Debates of June 10th, 2009

Artists

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are reaching the end of the debate on Motion M-297, which I was very happy to sponsor. I thank all the members who have taken part, even the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who unfortunately used his time to run the same old tape, which no one wants to hear anymore. I especially want to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert—who was just applauding—for her dedication and her enlightened look at this issue, especially during the tour of the regions of Quebec that we had the pleasure of making together and that took us to Trois-Rivières, Joliette, Rouyn-Noranda, Rimouski, Matane, Bonaventure, Laval, Montreal, Victoriaville, Sherbrooke and Saint-Jérôme. My biggest thanks go to the artists, artisans and cultural organizers who shared their opinions on a host of issues they have to deal with every day. I also thank them for their generous support for our efforts to have this motion adopted by all the elected members in this House. I hope that the practical examples that I have taken from those meetings and will share with you in the too-short time I have left will convince even the most skeptical among us of the importance of adopting this motion.

Regarding the Canada Council of the Arts, I can make three observations. The first is that many organizations told us that they had seen their support from the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec increase, but that they had received nothing more from its federal counterpart. Second, other organizations such as Festival La Virée in Carleton were simply cut off. Third, a number of cultural groups would like to receive support for operating expenses instead of support for individual projects.

These are just a few examples that show that Canada Council funding needs to be increased.

As for the programs that were cut, it seems clear to me that PromArt and Trade Routes are the ones that the stakeholders we met with on our tour were most upset about.

What will become of all those artists and all those troupes that need to present their creations abroad in order to develop and innovate? In Sherbrooke, I heard a comment that does not bode well. The largest institutions that can no longer afford to travel abroad will try to save their skin in Quebec, leaving little or no room for the smallest productions that managed to survive thanks to the domestic market up to now. Our small population base and the Quebec government's limited financial resources will not be enough to support everyone. This is what we could call the loss of diversity by suffocation.

In that context, what is to become of art other than entertainment? I pass that question on to you, and it could not be more pertinent.

In Victoriaville, Suzanne Richard, representing the Quebec artistic trades council, emphasized how necessary the assistance to artisans through Trade Routes is for the international dissemination of these unique skills. Without its support, this presence in other countries is compromised, yet it constitutes one of the criteria considered by the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec. To my mind, this is one more proof that the government carried out no impact studies whatsoever on the programs it abolished. That is, at the very least, an irresponsible way to proceed.

What about the Laval theatre troupe, Bluff, which was about to apply for funding from PromArt? Does it have to cancel a production it thought was well on the way to being exported? Where will the Sages Fous perform after the 375th birthday of Trois-Rivières if PromArt is not restored? There are plenty of other questions like these.

We were told in Montreal that foreign purchasers of cultural and artistic productions do not understand why Canada does not foot the bill for artists' and performers' travel and the shipping of their equipment, when this is what is done elsewhere. All this is totally unacceptable.

In addition to their direct impact, I invite my colleagues to reflect on another consequence of these cuts. Will the quality of the artists invited to teach or exhibit their art suffer because they no longer have the opportunity for professional development with artists and the public in other countries? That is a concern raised by the chair of the board of directors of the Concerts aux Îles du Bic.

At our meetings, many comments were made about cultural programs in general. The difficulty of keeping federal programs in sync with the realities of Quebec regions was often mentioned. It is obvious that, in light of this concern, the ideal approach would be for these programs and their budgets to be transferred to the Quebec government. While waiting for that to happen, we can vote for motion M-297.

We came to the same conclusion wherever we went in Quebec and I am convinced that it cannot be any different in Saguenay and Montérégie, where we will be going in a few days. Abolishing these seven programs not only creates uncertainty in the cultural sector, but it also results in the cancellation of foreign tours and layoffs by companies that are barely hanging on.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 7:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 17, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this adjournment debate in order to revisit a question I asked in this House concerning CBC/Radio-Canada.

On May 24, 2009, I talked about the fact that CBC/Radio-Canada might be forced to sell assets. At that time, I was speaking in the conditional, but we now know that this is the sad reality: CBC/Radio-Canada is being forced to sell some assets and lay people off. At the time, we did not know how many and there was talk of anywhere from 600 to 1,200 employees. We now know that 800 people will lose their jobs in Quebec and Canada. Furthermore, 3,200 people will be indirectly affected and will also lose their jobs.

We were waiting to hear the announcement from the president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, Hubert Lacroix. He later announced the measures he had to take to deal with the $171 million deficit projected for this year. He wanted to meet his financial obligations and, as I said at the time, all this was happening under the disinterested watch of this government, a government that was planning, and still plans, to help the private sector for ideological reasons, but chooses to close the door on CBC/Radio-Canada.

We have known for a long time that the Conservatives want to shut down the corporation. In fact, when someone was talking about the disappearance of CBC/Radio-Canada in this House, dozens of Conservative members even applauded. Since we have been denouncing their actions they no longer applaud, but that happened right before our eyes in this House. The Conservative members applauded the fact that CBC/Radio-Canada could disappear.

I would now like to talk about the minister's response, because it was completely unsatisfactory. First of all, some of the things the minister said were false. He said that in 2005-06, the Conservatives increased CBC/Radio-Canada's budget, and that the Bloc Québécois voted against it. He does not know his history, not at all, because on May 10, 2006, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the government's budget.

He went on to say that in 2006-07, they again increased CBC/Radio-Canada's budget, and that the Bloc Québécois voted against it. Once again, I must say that on March 27, 2007, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the budget. He said two things that were false, to say the least.

He went on to say that in 2008-09, they had increased CBC/Radio-Canada's budget, but that the Bloc Québécois had voted against that. First of all, it is not true that they increased the corporation's budget. The budget for CBC/Radio-Canada stayed exactly the same. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois voted against the fact that the CBC/Radio-Canada budget had not been increased and that the government had done nothing to remedy the situation. In addition, this government had just cut $26 million from arts and culture grant programs. That is another reason why the Bloc Québécois stood up in this House and voted against the budget.

We are asking for stable funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, for $40 per capita and for the additional $60 million that the corporation is forced to go looking for year after year to be restored and included in its budget.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and answer this question.

I am always happy when the Bloc Québécois stands in the House and argues in favour of strong national institutions like the CBC and Radio-Canada that play such a major role here in Canada from coast to coast, and that includes Quebec.

When Bloc members stand in their place and argue in favour of national institutions, it really adds to the strength and vibrance, and culture and fabric of this country. That is a great thing. It is an admission that Canada is great and it shows how well we all work together.

I congratulate the member for speaking on behalf of Canada and our great cultural institution, the CBC.

The member is right. Bloc members did have a good roll going. They did support budget 2006, and that was a smart thing to do. They did support budget 2007, and that was a smart thing to do. They did not support budget 2008 because they felt that if they continued providing support to us that they would probably be in trouble in a lot of Quebec ridings, so they decided, for purely partisan reasons, despite the fact that budget 2008 was really good for Quebeckers, to vote against it.

In each and every budget, four budgets in a row, our government increased the funding to the CBC. That is an undeniable fact. The member can do some research on her own behalf if she wants. She can read the budget that she voted against. She will see that in the last four budgets we increased the funding to the CBC.

That is not the record, by the way, of the previous Liberal government. In 1993, the Liberal government promised to increase funding to the CBC but cut it dramatically. In 1997, the Liberals knew they had broken their promise and said they would increase funding to the CBC. They cut it again and 4,000 jobs were lost.

Our government said we would maintain or increase funding to the CBC: four consecutive budgets, four consecutive increases.

The member speaks about the arts all the time. She knows very well that, for example, the riding of the leader of the Bloc Québécois is receiving $20 million in support for the arts. Even the leader of the Bloc Québécois would have to acknowledge that this is a record amount of money being sunk into his own riding. That is the result of a budget that he voted against. He voted against his own riding. That is unbelievable.

Bloc members were just debating Motion No. 297, a motion to increase funding to the Canada Council. It is too bad the Bloc does not support that, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage said just a few minutes ago when he spoke in the House.

When we bring forward increases for the arts, as we did in our economic action plan and budget 2009, we did not forget the arts. The Bloc did in both of its statements on the economic action plan. Those members completely disregarded it. There is nothing on the CBC or Radio-Canada in their programs. We did not forget them. We increased funding to both. We made sure that we did not forget them because we value them.

The member should well know, despite whatever she says about Conservatives having a conspiracy against the CBC, the Conservatives created the CBC. We have nothing against the national broadcaster. We believe it adds to the national fabric of this country. That is why we put money behind it.

We do not put money into programs that we think waste money. We make sure that when we spend money, we are getting the maximum benefit not just for artists but for all Canadians. We are going to make sure that every tax dollar we collect is spent effectively. We put record funding behind the CBC.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would really have liked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to tell us what his government did for CBC/Radio-Canada instead of trying to attack everyone else with rude comments.

The Bloc Québécois supports CBC/Radio-Canada. It is a public institution funded with Quebeckers' tax dollars. We are still part of this country, unfortunately, and we pay taxes. Until that changes, we have the right to a say in what happens to Canadian institutions.

I do not agree with what he said about a national institution. To us, a national institution is a Quebec institution, one that belongs to the Quebec nation. CBC/Radio-Canada has done a lot to honour Quebeckers' values.

If everything he said about his budget were true, it might be hard to see why 85% of Quebeckers no longer support this Conservative government. Barely 15% of them think that this is a good government.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the support our government has put behind the CBC and the lack of support the Bloc Québécois members showed for artists when they voted against the economic action plan and the when they came up with not one but two economic action plans in the last six months and did not mention the CBC or Radio Canada. They did not mention artists. They forgot about them completely. It is a good thing the Conservatives did not.

The reason why the member keeps bringing me in every night for adjournment questions is because she knows the record of those members. She knows she forgot about them when it came to budgets, or economic action plans or any kind of suggestion economically. They Bloc members know they forgot them. Now they have to come in and try to demonstrate something else with questions every night. It does not cut it.

They forgot them. We did not.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again stand here to call on the government to initiate a government funded public investigation into how and why the number of murdered aboriginal women and girls from the aboriginal community have gone missing and why this number is so unacceptably high.

I raised this matter in the House on May 13, 20 and 26 and again on June 2. It has been nearly a month and my colleague, the member for Labrador, and I, who both raised this issue, have heard no response from the government.

We have written to the Minister of Justice, asking for a full investigation into this matter and to date we have not heard a response from him.

It is a shameful record in our country of the number of known missing and murdered aboriginal girls. We know that 520 of them have gone missing. They are mothers, daughters, granddaughters, sisters and wives. They are young and they are old and they are victims of heinous crimes.

According to the Sisters in Spirit initiative, 347 of the 522, or 67%, have been murdered, 126, or 24%, are still missing and unaccounted for, 43% of the cases, or 223, women have gone missing since the year 2000, 150 of the 347 murder cases remain unsolved, 52% of the women were under the age of 30 at the time of their disappearance and 14% of them were less than 18 years old. These missing women have gone forgotten for too long.

We are concerned that these women have been victims of crime, yet not enough has been done investigate their disappearance and indeed to help prevent this from reoccurring. We need to find out why they disappeared, what the root causes are that contributed to their vanishing, do they include violence against aboriginal women, racism, sexism, aboriginal poverty, historical grievances and what government policy undertakings must be strengthened or further developed.

We must protect those who are most vulnerable in society. It is critical that we implement measures to both prevent the disappearance of aboriginal women or the lack of response to their disappearance.

We have heard in response to the request before that the Sisters in Spirit initiative addresses it. It is an important initiative, but it is a research initiative. It is a recording initiative. It is not an investigation into how, why and where these women have gone missing.

We are asking the government, in good faith, to launch such an investigation and to do it in a comprehensive way, in consultation with aboriginal communities as to the best manner and method of doing so. Other models of investigations have been implemented by government. This is one that should be unique to the situation.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, it is a key priority of our government to address violence against all women, and in particular, aboriginal women, who experience both a higher rate and more serious forms of violence than non-aboriginal women.

I have to add here that my hon. colleague brings this up time and time again. I am an aboriginal Métis woman. I have worked on these specific files regarding missing aboriginal women. I trust our police agencies, who are working diligently, day in and day out, to make sure that they uncover every single clue that will lead to the discovery of why they are going missing.

It is offensive to me and to many police agencies to hear the Liberal representative continue to say that they do not do anything, that they are not investigating, and that the Liberals do not have faith in them. I want that to be understood here today because this has got to stop. We have got to show our police agencies more respect than this.

As to the question when? As stated repeatedly, we are working right now to address the complex web of issues related to the disappearance and murder of so many aboriginal girls and women in Canada. One of the ways we do that is by providing support to the Native Women's Association of Canada for the Sisters in Spirit initiative, which is a collaborative, multi-departmental endeavour.

Now in its fifth year, Sisters in Spirit is a $5 million initiative that has been laying the foundation to address the roots of violence against aboriginal girls and women, specifically by improving education and employment outcomes; reducing poverty; providing safe, appropriate housing; working to eliminate homelessness; and improving access to justice.

Governments are working together and sharing best practices to improve the lives of aboriginal women and girls both on and off reserve.

Police forces across Canada are sharing their resources and their experience to put an end to the family, sexual and racial violence that threaten the lives of so many aboriginal women and weaken Canada's social fabric. Their goal is to improve investigation and intervention services and models.

Status of Women Canada is an active member of federal-provincial-territorial subcommittees on healing and subcommittees on missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Together with its partners, Justice Canada is working hard to improve the way the criminal justice system deals with cases involving missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Status of Women has also provided funding to address the unique issues facing aboriginal women. In 2008-09, Status of Women provided over $3.2 million in funding to projects that directly impact aboriginal women. This funding builds on the 2007-08 Status of Women funding, which saw $14.6 million go to projects helping aboriginal women.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the solution to the problem of missing and murdered aboriginal women, and to the more generalized problem of violence against women, lies in the achievement of equality for women.

Let me assure all hon. members in the House that the government is committed to achieving that goal, and I, as a former police officer and a Métis woman, will stand up every single time that the opposition members bring this up to negate what they are saying, and to support our police agencies and all of the partner stakeholders who are definitely invested in this, which includes our government.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will continue to raise this matter time and time again until there is a response from the government.

In no way do I mean to disparage the police officers or police forces across the country, but quite clearly when a significant number of women are still unaccounted for or have gone missing, a large number of cases have not been solved, there is a need for an inquiry to see why this is indeed the case.

We know that international forums, whether it is the CEDAW group or UN peer group, cast aspersions on the Canadian government for its lack of response for this heinous crime. The needs of this cohort of women have not been addressed.

I will continue to raise this issue. It is an important issue. It in no way says that police communities are not responding, but there is a need for something further and greater information on this issue.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that the actions taken by the hon. member, when she stands on this issue, do suggest that our police agencies and other stakeholders invested in this are not taking this seriously when we are taking it very seriously.

Our government has done other things to make sure that the commitment to our aboriginal women is taken seriously. For example, in our economic action plan we announced $400 million over two years for new housing projects and remediation of existing housing on first nations reserves. We also announced $200 million over two years in support of housing in the north.

Our government has also been working with aboriginal organizations to address the many challenges in the lives of aboriginal women. We will continue this work. We expect some support on that side of the House, for not only the work we do but the work the police officers are doing and the other stakeholders, who tell us time and time again they appreciate what we have done.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise again tonight to speak to an issue of great importance to people, not only in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, but in the country as a whole, particularly people who are trying to obtain employment insurance and cannot do so because the government has not taken sufficient measures to enable them to access employment insurance on a timely basis.

We are dealing with individuals throughout the country who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and find themselves in a position where in many cases they cannot pay their mortgage, buy medication, put food on the table for their families, buy clothing for their family or themselves, they cannot put gas in their vehicles, all because they do not have any income. They do not have an income because they have lost their job. Just as importantly, they are not able to access a system that should be there to ensure they can do all these things just as they could when they were working.

I have listened to the government tell the story that it put in additional resources. If that is the case, why is it that people still have to wait 50, 60, 70 days to get a response to their employment insurance claim? This is money that individuals across this country put into this program. This is not the government's money. This is money that is owned by the individuals throughout the country who paid into an employment insurance program for emergencies. When people lose their jobs it is just that, an emergency.

If the government has indeed put in additional resources and hired additional people to try to speed up the claim process because of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost jobs in the recent number of months, then why is it we are not able to deal with it more efficiently? Why is it that we are not able to get these claims moving a lot quicker than they are at present?

If in fact we are not able to respond, or not responding in a timely manner to this dire situation that people find themselves in, why are we not putting more money into the program? Why are we not taking more measures to move things quickly? I am told that the money going into doing that comes from the employment insurance program itself. It is not as if the government has to take responsibility for paying additional people. That comes out of the employment insurance program itself. If that is the case, why is the government not doing more? Why is it not moving quicker and hiring more people to make sure the process works much quicker?

We have people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own, and they are being victimized again because they are not able to access an employment insurance program. Why is this necessary? Why did the government not foresee that this was going to be a problem, knowing we were in a recession, knowing that companies were laying off people by the hundreds of thousands? Why is it the government did not take the measures necessary to make sure we had an employment insurance program that could respond readily to the emergency that many individuals across the country find themselves in?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening to respond once again to the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

The member ought to take notes, as I have outlined the various steps that our government has taken, both in respect to processing time and to the benefits that have been extended. She should listen to that.

We are taking real action to help those who are vulnerable and unemployed. We will continue to do that. We have made unprecedented investments to help those who, through no fault of their own, as the member said, have suffered from an unexpected job loss during this global economic recession.

Among other things, we have extended the EI benefits by five weeks, more than double the two weeks the opposition has been asking for. It will certainly be a more substantial help to Canadians when they need it the most. We have extended the EI work sharing program. That alone has saved more than 120,000 Canadian jobs by protecting them. The numbers continue to grow. We have taken action to enhance the program, to make it easier for employers to access. We have ensured the red tape has been cut. We will continue to work with Canadian employers to share the costs and keep Canadians working.

We are investing $1 billion for further skills training through the EI program. This includes $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers, and $500 million for training for those who do not even qualify for EI. These training funds will help Canadians gain new skills so they can succeed in the jobs of the future as our country recovers from the economic downturn.

With respect to managing the substantial increase in EI claims, we have invested more than $60 million to help manage and process these claims quickly. We have cut red tape for employers. We have invested additional resources to ensure claims are processed quicker. This is on top of the many other administrative efforts we have taken to ensure that the benefits get to the recipients as quickly as possible. We are monitoring the effectiveness of these measures, and we will continue to do that.

All of that said, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Liberal EI scheme. The scheme proposed by that party will not help a single Canadian find a new job. It will not help a single Canadian keep his or her job. It will not help a single Canadian gain any new skills. No, it will simply add billions of dollars to the tax burden of hard-working Canadians and employers at the worst possible time when the economy is undergoing the stress that it is currently undergoing. Of course, I am talking about the Liberal 360 hour, 45 day work year scheme.

The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme, but the fact is it is an irresponsible proposal that would result in a massive increase in a job-killing payroll tax that will hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it.

In spite of these irresponsible ideas from the opposition, our government will continue helping Canadians get through this tough time. We are going to do it in a responsible manner. We have invested millions of dollars into skills upgrading and training. We have frozen the EI premiums, injecting about $4.5 billion into the economy. We have extended benefits. Those are the kinds of things that need to be done at this particular time, and we are doing them.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, once again I listened to my colleague speak about the different programs the Conservatives have invested in, but he still fails to recognize that the issue is that people are not able to obtain employment insurance in a timely manner.

He said that the government has invested $60 million in bringing in additional resources so that there will be more people to respond to the need, in terms of people being able to access EI. My understanding is that is money that comes out of the employment insurance program. In fact, the President of the Treasury Board told us that in a recent committee meeting. It is in fact money that Canadians themselves put into the employment insurance program.

All we are asking the government to do is take a little more of that money and increase the number of people who are responding to the needs. In that way maybe more people will be able to obtain employment insurance much quicker.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is quite ironic that the member would get up and speak that way when that party took $50 billion out of the EI fund and used it for general revenue and expenses. We are investing billions of dollars to ensure that the benefits are there. We are investing the amount of dollars that are needed to ensure that claims are processed in a timely manner.

I would like to draw attention to the 45-day work year plan which would do nothing more than raise taxes at a time when it would hurt most businesses and individuals. In fact, the Liberal leader himself said that he would have to raise taxes. There is no doubt about that.

We have taken steps to ensure that benefits are provided, that benefits are extended, that there are no additional taxes for the employers and employees, and that during this difficult time, we are there for them to ensure that the benefits will be received in a timely fashion.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:02 p.m.)