual services. The ongoing discussions, which we are not privy to and which we have no idea what mandate the government has given its negotiators, include questions of stripping domestic content, erasing the favourable tax policies that have encouraged the domestic film production in Canada and ending all foreign ownership restrictions in the delivery and production of audio-visual services.

Parliament has set very clear limits on foreign ownership in broadcast and telecom. We need to insist that our trade negotiators, who are undertaking to represent Canada on the international level, understand that they have to be in compliance with present Canadian law. If the government wants to come forward with an agenda to change our laws on broadcast and telecom, it should then come into the House and open it to debate, but it cannot partake in this in Geneva and then bring it back as a fait accompli.

Any changes to domestic ownership in Canada, any changes to who controls telecom or broadcast, has to be brought before the House. I am very pleased that the motion has opened up this issue because it allows us for the first time to bring these issues forward to the Canadian people.

Therefore, I would like to put forward an amendment to aid us in our discussions and I think also aid the government in understanding its obligations to Parliament. I move:

That the motion be amended to insert the following immediately after “that the government”:

“provide direction to trade negotiators to ensure that domestic cultural rights are not undermined in any trade talks and”

Then we continue on with the motion “the House insist that the government...”.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 85 an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, does the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier consent to the amendment being moved?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do consider the amendment to be friendly and I consent to it being moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague on his insightful, enlightening, passionate speech. He is an artist at heart. There is no denying his roots. Artists are in a better position than anyone to appreciate the potential damage.

I have just one question for him. Does the fact that Canada shares the English language with the United States justify the Conservatives' lax approach to culture?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very germane question because we are perhaps 21 million anglophones spread across 4,000 kilometres. We know our biggest trading partner and our number one ally sees culture as a product, the same as Tide soap or GM cars.

We know the necessity of maintaining a sense of culture. I represent an isolated, rural area in the north. My constituents do not hear their voice very often. They do not hear their own cultural expression. Therefore, there is a necessity for government to play a role in maintaining a fabric. Otherwise, if we do not see the importance of maintaining a cultural fabric, then what are we other than 21 million potential shoppers at a Wal-Mart?

With regard to the success of English cultural production, where there have been regulations, we have been able to compete internationally. Where there have been no obligations for regulation, we have been almost wiped off the map. When comparing film to music, there have been complete diametric positions.

Quebec and the francophone regions of the country have been somewhat more placated because there is an insulation factor. We see the success in Quebec of a domestic film industry that is maintained by the province, with support from the federal government. It also is because of the sense of having a language difference from our number one trading partner. The other parts of the country are very envious.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the north does have a unique perspective, which I would agree with on most occasions.

I would like to talk a bit about some of the comments he made in relation to telephony over the Internet. He commented that greater control was needed. There is no question that this is a challenging area at which the government is looking.

However, breaking out the argument a little further, I would suggest that media delivered over the Internet, fortunately or unfortunately depending on our perspective, can be done from any point on the planet. How would the member recommend that the Government of Canada force companies to follow certain regulations in Canada? Those companies could take their capital and reinvest in different markets if they decided they did not like the regulations. There really would be no impediment on them for delivering their business. There is no difference if they deliver that business in northern Canada, or in the southern United States or in the Caribbean.

How would government accomplish a real solution in that area?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, definitely this cuts to the heart of where we go with broadcast, which would be AT&T delivering broadcast television over the Internet and bypassing any domestic cultural rights.

I am somewhat confused. There is the fear that if we do not kneel before capital all the time, it will pick up its toys and go someplace such as the Caribbean. That is fine. Bell Globemedia can move to the Caribbean, but there still will be a market here, which people will want to access.

I do not see our domestic radio, television markets or media saying that because they cannot provide us ABC news all the time or FOX news instead of Canadian news, that they will pack up and go someplace else. That simply is not a reality. The reality is our broadcasters will respond to the regulations that are put before them. What we must put before them are clear rules. Some of those rules must be an obligation for domestic, regional Canadian voices.