Debates of Nov. 27th, 2007

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

Special Claims Tribunal Act

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canadian Heritage

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, tabled on Wednesday, November 21, 2007, be concurred in.

I am pleased to rise for the first time in this House as the Bloc Québécois heritage critic. My first thoughts are for my colleague from Saint-Lambert, who has done such a wonderful job as critic since 2004. I thank him for all the work he has done. I would also like to assure all the stakeholders in the cultural community in Quebec and even Canada that, like my friend, the member for Saint-Lambert, I will listen to them and be an ardent defender not only of culture, artists and artisans, but also of the right of nations to exist as strong and different entities in the world. To me, cultural diversity should never disappear.

Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I also want to recognize the people of Ahuntsic. The name Ahuntsic calls to mind our historical heritage. Ahuntsic was the Huron name given to the French assistant of Récollet missionary Nicolas Viel, whom we have all heard of. Both men died in the rapids of the Rivière des Prairies in 1625.

What is important is that today, Ahuntsic is a magnificent cultural community. I wanted to pay tribute to the teams behind FestiBlues, an international festival, as well as Cité Historia, Maison de la culture, Ressart, Artisans de la rue, Foyer de la danse, Musique Multi-Montréal, Violon de Grand-mère, and our libraries and educational institutions. As hon. members can appreciate, Ahuntsic is a riding where culture is really very important. I also want to pay special tribute to the people behind the project to create the Maison des arts et des lettres, a very important addition to our community and something we are going to work very hard for at the federal, academic, municipal and provincial levels.

We have decided today to focus on issues that are important to the Bloc Québécois and Quebec because culture is an important part of our identity and the survival of our nation—and by nation, I mean Quebec. However, culture is also vital to Canada as a nation. The same is true of the environment, which is a crucial issue for the generations to come. And what is this government doing? It is systematically proceeding with a demolition project and muzzling the opposition in Bali. The same is true of broadcasting and telecommunications policy, where we are also seeing veiled demolition projects—the government does not act directly—and where the government is keeping the opposition out of the debate.

Hence this morning's motion, aimed at setting the record straight to some extent and raising the alarm with this government which, it should be remembered, is a minority government. The motion we are debating states, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of the Committee, any new directive to the CRTC from the Governor-in-Council amending the interpretation of the Broadcasting Policy for Canada or the Canadian Telecommunications Policy be first put before the House through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its consideration.

This motion, which I put forward at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and which was adopted by a majority of committee members, reflects a profound uneasiness with this government turning its back on its democratic duties when it comes to presenting its policy directives to Parliament.

If this government wants to let the free market prevail, that is its philosophy. But if it wants to amend the legislation governing the CRTC, it should do it through the front door and let us have a debate in this House.

In fact, if we are debating this issue here today, it is because of this government's unacceptable behaviour in refusing to put its policy directives into a bill. This government, which is still a minority government, is bringing major policy changes in through the back door, without any real debate.

It seems fundamental to us that the partners have their say on issues of such importance to Quebeckers and to Canadians as well.

Talking about changes to broadcasting is really something fundamental that affects the protection of culture for the Quebec nation as well as for the Canadian nation. That is why we want these changes debated here in this House.

If they want to change the legislation, they should introduce a bill.

I know some people will insist that no major changes are being contemplated, and they will suggest that people are getting upset over nothing and that opposition members of Parliament are blowing things out of proportion, but that is not true. On November 6, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages made an important announcement. She did not make it here, nor did she make it in committee. She made it at the convention of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. She said, “I challenge you to be open to change—because change will come.”

I would like to ask the minister what changes she thinks are in store. Everyone here would like to know. The Conservatives are doing their best to avoid talking about these fundamental changes that will affect our ability to protect Canadian and Quebec culture.

Let us talk about these changes. During the ADISQ Gala on October 28, in response to recent CRTC decisions that indicate a shift toward policies that put market forces ahead of the duty to protect culture and society, 18 groups of artists and businesses operating in the cultural sector, including 17 that work mainly in Quebec, strongly urged the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages to use her power to issue policy directives to the CRTC to avoid this major shift.

This protest from Quebeckers received unanimous support from Quebec's National Assembly. Then, on October 29, in response to this urgent appeal from the cultural sector, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages told my colleague, the member for Saint-Lambert, that “the CRTC is an arm's length agency”. Nevertheless, 11 days before that, on October 18, that same minister had ordered the CRTC to review its decision to amend the broadcasting licence of Avis de recherche inc. So she did intervene. On the 29th, the CRTC was autonomous, but on the 18th, she intervened in a decision. That is contradictory. Perhaps she was trying to hide her real intentions. Perhaps on the 18th, she was revealing her true intentions.

The truth came out during the minister's speech on November 6. The minister told those attending the Canadian Association of Broadcasters convention that her first priority was “—an increased reliance on competition and market forces—”. She made that very clear. Later on, she said, “The status quo is no longer an option".

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages could not have been more clear. She said no to the Quebec and Canadian cultural communities and to the National Assembly. And she said yes to the financial free market. Regarding broadcasting, whether on the radio, television or Internet, the minister's approach is, in fact, to defend the interests of large corporations. She treats culture first and foremost as a consumer product, even though Canada signed the convention on cultural diversity.

I think this conservative approach will be detrimental to culture and to the Quebec nation, which the Prime Minister and his government claim to recognize. Furthermore, in the speech made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages on November 6, there was no mention of the concept of nation. In fact, there was no place in her speech for the Quebec nation. For the Conservative government, nation is merely a word and is not linked with any action or real commitment thus far. We must denounce this, because we are not a “nation-concept”, but rather a real nation that truly exists and we must have our powers. It is even more upsetting when this kind of behaviour is seen in a minister from Quebec.

At present, artists are worried, and with good reason.

Unfortunately, we cannot count on the “Quebeckness”—that is, a sense of belonging to a nation called Quebec—of any Conservative members to defend the interests of the Quebec nation when it comes to broadcasting and in other areas.

Under the Conservatives, Canada is unfortunately following a path driven by market forces rather than the defence of national identities. Not only is the Quebec nation worried, but the Canadian nation is also concerned. The Quebec nation must not be dragged down this path, which, in the end, serves no purpose but assimilation into what could be called global cultures. We are here to defend our culture of course, but I really encourage the other members from Canada to also defend Canadian culture, just as we, the Bloc Québécois, can do for Canadians.

We therefore repeat that, in order to support our culture, it is crucial that the application of radio and television broadcasting policies be left to the Government of Quebec, our national government, and that it be allowed to determine the regulatory framework within its borders.

When the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the Conservative government was communications minister in Quebec, he defended the following statement:

Quebec must be able to establish the rules for operating radio and television systems, and control development plans for telecommunications networks, service rates and the regulation of new telecommunications services...Quebec cannot let others, meaning Canada, [member's emphasis] control programming for electronic media within its borders...To that end, Quebec must have full jurisdiction and be able to deal with a single regulatory body.

The member for Pontiac, like his Conservative colleagues from Quebec, is now contributing to the threat facing Quebec society and its culture.

Now, more than ever, Quebec needs its own CRTC. We cannot trust the Canadian government or a pan-Canadian body to protect our Quebec nation and its culture.

A Quebec body would consult and make decisions based on the priority interests of our nation, and only our nation. Furthermore, the power of direction would be assumed by the Quebec government.

Having recognized Quebec as a nation, the federal government must now do something tangible about it and at the very least agree to a devolution of power, if not give up that power under the Constitution. This could be a first step in showing that it truly recognizes us as a nation.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is characteristically anti-democratic, implementing policies without debate and presenting parliamentarians and the general public with a fait accompli.

In fact, this government does not respect what the majority of Quebeckers want and it is abusing its prerogatives.

It does so on the environment—as we have seen quite recently—and on the gun registry. We saw what it did to Status of Women Canada and Canada Summer Jobs. I could go on and on. The only time there was any kind of agreement was in connection with the war in Afghanistan. That is all it cares about. But there again, the government has hijacked the mandate. Unfortunately, instead of striking a balance between humanitarian aid and security, the government has put the entire focus on war.

As far as broadcasting and telecommunication are concerned, this government is using its power of direction over the CRTC in order to weaken the regulatory framework without any real debate in this House.

When the CRTC drifts toward deregulation and ignores its responsibility to protect culture, this government does not say a word.

I strongly encourage the House to pass this motion in order to make this government more accountable to the people of Quebec and Canada before this Parliament.

In Quebec, as anywhere else in the world, our national identity depends on the strength and vitality of our creators. When they sound the alarm as they did in October, we cannot sit idly by, especially when the Minister of Canadian Heritage says she recognizes the nation of Quebec and she herself is from Quebec.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to start by congratulating the member for Ahuntsic for her excellent speech, and also for how she conveyed to this House the very essence of the motion.

Some speeches in this House are very illuminating about the role we play here as parliamentarians, and the member for Ahuntsic delivered such a speech today.

There are some fundamental issues and recognizing Quebec as a nation is one of them. Quebec must be recognized as a nation in the full sense of the word, and the only way that can be achieved is if a firm position is taken, such as the one my colleague took this morning.

I would like her to elaborate on what this adds to how the recognition of Quebec as a nation is viewed, and the power over culture this recognition entails, particularly when it comes to communications.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would say that culture is vital to every nation. If we study history a bit, we see that, when there has been the desire to destroy or eliminate a people, the first thing attacked is its culture and identity. Unfortunately, we have seen this here, in Canada, with events involving aboriginals. Attempts have been made to turn them into white people, to annihilate their own culture. At present, the culture of many aboriginal communities is still under attack.

I have visited some reserves and certain areas. For example, I went to Chisasibi, where the Cree live. They told me they could not raise their children because they were not allowed to be parents and their culture had been annihilated. I met with young people who told me that they were ashamed to be Cree. That is abominable. their culture and their identity have been taken away from them. For this reason, it is vital to not let our culture be swept away by market forces.

We now live in a country called Canada and we too are a different nation. To be able to manage our identity, we will not entrust it to others; we must manage it ourselves. That must be done in all areas, particularly in telecommunications and broadcasting, and hence the request for a Quebec CRTC. We are the only ones who can understand what we want in terms of culture and identity.

I do not wish to be meanspirited with regard to this matter. However, we need only think of the 18 organizations who spoke out, of which 17 were from Quebec, because they felt that their culture, which is different than that of Canada, was being attacked directly.

When we talk of recognizing the Quebec nation, there must be an acknowledgement that the term “nation” goes hand in hand with the terms “action” and “responsibility”. Then, we must be given the powers that rightfully belong to us, in all matters whether culture, immigration or protection and security.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your award.

Let me say for the member that I am always of the belief that the sum of our parts is greater than what we are individually. Individually we are weaker than what we are as a nation, the nation being Canada.

My province of British Columbia has a unique linguistic and cultural milieu, as does every province and as does the province of Quebec. It irritates me no end, and I just cannot imagine why it is, that members of the Bloc do not see that the sum of the provinces of Canada makes us greater than what we are as individual provinces. I do not understand for a moment how the Bloc feels that culture in Quebec is being assaulted by Canada when the lion's share of money for culture in our country has gone to Quebec.

More money has gone to Quebec than to any other province or summation of provinces in Canada and that has always been the way it is. Quebec has received more than its fair share of money.

Does the hon. member not think that we as provinces together are stronger than we are as individual provinces? Does she not think that together we can make our Canada much greater than we can if we fracture it? Does she not think that her culture is stronger within a united Canada than if it is separate? If separate, the culture and language of Quebec would be weakened rather than strengthened, because there is no way that Quebec as an independent state would be receiving the moneys it receives right now for the protection of its culture and language.

Believe me, if my province of British Columbia could get half the money that Quebec receives for its culture and language, we would be ecstatic.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we will never agree on this difference. Whether we like it or not, for the time being we are a nation, but the day will come when we will become a country that will be a powerful player on the world scene. It will not be a military power, something that Canada seems to be drifting toward and that we are forced to go along because we are not yet a country.

Is it not clear why we want to become a country? Because of all this. Because, as a country, we would not go into Afghanistan or Iraq, for example,we would avoid finding ourselves in situations that are non of our business. The fact of the matter is that we have different values, a different identity and a different outlook on the world.

Having said that, I disagree with my colleague when he says that the Quebec culture would be weaker in the event of a separation from Canada. That is false. Look at France, which is a state in and of itself. Is it weaker? Are the United States weaker? No, they are actually invading us with their culture. The difference and the strength of cultures does not come from independence then, but rather from what one decides to do with it; that is what gives a people its strength and its identity. We have resisted Canadian colonization for many years and we are still here. We still have our own identity, and our language has survived. Quebec is not bilingual, as Canada says; Quebec is French, it is intercultural and, one day, it will become a country.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ahuntsic has presented the issue very well.

However, I want to go back to the motion. I am wondering if my colleague could explain it, in the little time remaining, because I do not understand its meaning.

The motion provides that “...any new directive to the CRTC from the Governor-in-Council amending the interpretation of the Broadcasting Policy for Canada or the Canadian Telecommunications Policy be first put before the House through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its consideration”.

Where is the problem and how was the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages going to be drifting away from the existing regulations?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The fact is that we have noticed that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages was using, to some degree, her power to issue directives to begin to sway the CRTC toward deregulation and the free market.

We are quite concerned about that. And this is not just Quebeckers. Indeed, fellow members on the committee who represent the other opposition parties also supported that motion, because even Canadian culture stakeholders are concerned about this deregulation process, which could result in more foreign productions taking a greater part of the market. In other words, we would have a free market. Whoever would be best positioned to sell cultural products would simply do it.

Currently, we have regulations which provide that there must be a certain quota in terms of Canadian content and production. Back home, we are talking about quotas for Quebec productions.

That is the reason for our concern. We noticed that the minister gets involved when it suits her, but only then. We felt that if the minister wanted to change things, she simply had to come and tell us in committee, so that we could report back to the House. This is simply democracy at work.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite important for Canadians to realize what this debate right now is all about. It is about the Bloc Québécois, that does not want to discuss the tackling violent crime act, just delaying. There is absolutely no reason for this motion to be here.

The member knows full well that according to the Broadcasting Act there could never be a broadcasting policy directive that would not go to the committee for consideration. Therefore, the motion is absolutely useless.

What is very instructive is that last night on Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, members of this House voted in favour of the bill by a vote of 222 to 1. I am not sure whether the member voted in favour of it or whether she was in the House but the fact was that the Bloc Québécois, in putting on a show last night that it was actually serious about crime, stood and made it appear as though it were in favour of the tackling violent crime act.

It will be instructive to see what happens with the NDP and the Liberals as it relates to this motion. If they stand and continue this farce that is presently going on, this debate that is absolutely unnecessary because the motion carries absolutely no value, it will tell Canadians everything they need to know.

Is the NDP serious about tackling violent crime? Are the Liberals serious about tackling violent crime? We know that the Bloc is not, in spite of the fact that it stood and voted for it last night. What are the NDP and the Liberals going to do? This debate should end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great amusement to my hon. colleague, with whom I sat on committee and who I have a great deal of respect for, but the fact is that we have a serious issue to debate today.

I know that the Conservatives have numerous bills on mandatory minimums for furniture theft, bicycle theft and whatever else they can drum up. We also know that the Prime Minister absolutely shamed Canada on the international stage this weekend. He is showing more and more that he is not the leader of a national government but basically a front for big oil, and people are outraged at that.

When we talk about an agenda here, the agenda that we are seeing is of someone who, from the beginning, said that Kyoto was a socialist plot to rob Alberta of its just pillaging of the tar sands.

Regardless of all that, the debate in the House today is an issue that needed to be brought forth. If the member does not like the timing of it, too bad, so sad. This is the work that we do in the House. The question is whether the issues of the CRTC relevant.

The member's own government is the lead nation at the GATS in Geneva to strip all the foreign content rules off Telecom and is now at the receiving end of a plurilateral request to strip all domestic content quotas from the ability of broadcasting to even maintain a cultural policy. That is something the Conservatives are doing internationally in Geneva. Does the member not think that the Canadian public expects that members, whether they are from the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals or even the Conservative Party, will look at those issues when they come back and ensure we have a say on what is happening with the wholesale sell-off of our cultural landscape by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the NDP member try to justify the fact that he is trying to delay the tackling violent crimes act, which is exactly what this so-called debate is about.

Having been an expert person on the committee, the member knows full well that this motion is absolutely useless. The committee ended up passing a motion that is ultra vires. It is beyond the ability of the committee, the governor in council and beyond the ability of anyone, except to amend the Broadcasting Act. Surely he is not talking about amending the Broadcasting Act.

I say again that Canadians should note that the Bloc Québécois does not care about tackling violent crime. If we hear a long speech from the member who just stood about absolutely nothing, we will also know that the NDP, in spite of the fact that only one of its members stood last night to vote against Bill C-2, when its members stood and made it appear as those they were actually serious about tackling violent crime, it was a hypocritical act for them to stand and make it appear as though they were actually in favour of Bill C-2. I would say to the Liberals exactly the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Seeing as the hon. member has accused us of being hypocrites when we do vote for our constituents, I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

Simply because we are not brow-beaten like they are does not mean that he can push us around with a bunch of cheap comments.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I might say to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay that, whatever he may think, it is not unparliamentary to accuse groups of being hypocritical. We just cannot accuse each other of being hypocrites.

The hon. member may want to withdraw the remark or he may not but it is certainly not something that qualifies as unparliamentary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very precise. I said that the NDP engaged in a hypocritical act.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder—although it does not surprise me—how the parliamentary secretary can try to avoid responding to the motion introduced by my colleague this morning, and instead try to respond to all kinds of things that have nothing to do with this motion.

But the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities agreed with the principle of this motion when he was a member of the Quebec government.

So I do not understand how the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage can go against the wishes of a minister from his own cabinet.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act, as approved by Parliament, sets out the broadcasting policy for Canada. The CRTC's responsibility is to regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system, with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy for Canada as set out in the act.

The CRTC cannot change the act and the government has no intention of providing the CRTC with that power. The CRTC is a regulatory body that operates independently of the government. The member of the committee from the Bloc Québécois is fully aware of that, which is why it is so deeply regrettable that the Bloc members and apparently the NDP members, although we will see what they do with their speeches, but they seem to be absolutely set on the issue of stopping Bill C-2, which is the only reason for this debate.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague on the other side about an issue that is extremely important to many Canadians, the issue of media centralization, media control in a smaller number of hands, which is the CRTC's responsibility.

I believe the CRTC has failed miserably in not allowing a diversity of voices to get out. It has failed in terms of allowing the media concentration that is occurring today, which is not only disruptive to the public but disruptive to journalists and to this House. It also is disruptive to the ability of all of us as elected officials to do our jobs.

What will the member's government do to allow, enable, suggest or encourage the CRTC to enable a broader diversity of voices in the media and to decrease the media concentration that is choking off a diverse number of ideas to be out in the public for public consumption and for collective action?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member may know, the Senate has looked at this issue and I was involved in a review of this issue as part of the status of broadcasting in Canada. It is a small part but, nonetheless, a part of the current ongoing CBC mandate review. He may have questions about how the CRTC has chosen to go about doing its mandate, which are all very interesting things.

I mean no disrespect to my friend but we should look at what this debate right now is about. This debate is about the fact that the Bloc Québécois and, I would rather suspect, the NDP are somewhat soft on attacking violent crime.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when it comes time for the Liberals to stand and either debate or not debate. My recommendation would be to let their slot go by and see what happens with the NDP and the Bloc because that is really what all of this is about. It is simply to delay tackling violent crime on the part of the opposition to this government.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find what is going on in this House with the parliamentary secretary rather amusing. He is essentially telling us that culture is not important to him and his government. He is accusing us of trying to waste time to avoid debating their bill. But we voted in favour of the bill. What is he talking about? I do not understand.

What I understand from what he is saying is that culture is not important to him, to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, to his government and to his Prime Minister.

Can he tell us more about the changes and the free market the minister mentioned in her speech? What exactly are the changes the minister wants to make?

We would like some reassurance on this subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was rather telling of that member when she was on her feet a couple of minutes ago, on a slightly different topic but nonetheless related, and said that she and the Bloc Québécois did not have the same way of looking at the world. Those words were singularly prophetic of the fact that those members are debating something that does not require debate. The motion is totally ultra vires. The motion is nothing that the House can actually seize upon and do anything about.

What this debate is about is the Bloc Québécois attempting to shut down the debate on Bill C-2 on tackling violent crime. Those members went through the motions of voting in favour of it. Why are they trying to stop the tackling violent crime debate?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. It goes to the heart of something that affects all of us in our country.

A strong democracy is the ability of the people of a country to freely elect individuals who can represent the interests of the public, and for those individuals to come to a democratic house such as this one and fight for those issues that are important to the people who elected them. That is our responsibility, but suppose something happened to sever that. Our ability to drive an idea forward into action is predicated in part on a free and open media, where diverse ideas are allowed to be put out in the public, to be lauded or excoriated, depending on the quality of the idea and its synchroneity with the desires and wishes of a free public.

What happens when that triangle is affected negatively? What happens if we do not have a media that is open, free and with diverse ideas? What happens if elected members are unable to do their job in driving ideas forward into action?

Sadly, that is what has happened in our country. Part of the blame I believe goes to the CRTC in its inability to prevent the media centralization and concentration that has occurred over the last several years. There are four large groups that control all the mainstream media in Canada. We can pick up newspapers from any areas in the country and we will find the exact same story. There may be a series of media outlets but the stories are identical. A story written by one reporter who works for a corporation which owns a series of the mainstream media will be put in all the media outlets and therefore, the public will only be exposed to that one idea.

That is not healthy for the country. It is not healthy for journalism. In fact, the Canadian Association of Journalists has said very clearly that journalistic independence has been affected and that consolidation in the media has created a culture that demands that journalists file the same story over the airwaves. One story will go to large areas of the public, and the public does not have access to other ideas.

There has also been a shift in the quality. Rather than dealing with hard issues that affect Canadians' day to day lives, we are living in an era of infotainment, which is what the public is fed. This presupposes that the public is dumb and bovine, which is actually ridiculous. The public thirsts for ideas. They want people to fight for what they want in various areas. Not being able to do that erodes the morale of the public and makes people understandably jaded. If members of the public do not feel they are able to effect change, then they will pull back and will not engage the pillars of our democracy.

The government must get a handle on this. It cannot allow the concentration of the media to continue. It must put into place avenues that allow a broad diversity of views. It cannot allow this narrowness that takes place.

With respect to the infotainment that is pushed forward, we hear about Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, or a rapper's mother who sadly has died. However, I do not believe that those issues which are trotted out in the press at length are more important to Canadians than a senior who cannot get medical care, the mid-level, middle aged couple who cannot find a place for their elderly parents in a seniors home, the addict on the street who cannot find care, the psychiatric patient who cannot find mental health care, and individuals who live in poverty, the low income people who are struggling to put food on the table to feed their children and themselves.

Putting food on the table, getting education for their children, having money in their pockets, having a brighter future, access to health care, and good infrastructure are concerns that Canadians have. Those things are more important to them than reading about Britney Spears' latest adventure.

The inability to put ideas in front of the public and engage the public to move those ideas forward is a significant detriment to the future of our country. It makes us all less than what we could be.

It is heartbreaking. As elected officials we see people across party lines who have a plethora of great ideas to help Canadians. Nobody has a hammerlock on good or bad ideas. We all have ideas. The tragedy of the House and the structure in our country is that we as elected officials do not have the ability to drive those ideas forward as the public expects.

In my province of British Columbia the three leading dailies are owned by one group. The Globe and Mail editorial board, for example, made a decision five years ago not to publish editorial pieces by members of Parliament, except under extraordinary circumstances. A newspaper cannot criticize MPs for not having ideas on one hand, but on the other hand not publish their ideas when they are given.

A case in point: A very thoughtful journalist wrote a piece asking why we are not seeing more ideas about the mission in Afghanistan. I wrote a piece that same day which by two o'clock was in the hands of the Globe and Mail. It did not publish the piece because it does not publish opinion editorials by members of Parliament.

I called and reminded the Globe and Mail that that was the eleventh op ed piece the paper had received in the last year on solutions for the mission in Afghanistan. I asked how in good conscience the paper on one hand could criticize us as members of Parliament for not having ideas, but on the other hand not allow us to have those ideas published in the paper when we are working hard to offer the best solutions.

In the end, maybe they are not the best solutions, but if we have a proper system, it will inspire people to come up with better ideas, to justifiably criticize those ideas and say, “I have a better idea to put into the mix”. Ultimately we would be able to bind the best ideas we have in our country, feed them through the system and implement them for the betterment of our public. That is our job. That is how the system should work, but the system is not working in that way. It should. A government should work with all parties to enable that to happen, not for the interest of any specific government at hand, but for the larger objective to enable us to fight for the issues, ideas and solutions that our public needs.

Every one of us knows people in our ridings who struggle day to day to put food on the table, to build a future, to have some hope, to get medical care, to live. All of us know people like that. People ask us why they are not seeing ideas and action in these areas and why we are not able to put forward solutions and get them implemented when it makes sense to them. We need a system that allows that. We can work together in that area to make it happen for the good of the House, for the good of our democracy and for the good of our nation, most importantly.

All of us have heard some wonderful ideas from very smart people in the public. They come to our committees and offer those solutions. People in the public service have great ideas and yet those ideas sit in a sinkhole not to go anywhere. That is not in the public interest. That does not serve the public well.

The government can work to enable the CRTC to allow a broad diversity of ideas. It would not only be healthy for our democracy but it would be healthy for journalists. All of us know the heart-wrenching environment that journalists work in today. Journalists themselves would say they would love to put fascinating ideas forward but their editors would not tolerate it. There is a notion that the media has to put forth issues that either bleed or have some other horrific conflict laden issues surrounding them. Why?

In Al Gore's book Assault on Reason there is a great quote. He lamented that if the issue bleeds it leads, and if it thinks it stinks. That is not a very good assessment of our world. It is not the way it should be, it is not the way it ought to be and it is not the way it has to be.

We can build something better. We can build something stronger. We can have a House that enables Canadians to work through their elected officials to implement those solutions that affect the day to day lives of the people we serve. That is our job and our duty. We can only do it if we have an environment in this House where ideas are taken seriously, where those ideas can be moved into action rather than sitting forever in a swamp and going nowhere. We also need a media which, at times, is prepared to print the ideas that are out there for what they are and let the public judge whether those ideas are good, bad or mediocre.

We will live and stand by what we put forward. We will live and stand by what we do. That is a healthy democracy. People will or will not elect us based on the quality of our actions and the quality of ideas that we implement to serve the interests of our communities and the interests of our great nation. That is what our duty is. That is the system we ought to have.

I would implore that the government work to enable the CRTC to have that diversity of views. If we do not arrest this constriction of the media now, we will not be able to have the nation we could have. Our Canada would be less than what it could be. I would implore the government to do that. If ever there were a legacy that would serve the country for decades to come, it would be that.

In the interests of the public, in the interests of the House of Commons, in the interests of journalists who enter that profession to serve and to put ideas forward so that those ideas could have an effect and a public that would benefit from that, the government needs to implement those solutions. A failure to do that would make our country less than what it could be.

Last, with regard to the comments made by the Bloc, as the Canadians that they are and we are, I would hope that they would look into their souls and see that the culture and language of Quebec as the cultures and languages that we have in all our provinces are better as a sum than what we are as individuals. Together we are a stronger nation. All our cultures and languages are stronger and protected and enrich us all if we are able to live and work together in an environment of tolerance and understanding. To look at this as a them versus us environment would weaken all of us. It would weaken Quebec. It would weaken British Columbia. It would weaken every province. The importance of a federal government is to enable cultures and languages to thrive.

The member from the Bloc Québécois said that Quebec is not a bilingual province, and I assume she meant that it is a francophone province. Does she not forget the Cree who live in the northern regions of Quebec? Does she not account for the anglophones who live in Quebec? Or the immigrants who come to Quebec for many reasons? What about them?

Every province has a milieu of different cultures and languages. It is obvious to say that French is the dominant language in Quebec, but why would she take an exclusionary attitude toward the people of her province by saying that Quebec is only one narrow thing and it is only defined in one narrow way.

Is it not stronger for us all to be defined in a broader way, with a greater diversity and a greater milieu of cultures and languages? Of course it is.

If Quebec were to separate and become an independent country, as the member suggests, and engage with the United States, as previous leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois have said, do they really think that the culture of their language would be strengthened?

Ottawa and the Canadian people put more money into the province of Quebec than into any other province for the protection of language and culture. Nothing compares to that whatsoever.

If Quebec were independent, it would engage with the United States. Does the member from the Bloc, or the Bloc Québécois or the Parti Québécois leaders, or the people of Quebec truly think that the people of the United States would care whether or not they are going to speak in French? They are not going to speak in French. They will speak in English.

The discourse that would take place between Quebec and the United States would not be francophone based, not based on the Quebec French culture, it would be based on using the English language and a culture that would be primarily that which we see south of the border.

The reality of it is that the culture and language of Quebec would actually be weakened through independence than if it were to stay in the milieu of Canada that strengthens all of us.

I want to say to the government in closing that there is the issue of a lack of media diversity and the lack of the ability of MPs to do their jobs that all of us desire with full hearts. We must be able to do our jobs. By not being able to do our jobs, we weaken our democracy, weaken our country, and we do not serve the Canadian public well at all.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and I am very surprised by his speech. According to him, it would seem that Canada has no personality. Culture is a reflection of a people's personality. His speech suggests that we can be unduly influenced by the personality of anyone and everyone who comes to join us.

Furthermore, I would point out that it is Canada's responsibility to invite and give information to immigrants regarding its structures and accommodation intentions. Canada's communications to other countries indicate that Canada does not really have a culture per se, since everyone can bring along their culture. Although done with the best of intentions, this creates some very serious problems. Indeed, once they arrive in Canada—and this is particularly true in Quebec—people realize that this has created significant delusions. It is not true that everyone can bring every element of their culture. Cultural elements must blend with the existing elements. We have our laws, our rules and other traditions.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is urging us, as members of the Bloc Québécois, to have a look at our conscience. I would say we need to look more at past experience, since it shows that our reality is not as he describes it.

Will he admit that we need to inform immigrants that we do indeed have our own culture here and that, when they come with their own culture, we are happy to welcome them, but that their culture must also blend with ours?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with two issues raised by my hon. colleague. The first is the issue of equity. Does my hon. friend not acknowledge, and he has to acknowledge, the fact that Ottawa, the federal government, has poured money into Quebec for decades supporting Quebec culture and language.

More money has gone into the province of Quebec than the rest of the provinces summated. The whole western collection of provinces in our country receive year in and year out less money for culture and language than Quebec does. If anybody is dealing with an inequitous situation, I would suggest it is the rest of the country, not Quebec. Those are the facts.

On the issue of culture, does he not think that the people immigrating to Quebec and the linguistic and cultural milieu they bring to Quebec is something that would enrich all of us? Why on earth would we put barriers up and define ourselves in such a narrow way and expect the milieu of people who will come to the province will somehow be deletirious to that culture and language, deletirious to the lives that people live? Would the diversity not actually strengthen everybody?

I would ask the member to open the doors, open his language and culture, allow people to come in, and at the end of the day Quebec and Quebeckers will be enriched by staying in Canada, not out of Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do share many of the views expressed by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca about multiculturalism that exists in Quebec, but the real fact of the matter today is that we were supposed to be discussing Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime bill, and putting it to bed finally on third reading.

I was shocked to see that the Liberals, who say they are going to be tough on crime, wasted a full 20 minutes in their speech today when they could have just got up saying what their position is on the motion and then sat down so we could get back to business, and get back to discussing the tackling violent crime bill. He is cooperating with the Bloc in delaying this instead of being very serious about moving forward and dealing with all the issues that we have in this great bill that finally gives some rights to victims.

He stood here for 20 minutes and talked about a situation that will not change a single piece of legislation.