House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cuts.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, could the member show me the place in the budget or in the estimates where the government has cut funding to the CBC?
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I did not say that the government was cutting CBC/Radio-Canada funding. I did not use those words. The government refused to grant the corporation permission to borrow money, as any other Canadian company or individual can do. The government had another option. It could have made funding available to CBC/Radio-Canada. I clearly explained that the government refused both options.
Obviously, this is a difficult situation, since advertising revenues are decreasing because of the financial crisis, so the crown corporation has been forced to make cuts in programming and human resources. However, the only thing the government has been doing for a number of years is continuing to follow Treasury Board regulations by adding 1.5% a year, but the government has not increased funding any more than that.
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his excellent speech. We can see that he is very knowledgeable on the issue. We can also see that he attaches a great deal of importance to news in the regions, to the CBC's presence in the regions, and to linguistic duality, that is, the need for English and French television in Canada, unlike the government, which has slashed in almost every area of culture.
As I said a little earlier, one might think that the Conservatives are attacking culture in general and the CBC in particular. Although they did not cut funding directly, they refused the corporation's request for financial assistance in the form of a loan or bridge financing. They completely slammed the door. And as a result, 800 jobs will be lost and some of its assets will have to be sold. Based on what the Conservatives have said over the years, clearly, they have always wanted to get rid of the CBC.
Would my colleague agree that the Conservative government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, that is, completely eliminate the CBC?
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The Conservatives are trying to convince the public that they have maintained and increased funding to CBC/Radio-Canada. That is false, absolutely false. In 2006-07, the Conservatives reduced allocations to the corporation by $32 million, despite a budget surplus of $13 billion. And who had left them that surplus? The Liberal government. That is the Conservative rhetoric.
We have been accused of making major cuts in 1995. Let us keep this in mind, however: why was the Liberal government obliged to make cuts? Because the Conservative government had shown itself to be incapable of managing this country properly. When the Liberals took over, we found what a terrible mess the Conservatives had left us with, and as good administrators of Canada, were forced to take unavoidable and costly remedial action.
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I find the points raised by my colleague to be excellent.
I would like him to tell me whether he does not find the situation a bit out of kilter. At a certain point in time, during an economic crisis, the government is absolutely bent on creating jobs. It does so via the infrastructure and all kinds of other programs, but it cuts jobs at CBC/Radio-Canada, which could also have been part of the job creation strategy. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this roundabout way of destroying the corporation.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.
The government needs to start coming up with some answers. I have just asked my colleague from Saint-Boniface what explanation she will give francophones outside Quebec, such as the ones in the Winnipeg area, for their local news being cut. How can this government tell us on the one hand that it is doing all it can to create employment in order to avoid lay-offs, while on the other hand it is forcing the lay-off of 800 people? How can the government claim that the corporation will fulfill its mandate, when it is slashing the corporation budget and thereby forcing it to cut services to regions and language minorities? What answer can the government give to that?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am standing here today to support, with some passion and vehemence, the opposition motion which is asking some simple things.
It is asking the government to recognize the indispensable nature of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio-Canada. It is asking the government to recognize the essential mandate of the public broadcaster and to give it the bridge financing it needs to continue its work until, as we have heard everyone here say today, advertising revenues return to normal and the CBC can go back to boosting its own coffers through advertising.
Everyone has talked about the loss of $171 million in 2009-10 by the CBC. This is spread 50:50 between the CBC and Radio-Canada. There is a loss of 800 jobs which is also going to be shared almost equally between the CBC and Radio-Canada.
The CBC, as a result, is going to have to cut services and programs. It is going to scale back regional radio and television programming, all of which is part of its mandate. It is going to have to decrease current affairs, drama, music, special events, all of which is part of its mandate. This is happening just at the time when the CBC is in fact increasing its viewership and its listenership over its main competitors in private television and private radio.
The point is this, and it is ironic, that in February 2008 an all-party committee, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, made some very important recommendations which the government actually refused to even read or listen to.
The all-party committee stated that there was overwhelming support for the CBC as a national broadcaster across this country. I was on the committee when we travelled across the country and there was overwhelming support for the CBC.
As a result of that support and the things that we heard, the committee recommended some very important things. It recommended an increase of money for regional programming which is now having to be cut. It recommended an increase in variety, drama, news and public affairs, all of which is now going to have to be cut. It recommended an increase in programming for official language minority groups, all of which is going to have to be decreased. It recommended an increase in funding toward the development of new media. It recommended a one time capital cost for high density television for the CBC. All of this was going to be special one time funding.
The all-party committee was very clear, the CBC needed more money. It also said that the CBC should have stable, multi-year funding over seven years. Currently, the CBC receives about $33 per capita from every Canadian, so that it can continue to be the public broadcaster.
That funding over seven years was going to increase to $40 per capita. That is not a very large amount of money, but this special money for high density and new infrastructure is needed in radio and television. As we know analog is going out right now and the CBC is going to have to go digital across this country.
There were strong recommendations and a strong support for the CBC just barely a year ago from the all-party committee.
Now the CBC is being forced to do exactly what we know the government has wanted of the CBC all along. I have been here for almost 16 years and time after time after time we sat at the heritage committee, we sat in the House, and listened to the fact that the Conservative government was not supportive of the CBC, not supportive of a public broadcaster, and was waiting to do this kind of trickle down, subtle burying of the public broadcaster.
Let me speak about public broadcasters. We looked at 18 such public broadcasters in different countries in the industrialized world and Canada ranks 16th out of 18 in terms of its funding for its public broadcaster. Yet, most of the studies done by Nordicity have told us that Canada, of all the countries that have a public broadcaster, needs a public broadcaster most.
Why does Canada need a public broadcaster most? It is because Canada in fact lies close to a larger country that speaks the same language. That was one of the indicators that was used to define whether a public broadcaster was necessary. In fact, a public broadcaster was necessary in such situations to promote culture and to give a shared value system. Especially in a diverse country like ours, this is absolutely important. Diverse by region and diverse by demographics, we have to have that kind of shared value system and that promotion of our diverse cultures.
Second, the development of community and social cohesion, again in a country with such a large landmass and a sparse population, public broadcasters are absolutely necessary to form that kind of communication infrastructure to reach small communities all across Canada, linking these communities and offering a sort of universal virtual highway and coverage.
We also know that in a place where there is a small domestic market, there is not enough private sector investment in domestic programming because there are not enough people to buy that domestic programming. So a public broadcaster, in cases like this, is not compelled to realize a profit and therefore should be able to provide that kind of domestic and regional content that we talked about.
However, this is not happening. We see that the government is prepared to let the CBC die. The interesting thing is that we are talking about bridge financing, so the CBC could go back to looking at advertising to supplement its operational budget. Yet, one of the most important recommendations of the committee in February 2008 was that in fact the CBC be weaned off advertising revenues, so that it could truly function like a public broadcaster.
What do we see now instead? We actually see the government initiating slow and very subtle cuts: in 2006-07, $32 million; in 2007-08, $26 million; in 2008-09, another $26 million; and in 2009-10, $63 million in cuts, at a time when the CBC can ill-afford to have that. Talk about death by a thousand cuts.
Bridge financing is important now for the CBC to keep its head above water, but when we see all the indicators and we understand the reasons why public broadcasters are in fact very necessary, Canada is probably, as I said earlier on, by all of the studies done, the country that most needs a public broadcaster.
I am hoping that we would not only look at giving the CBC the bridge funding it needs, but heeding the recommendations of the heritage committee of February 2008, and in fact increasing funding for the CBC. This could be seen as a stimulus package because culture is an industry, because in a country like Canada, we need to hear our stories, listen to our drama, see our films, hear our music, and watch our dance.
The BBC has shown us how it can be done. The BBC has spread British culture around the world. It is now an industry that brings a great deal into the GDP of Great Britain, and also trades an enormous amount of cultural products around the world.
This is CBC's role and instead of watching CBC die a death by a thousand cuts, I am hoping that the government would heed this and do the bridge financing and then actually follow the 2008 committee report and all of its recommendations.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time listening to the hypocrisy in the House from the Liberals. It was in 1995 that they cut the CBC by $400 million and 4,000 jobs were lost. I remember how much we lost in the communauté. That is not taking into consideration the Conservatives' not helping the CBC today. I will be speaking later on that.
At the same time, how can Liberals stand in the House and say how horrible it is that this is happening when they already cut the CBC by $400 million saying it was because we were in financial difficulty? They cut health care and employment insurance, took $57 billion from working people that loved their jobs, including the CBC Radio-Canada. How can they stand today and act like nothing happened?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is for the hon. member's party to understand what is done in times of fiscal crisis or to even understand how to balance books.
Yes, indeed, that was a time of a very bad fiscal crisis, left once more by a Conservative government for a Liberal government to clean up. It cleaned it up but to do so everyone had to tighten their belts. It did not gut the CBC. Cuts were made and those cuts were slowly brought back year after year, including in 2002 when Liberals brought in a $60 million yearly stipend for the CBC that in fact was almost not given by this government this year.
At a time of surplus, it is unconscionable that a government would begin to cut a public broadcaster. In a time of surplus when the government has money to spend, the government tells us very clearly by cutting that it has an agenda, which is to get rid of the public broadcaster.
Opposition Motion — CBC/Radio-CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Peterborough Ontario
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst was just speaking about, the member for Vancouver Centre has been in the House since 1993. She was here when the Liberal Party gutted and cut $414 million from the CBC. There is no rationale for that. It promised it would not do it. Then in 1997, with red book 2, it made the same promise again and said, “It was tough and we made cuts but not next time”. It cut the CBC again and 4,000 jobs were lost. The evening news was gone, the regional broadcast was gone. The Liberal Party says one thing and does another thing when it is in power. The hypocrisy is astounding.
The member should pay attention to what the CBC has said. There has been record funding: $1.1 billion in support, $60 million in new money from this government to the CBC. That is our record. The Liberal Party record is one of cuts. The CBC indicated these jobs would have been lost regardless of bridge financing or not. Its board has a plan. She should listen and put some confidence in the board. It has a plan moving forward. The Liberal plan was to cut, axe and kill the CBC.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the hon. member speak about the history of things when we see that this is a government that did not even recognize that we were going into a recession. It kept believing there was no recession then changed its mind. It did not have a stimulus package. It did not know what to do and stood paralyzed with fear or what else it was paralyzed with, and waited until we got to this point, having spent all of the surplus it had.
I do not need any lessons in financial planning as a political party from this member. However, the bottom line is that the CBC was not gutted because it was still able to do its regional programming. The CBC was still able to do drama and some of the things that its mandate asked it to do. That is the important thing to remember.
What is happening now is that the CBC will die because of the cuts that have been made by this government.
Opposition Motion — CBC/Radio-CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Jonquière—Alma Québec
Conservative
Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)
Mr. Speaker, since the member is blaming us, I would like to add something to this debate. CBC/Radio-Canada is cutting 800 jobs. Nobody here is denying that a lot of jobs will be lost. Nevertheless, this is an independent Crown corporation. Unless I am much mistaken, the member's party cut $400 million a few years ago, and CBC/Radio-Canada lost 4,000 jobs as a result.
The Conservative Party, however, gave CBC/Radio-Canada $1.1 billion this year. Yes, the corporation has been losing advertising revenue, but so have private-sector broadcasters. Whatever funding the government gives out, others might also demand. They might ask for similar help from the government. In this case, CBC/Radio-Canada has to figure out how to manage this temporary difficulty.
Can the member justify the cuts her party made not that long ago?
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's math is correct and the government says it gave $1.1 billion to the CBC, it is my understanding that the CBC would then have a little over $2.1 billion in its budget. This is absolutely untrue and the hon. member knows it.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
I am not a Conservative and everyone back home is well aware of that. However, I had to rise earlier to tell the member for Vancouver Centre that it was hypocritical to say that the government is not investing in CBC/Radio-Canada, considering that in 1995 the Liberals reduced the corporation's budget by $400 million, a decision that resulted in the loss of 4,000 jobs. Now, the Liberals claim that they did not really make cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada's funding. Come on!
At the time, they did it because of a financial problem and not because an economic recession had hit our country. They reduced the CBC's funds by $400 million and they also made cuts to employment insurance. I do not want to engage in a debate on employment insurance when we are dealing with the CBC. However, workers lost $57 billion. The Liberals also made cuts to health care. Therefore, I have a problem with the hypocrisy that they are showing today.
But let us now get back to today's issue. Time has gone by and this is no longer 1995. The CBC's shortfall is the result of an economic crisis. Advertising revenues have gone down. As the minister said, even if we gave money to CBC/Radio-Canada this year, it would not save the jobs at stake. He is right, because we are not talking about this year alone. The corporation needs a multi-year budget, and money must be invested every year. Rather than injecting $1.1 billion annually, the government could have provided $1.25 billion or $1.3 billion.
It must be realized that CBC/Radio-Canada is important to us. It is our national broadcaster. Back home, we did not have the opportunity to watch TVA or TQS. I am sorry, but when it comes to French language television, TVA and TQS do not provide local news in French. They are not reporting on events that are occurring in Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia, in Manitoba, or in Vancouver. The cuts that CBC/Radio-Canada must now make mean that in Windsor, for example, only three of the nine employees will keep their jobs. The crown corporation will eliminate a half hour of local news every evening. The lunch hour phone-in program will also disappear, along with the local segment. That saddens me. This is our broadcaster. This is a public broadcaster, a crown corporation that belongs to our country. It belongs to us. And today we can see what is happening.
The Prime Minister gave a first interview to CBC/Radio-Canada last week. Does the government have a problem with the crown corporation or CBC/Radio-Canada? Is there something it does not like about it? What problem do the governments have? I do not want to blame only the Conservatives. The Liberals are also to blame. What is their problem with CBC/Radio-Canada? When there is an issue between the government and CBC/Radio-Canada, we get the impression that the corporation is expected to be different than it is and not say anything bad about the government of the day. If it reports the real news, it gets a rap on the knuckles and the daylight scared out of it. Unless it helps the government, the government will not help it, and if it says anything bad about it, the government will cut its funding further.
Someone once told me that it was as if Jean Chrétien stayed up at night looking for ways to dismantle CBC/Radio-Canada.
This was at the time when $400 million in cuts were made and 4,000 people lost their jobs. He just hated that corporation. Everyone knew it, and we in this House knew it. Now, the Conservatives are saying that they did not make any cuts. They are providing it with $1.1 billion in funding, but CBC/Radio-Canada is struggling.
With all due respect to our Montreal cousins, I am sure that the people of Caraquet, back home, do not want to hear nothing but news about Montreal. They want local programming. It is nice to be able to sit in the living room after dinner and tune in to Abbé Lanteigne's talk show and hear people from our area talk with him. That is really nice. No doubt that the people of Chicoutimi and that area want to be able to sit in their living rooms and listen to news about their area. They will lose that ability. They will get the news from Montreal: the cat that was killed crossing Saint-Catherine Street. That is what is going to happen to us.
To help the CBC, why does the federal government not change course and require that providers of satellite broadcasting services offer CBC programming? Even in Ottawa, the nation’s capital, satellite broadcasting service providers do not distribute the signals of the local CBC/Radio-Canada television stations. On the one hand, there are Montreal, Quebec City, the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Vancouver. On the other, there are Ottawa, Regina, Saskatchewan, all the places where the local CBC/Radio-Canada station's signals are not distributed by satellite. Why would the CBC produce programming in those regions if it is missing 30% of the Canadian audience? That is what it amounts to.
This is something the government could do: order the CBC, perhaps by way of the CRTC, to offer its services by satellite. For example, Quebec City does not even get service from Star Choice. It is a major francophone Canadian city, with a large population, and does not even get service from Star Choice. As well, the companies could be told that if they want to broadcast programming by satellite here in Canada, they will have to include our public broadcaster.
Where I live, in the Atlantic provinces—that is correct—there have been call-in shows at noon on the CBC. It was enjoyable to listen to. That is over, and now there will be national broadcasts. We are missing the boat, and that is unfortunate. Now we have to ask whether the government really cares about our public broadcaster. We are going through an economic crisis. Eight hundred direct jobs will be lost. For each job lost, three indirect jobs will be lost. Imagine how many people are going to lose their jobs. The only thing the government is saying is that it has already provided $1.1 billion. But that figure is money that was already there, in the ordinary course of things. And we are in an economic crisis.
I would like to kindly ask my francophone colleagues from Quebec, and I will not say my token colleagues, to get the Prime Minister’s ear and tell him that this is going to hurt people where they live, in the regions, not them as members of Parliament, but their regions and the people there. When we were young, where I live, what did we watch? We watched the CBC or Radio-Canada. That was the television we watched, the television we pay for with our taxes, and we are proud to have a public broadcaster.
I would really ask the government to rethink this, to try to meet with the managers of the CBC and come to some agreements with them to save our public broadcaster. We need it. It is ours, it belongs to us, and we should be proud of it.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Culture; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, Status of Women; and the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, Employment Insurance.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
Opposition Motion — CBC/Radio-CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.
I would like to hear his comments on a quote from an hon. Conservative minister whose name I cannot mention and whose riding I forget. On December 11, 2001, the minister said, “The Liberals decided to throw millions and even billions in non priority areas, while ignoring vital ones. For example, the CBC will receive $60 million.”
Speaking about cuts made by the Liberals to our public broadcaster, the same Conservative minister was criticizing the Liberal government for providing $60 million in funding to CBC/Radio-Canada. I would like to hear him on that.
The hon. member also realizes that there is another difference between a Liberal government and a Conservative one, and I hope he will admit it. It is a matter of honesty. It is evident from the remarks made by various ministers of this government when they were in opposition. There was contempt in their remarks about the public broadcaster. I am noticing no such contempt from the other parties in this House and I would like him to comment on that.
Finally, I would like him to comment on the Conservative Party's vision, whereby CBC/Radio-Canada would become something like the PBS network in the United States, a network that has to raise funds every Saturday night through specials or by showing filmed concerts over and over.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Madam Speaker, the member asked me to be honest. I am being honest when I say that the Liberals cut the CBC's budget by $400 million and 4,000 jobs were lost. The difference is that the others just sit over there and watch as the corporation vanishes. Of the two, I no longer know who to blame.
However, as for the $60 million mentioned by my colleague, CBC/Radio-Canada has said that it is tiresome having to beg for it every year. That money always arrives at the last minute.
There has been no change since 2001. What we must do is ensure that they receive the $60 million for the next seven years, at the beginning of each year, and that it would henceforth be on their books. It always receives this money at the last minute.
Last Friday morning, even before going on the program Le Match des élus , we learned that the CBC had finally received its $60 million. It was already late. To my way of thinking, you cannot operate a business and you cannot resolve the situation that way. We know that this Conservative government is looking at privatizing in the public sector. It wants to go the route of privatization. It prefers to give money to the private rather than the public sector, as is evident from the steps it is presently taking—
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, in the recent federal budget, which the Liberals voted for, the government plans to raise billions of dollars selling off public assets. Does the member agree that CBC assets could be part of this asset sale that the government is contemplating?
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has less than one minute to answer the question.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Madam Speaker, let me put it this way: That is why the government answered so quickly. When Radio Canada asked to sell their assets, the Conservative government said yes, yes, yes.
I have never in my life seen the government answer so quickly. Radio Canada asked to sell their assets, and the government said yes because it wants to privatize the public buildings and everything. It wants to give those to the private sector.
We can see what happened when we privatized Air Canada. When they got in trouble, they ran to the government to get the money back from the taxpayers. The same thing is going to happen here.
I think it is wrong to sell any asset of Radio Canada. Those assets belong to the taxpayers of this country and it should stay that way.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate this afternoon to the opposition motion on bridge funding for the CBC.
It amazes me how much governments and official oppositions enjoy kicking the football of the CBC back and forth across the aisle. It is a pox on both their houses. It is true that the Liberals gutted the CBC back in the 1990s. It is also true that the Conservatives have no interest in ensuring the future prosperity of our public broadcaster. We know there are reasons to disbelieve both those parties when they talk about CBC Radio-Canada.
We need a permanent and ongoing commitment to our national public broadcaster. We need to give up the football of kicking the CBC around and enjoying the political sport of it. It is not doing this important institution any favours. It is not doing the Canadians, who depend on the CBC for the cultural and democratic life of their communities, any favours whatsoever. The reality is they are both wrong.
It is long past the time for us to have a government in Canada that believes in national public institutions like CBC Radio-Canada. Frankly, there is only one party in the House of Commons that has a foundational belief, and it is the NDP. In this corner of the House, we know the importance of public institutions. We would go to bat for CBC Radio-Canada to ensure the safety, the security and the excellence of our national public broadcaster. That is fundamental to who we are as social democrats and democratic socialists.
I will not talk about the mandate of the CBC because I do not think there is anything to discuss. It is absolutely crucial. We know the CBC works hard to attain the goals of that broad mandate.
I want to talk briefly about the motion, which ends the notion of bridge funding to deal with the current crisis. I do not think that is enough. The motion, if it were really working in the best interests of public broadcasting in Canada, would have included the notion of a long-term stable commitment to funding for the CBC of at least seven years, as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the last Parliament. It would ensure there was a memorandum of understanding negotiated between the government and the CBC to allow for that kind of long-term stable funding. Unfortunately that is where the Liberals are not prepared to go, despite the brave words and the clear understanding of the member for Vancouver Centre. She clearly knows the situation, but she is not prepared to see her party include that as part of the motion. It needs to be in this motion. I will support the motion, as far as it goes, but something very important is missing from it.
Why is that so important? The committee report done in the last Parliament by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage noted that the funding of the CBC was absolutely crucial. We know the CBC is dramatically underfunded. In terms of public broadcasters around the world, we know the CBC is 16th out of 18 in western industrialized countries. We fund the CBC at the rate of $33 per Canadian, which is the second-lowest rate of funding in the world for a public broadcast, and that is completely unacceptable. Only New Zealand and the United States fund their public broadcasters at a rate lower than Canada.
We have heard, in the course of this debate, that a country like France funds its national broadcaster at $77 per French citizen. Britain has a licensing system. The equivalent funding is around $130 per person in the United Kingdom to fund the BBC. I think everyone in this chamber would appreciate the excellence of the work of the BBC, and it is partly as a result of its funding.
The BBC is well-funded by the people and the government of the United Kingdom, through a 10-year memorandum of understanding that is negotiated between the BBC and the government of Britain. This results in a long-term stable funding so the broadcaster can plan for its future, make decisions about where it will go, instead of wondering year after year what kind of money will come to it and what cuts will be subject to. It is also a broadcaster that does not depend on advertising revenue, like the CBC, and the vagaries of the economic situation.
The CBC is now feeling the effects of the economic crisis because of its advertising revenues. It would be an important facet of any long-term funding arrangement that any dependence on advertising revenues by our national public be removed. That is crucial.
We need that kind of long-term stable commitment. We need to increase the funding to the CBC. We need to ensure that it is negotiated as part of a memorandum of understanding between the government and the CBC.
There can be no argument about that. Even the Conservatives on the committee agreed with the need for a seven year memorandum of understanding about long-term stable funding for the CBC. They may dispute the funding level, but they have not disputed the need for it. However, have they acted on it? Have they moved in this direction? Unfortunately not. We are still in the situation of kicking the CBC back and forth across the aisle of Parliament, with charges and countercharges. It would be nice to get out of that rut and ensure that the CBC has that kind of commitment to funding so it can get on with its important job and fulfill its mandate to Canadians.
In these most recent troubles facing CBC, we know local media is one of the things that is most affected. It is one of the great ironies of the situation. For a number of years now, the CBC has been promoting a plan to expand local radio across Canada. It has had a plan on the table. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage last year reviewed the plan to expand local radio into 15 markets in Canada to ensure that another eight million Canadians would have access to CBC local radio programming.
Communities such as Kitchener, London, Montreal South Shore, Hamilton, Barrie, Kingston, the Laurentians, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Drummondville, Red Deer, Nanaimo, Kelowna, Fort McMurray, Chilliwack, Saskatoon and Cranbrook would all benefit from having the CBC local radio as part of their communities. Some of the most successful programming of the CBC are its local radio programs.
I know in Vancouver, for instance, the CBC local radio programs lead the market in terms of audience share now, and they are excellent programs. They are programs of record in terms of the life and political life of the community. None of the communities that do not have it now, the eight million Canadians that do not have access to that kind of programming, should be denied that.
The sad part is it is not an expensive proposal. It is $25 million in capital costs and $25 million a year in funding afterwards. That is very cheap for the kind of high quality programming to which another eight million Canadians would have access.
What are the benefits to those communities for establishing those kinds of radio stations with CBC local radio in those communities? There are a number of benefits.
It would act as an economic stimulus, and we need that in all of our communities, given the current crisis. CBC Radio-Canada local radio highlights a region's innovation. Development and opportunities are promoted to national and international audiences. With that local connection, other things become possible.
CBC Radio-Canada local radio advocates for local culture. Local careers are launched in music, comedy, drama and literature. Locally recorded CBC concerts are heard around the world and on other public broadcasters.
Skills are developed in local communities, with partnerships with students and schools. There is community dialogue on community events and community political issues, so it increases the democratic life of those communities. The CBC local radio stations are also available for emergency broadcasts 24 hours a day, should that be necessary. All these things—
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
I regret to interrupt the hon. member in his last minute. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Opposition Motion — CBC/Radio-CanadaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.