Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's on her passion toward the CBC.
This past weekend Vancouver had the honour of hosting the Juno awards, the country's largest celebration of homegrown music. The weekend was a fantastic success, in the welcoming spirit of the west coast in hosting the rest of the country, in the much needed economic activity that greatly benefited local businesses, and most important, in the pride that we have for our country's finest musicians who serve as global ambassadors for Canada.
Yesterday in the Vancouver Sun there was a fascinating article about how our country is a pioneer in the protection of cultural sovereignty. We continue to promote Canadian culture in spite of being next to the world's largest economy, and our artists continue to thrive.
In 2005, UNESCO adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The purpose behind such an initiative was described as follows:
For the first time in modern history, the right of states to adopt policies to protect and promote their cultural expressions was affirmed in an international legal instrument.
Canada was instrumental in putting this convention together and, in spite of heavy opposition from the United States, it passed overwhelmingly with a vote of 148 to 2.
Since that time, 96 countries have ratified the agreement, and the concepts of cultural protection and promotion have become a world-wide phenomenon.
Unfortunately, we no longer have a Canadian government that embraces these principles. The first sign of this was during the last election when the Prime Minister stood by his decision to cut $45 million from cultural funding. Now this trend is continuing with the government's assault on the CBC. Before we get into what these cuts mean to Canada's unique cultural identity, let me frame this debate properly.
The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have spent over a decade attacking CBC at its core. They do not believe that the government should provide any funding for a public broadcaster. This has been a long-standing position and tough economic times are simply an excuse for the real reasons behind the government's refusal to provide bridge funding. Misinformation is what the government is using to confuse the public.
The government claims that it has increased funding to CBC Radio-Canada every year. The truth is that an examination of both CBC Radio-Canada's annual reports and the main estimates determine that the government has cut funding since the Conservatives took office.
They claim that administrative cuts need to be made to trim the fat from the CBC. The truth is that the refusal of bridge funding is eliminating--let me repeat that word--eliminating original Canadian produced programming.
They claim that they care about Quebec and our bilingual identity. The truth is this funding shortfall hits directly at the core of French programming, with more than half the cuts to staff coming from the CBC's francophone operations.
Let us be clear, the CBC is not asking for a handout. Management has clearly indicated that it understands that in tough economic times “everyone must tighten their belts”.
An increased subsidy to the annual appropriation has not been asked for. What we are talking about is a request for a loan, a loan that CBC as a crown corporation cannot access from the private sector.
Let the government begin to be honest about its intentions. The CBC's troubles provided a perfect means to capitalize on a network that the Prime Minister has referred to as a “government sponsored loser”. Therefore, the government is happy to see the CBC fall to its knees and in the process that original Canadian content, quality television and radio, is being lost.
The government is not targeting salaries or bonuses or compensation packages as is being done with some of the major auto manufacturers. It is intent on destroying Canadian programming, period.
With all the money that is being spent to invigorate the economy, with all the money that is being racked up in the largest deficit seen in a generation, and with all the money that the government has squandered because of poor economic decisions, a loan to the CBC was entirely possible and, more important, a loan to the CBC was entirely necessary if, of course, one believes in the protection of our cultural identity.
What is clear, both in terms of this debate about the CBC and the past cuts to cultural funding that I mentioned earlier, the Canadian identity is not important to the Prime Minister unless it is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other product.
Here is the ironic part about all of this. The decision not to provide bridge funding is going to cut at the heart of television shows that have become huge exports across the world for the CBC.
Let us take the program Little Mosque on the Prairie, which is in international syndication in France, Switzerland, several francophone-speaking African nations, Israel, Dubai, Finland, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Here is an example of a Canadian international success story that has been cut because of the government's hidden agenda when it comes to our cultural identity.
To conclude, I encourage the government to reconsider its decision about the CBC, which is a pillar of our cultural identity. However, much more than that, I encourage the minister and the Prime Minister to come clean about their intentions and at least let Canadians know their true motivations for hanging the CBC out to dry.