Debates of June 11th, 2009

Renewable Energy

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Shall I see the clock as 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 27, I had the opportunity to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage about CBC funding. The minister merely gave partisan and repetitive answers providing no reassurance to Canadians about funding for the corporation.

The Conservatives may not care about preserving the corporation's mission, but citizens do. On May 11, Le Journal de Montréal published the results of the CROP survey conducted for the Fédération nationale des communications:

—89% of Quebeckers “agree” or “strongly agree” with the fact that the CBC is an important vehicle for Canadian and Quebec culture and that its mission must be fully protected and 81% feel that it is “fairly important” or “very important” that the government ensure its development by increasing its funding if necessary.

How can this government be so out of touch with reality and the wishes of Canadians?

The Conservatives have slashed funding for our national broadcaster. In addition to its refusal to advance $125 million, the government has not yet released the $60 million the corporation counts on every year to balance its budget. Consequently, the corporation must now cut 800 jobs, close stations in many regions and decrease its production.

As if that were not enough, the government has asked the CBC to conduct a strategic analysis of its spending, which could result in $56 million in additional cuts in 2010-11.

The well-known former news anchor, Bernard Derome, blamed the Conservative government's attitude toward the CBC, saying that more and more Canadians were getting worried about the current situation, which was threatening the development of francophone culture in Canada. All the Prime Minister's Office could say in response was that this proved that the CBC was anti-Conservative.

In response to Mr. Derome's call to action, a group of people got together to oppose, with public support, the Conservative government's decision to abandon the CBC to its fate. This group, SOS Radio-Canada, is one of the driving forces behind the campaign to save the CBC. In addition to the support campaigns, petitions and Facebook groups, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada has launched a campaign entitled “I am, we are for better support for Radio-Canada”.

What do these Canadians want? It is clear: to maintain news coverage and national, regional, and local programming in Quebec; to maintain French-language news and programming in francophone minority communities outside Quebec; and to maintain the corporation's 2008 staffing and service levels.

On March 31, we, the Liberals, introduced a motion that was adopted by a vote of 136 to 126. This motion recognized the indispensable role of the CBC in providing national, regional, and local programming including news coverage and services to linguistic minorities throughout Canada and urged the government to provide the bridge financing the corporation requires to maintain 2008 staffing and service levels.

We need to have the courage to talk openly and honestly about the future of the CBC. Clearly, the Conservatives lack courage. Instead, they are using the economic crisis as an excuse to attack this national institution and deny it the funding it needs.

When will the Conservatives give the CBC the stable funding it so badly needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is proof why it is wonderful to have a selective memory in this House.

The member, who was once a part of a Liberal government, likely does not remember that back in 1993 and then in 1997, when the Liberals played a familiar tune, they said, “If elected we will provide more and stable funding to the CBC. That is our word to the CBC”.

What did they do?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Nothing.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

They did less than nothing. They cut funding to the CBC by some $400 million. Four thousand jobs disappeared. That is the Liberal record.

The member voted in favour of Canada's economic action plan and that was a smart move. It was a good thing he did. As we can see today, 80% of the stimulus measures in Canada's economic action plan have been implemented. We are moving forward. We are getting things done for Canadians.

What else was in that economic action plan? There was record funding for the CBC. That is what was in there. Perhaps the member did not read it. It was a heck of a plan. In there was a lot of money for the CBC, more than $1.1 billion. That is one thousand, one hundred million dollars. If we distributed that money to everybody in Lakefield, Ontario, they would all have half a million dollars in their bank accounts. That is a lot of money.

The people in Lakefield would like that, but the people at the CBC are using it to produce shows that are in the public interest, fulfilling their mandate with more than $1.1 billion. That is how much support our government has put behind the CBC and Radio-Canada in this country.

I have said many times in this House that the CBC is a Conservative Party creation. Of course it is. The Conservative Party brought the CBC and Radio-Canada into existence. It is the Liberal Party that wanted to shut it down. In fact, former leader Pierre Trudeau said that if the lights went off at the CBC, nobody would notice. That is their record.

I could take some criticism on this from some parties, but not the Liberal Party. It is the height of hypocrisy. What it did to the CBC was shameful. Our party stands four-square behind the CBC.

We are doing a study right now at the heritage committee on the future of broadcasting. We have found that all broadcasters in over-the-air broadcasting are having some difficulties because the advertising revenues are not what they normally are. That has also hit the CBC, but what we have done amid this crisis is put the money behind the CBC. We have provided the CBC with funding.

Is the CBC experiencing challenges? Sure it is, but so is everybody in broadcasting and so are Canadians right at home. It is a common theme that we hear from the opposition: spend, spend, spend. That is why I believe the Liberal leader when he says, “We will have to raise taxes”. Of course the Liberals will because all they come forward with are spending proposals. That is what the member is saying. He says, “Spend more money. Throw more money at the problem and it will just go away”.

We are committed to getting value for tax dollars in this country. That is the Conservative promise to Canadians. We stand behind the CBC, but we will not spend frivolously.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague from the Conservative Party is suffering from selective memory. He has forgotten that, when the Liberals took over in 1993, they inherited a disastrous financial situation left behind by the previous, Conservative, government.

Clearly, the Conservatives are using the present crisis to muzzle the CBC something they have wanted to do for a long time. The Conservatives say that funding the CBC is a waste of taxpayers' money and that it should broadcast only in those regions where it does not compete with private broadcasters.

The government has said on a number of occasions that it has increased the CBC budget every year, but this is false. The corporation's annual reports and the main estimates clearly demonstrate that the government has been cutting the CBC budget ever since it has been in power.

CBC's annual expenditures reveal that, during the Conservative government's first year in power, that is 2006-07, it cut funding by $32 million. That year, there were—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the statements by the member are patently false. Anybody who can use an adding machine or perhaps a calculator would know that 1.1 is more than 1.

It is certainly more than what the Liberal Party put in place. That is what we have done. We have provided more funding to the CBC, stable funding to the CBC. The CBC has been the recipient of public funds for over seven years. That is pretty stable. However, one thing that I do not have a selective memory about is the Liberal record. In 1993 the Liberals promised more money and delivered less.

By the way, if they want to talk deficits, let us talk Trudeau, with the highest percentage of GDP to debt. The budgets he brought forward were awful, a disgrace. He was leading this country down a road to destruction, but thank goodness some Conservatives got in there and got this country back on the path, but we did not cut health care funding. We did not cut education funding.

That is what the Liberals did. They cut transfers to the provinces. They also cut funding to the CBC and 4,000 jobs were lost at the CBC. The CBC has never recovered from the Liberal record of shame.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, 2009 we learned that the part-time component of the second language assistant program Accent had been done away with, indeed eliminated without any warning by the Reform Conservative government.

Through this program, university students were hired as language assistants and organized a variety of cultural activities for students of French language and culture in minority communities, or for students in French immersion, depending on their location.

In 2008, 390 students became language assistants. The program worked well. It helped many people learning French to improve their knowledge through the cultural support the Accent assistants provided.

The program was appreciated equally by students and their parents and by the schools. It did not cost much: only $2.6 million annually.

Then, boom, the Reform Conservative government hypocritically and surreptitiously abolished the Accent program, with no transparency whatsoever. This program was greatly appreciated, in part as a tool to counteract assimilation and the loss of French in favour of English unilingualism.

There is so much to be done to fight the assimilation of French by English that every little bit helps. Abolishing the Accent program is just one more backward step in the battle against the Canadian cancer that is assimilation of the French fact.

The president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Lise Routhier-Boudreau, criticized the Reform Conservative government's lack of transparency with respect to this cut. She said, “Lack of clarity in the way the government does things is a shame, a real shame”.

On April 30, Claire Trépanier, interim director of the Bureau des affaires francophones et francophiles at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia told the Standing Committee on Official Languages how she thought the Accent program could be made more effective. She said:

There's already the Accent program at the federal level. It's a student monitoring program. The students we sent on mobility in third year to Laval University, for example, also benefited from the Accent program. We could imagine a combination of those two programs in which the student, through the Explore program, studies his second language, but can also work in his mother tongue, perhaps on a part-time basis.

Comments like that belong in the “solutions” category, not the “what can we do to get rid of a program that resists Reform Conservative assimilation” category.

When my Bloc colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, told Ms. Trépanier that the Accord language assistant program had been cut, Ms. Trépanier said, without a moment's hesitation, “It must be restored”.

This is further proof that the elimination of the Accent program is another one of the federal government's very bad ideological moves.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting point brought forward by the member. Unfortunately, it is not the point that he actually suggested that he wanted to attend here for the adjournment debate this evening. What he actually wanted to talk about was international travel, but then he came in and talked about something that was kind of entirely different from international travel. So, that is interesting.

However, I am here to talk about support for the arts and I am happy to discuss support for the arts. We have the member for Lévis—Bellechasse here. Do members know why he is here? Because he supports the arts in Quebec. He strongly believes that the arts is important to the cultural fabric of Quebec, just like it is important to the cultural fabric of this great country.

No government has put more support behind the arts than this government. Whether it is our support for festivals, whether it is our support to the Canada Council for the Arts, whether it is our support to cultural spaces, this government put more money behind the arts than any government in history.

And do members know what was really missing? The Bloc came forward with a couple of economic proposals, one in November and another one I believe in late April, and the Bloc did not mention the arts at all. The Bloc never mentioned the CBC or Radio-Canada. Apparently it is really important to the Bloc. I am glad the Bloc is standing up for national institutions. I think my colleagues agree with that.

We believe in a strong Canada, and that is what the CBC and Radio-Canada bring to Canada, but we also believe in the arts. That is why we have put so much money behind the arts and that is why we stand four-square behind all those who make Canada so culturally vibrant, who give us this unique identity in the world, who are really trendsetters in the world. We look at Canadians who are so successful on the world scene, whether it is in acting or in singing or indeed in drama, and in dance, we know that Les Grands Ballets, for example, is going to receive $2.7 million this year from this government, more money than it has ever received, and I am proud of that. As it is going around and entertaining audiences, not just in Canada but internationally, Les Grands Ballets is representing Canada, and we are so proud.

I guess perhaps the reason why we are on a different question, a question entirely different from what the member suggested that he would talk about is because the Bloc has not been talking a lot about the arts. We came out with our economic action plan, and I alluded to it earlier, and today it is 80% implemented. I will tell members that the record of the Department of Canadian Heritage is outstanding in implementing our economic action plan. We are getting the money out the door and we are supporting artists with it.

However, the reason why Bloc members are not asking that question is because they do not like the answer. They do not like it when they are being called on the fact that they forgot about artists in Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is going to receive $20 million of support for the arts in his own riding this year from this government. And he forgot about them in his two economic statements. No wonder they do not want to talk about the arts anymore. When it comes to arts in Canada, this party remembered them, that party voted against them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I should perhaps inform the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage that as far as the Speaker is aware, notice was given for the subject which the member for Gatineau raised. The subject matter that was announced earlier today, when the late shows were announced, is the topic that he raised in his original question for which he submitted a request for an adjournment proceeding question.

So, there may be some miscommunication, but as far as the Table and the Speaker are aware, this was the subject matter that the member for Gatineau was going to raise.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did inform the Conservative Party yesterday that I would be speaking about the Accent program. I told his colleague from Saint Boniface who spoke to the member for Peterborough. There is no reason to not be ready. They need only do their homework.

The Accent program fostered the mobility of students throughout Quebec and Canada. Its objective was to help French-language schools in minority settings and French immersion schools to improve their students' knowledge of French. The Accent program combined language and culture in French learning. According to André Dulude, of the Association of Universities and Colleges, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages on March 26:

—bilingual competence is most effectively developed at the elementary and secondary levels and... universities should encourage prospective students to have acquired a working knowledge of their other official language;

That was the aim of the Accent program. The Reform Conservatives eliminated the Accent program. It is deplorable. Shame on them.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not to debate this, but I would be happy to table the late show question on which the member is rising. I can assure everyone that it has nothing to do with what he is speaking about.

That being said, I am happy to be able to talk about this government's record. I am really proud of our record of standing four-square behind the artists, standing four-square behind the cultural community in this country, in Quebec, in Ontario, in the west, in the Maritimes, everywhere. We put our money behind the promises that we made to Canadians and the promises we made in the last election.

What is really concerning is that when we put the money behind the arts, and that money is flowing equitably right across this country, the Bloc Québécois members voted against it. That is something they have to respond to. That is something they will have to explain in the next election, whenever that happens. They will have to explain to artists in Quebec why they voted against it, why they brought forward two economic plans and there was not a mention of the artists. That is what they will have to explain.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identify theft and related misconduct).

Citizenship and Immigration

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to do a quick history in four minutes on how the Canadian government has been soft on crime against immigrants, soft on crime against migrants and soft on crime against nannies.

We need to regulate, educate and enforce. In the early 1980s there was an exclusive article by Victor Malarek in the Globe and Mail about how vulnerable people, new immigrants or people who were trying to become immigrants, were being ripped off. Nothing happened and the problem got worse.

In 1995 the then Liberal government thought it was a real problem so it did a study and tabled the report, “Immigration Consultants: It is Time to Act”, but action is what Canadians did not get. I am not surprised that the Liberal government did not get the job done. Between 1995 and 2002, nothing happened. There was no action whatsoever. Various immigration ministers made speeches and promises, but nothing got done. By October 2002 another minister established an advisory committee to talk some more. Then a year later, the Liberal minister at the time knew something had to be done because an election was getting close.

That minister set up a non-profit organization that has no power to regulate and no power to sanction consultants who are not members. It cannot seek judicial enforcement or have any disciplinary consequence. It is a complete paper tiger. It does not do anything. It sounds good. It is called the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, but it has no power whatsoever. Because its jurisdiction is not governed by statute, there is no possibility for a dissatisfied member and others to influence the internal functioning through a judicial review.

During committee hearings last year, we heard that the board of directors is not accountable to anyone. By the way, this is from the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on immigration consultants, tabled in the House in June 2008. The report said that the society lacks transparency, has no plan, the fees are too high, et cetera. It is unaccountable and it is not working at all.

Consultants can set up shop but nothing can happen to them because there are no regulations. What did we do? We did a study again and we tabled a report in the House. The report said that we had to do three things very quickly. One, we have to regulate by putting in legislation and setting up a non-share capital corporation, similar to a law society, a society of engineers or any other profession. Accountants have to belong to an association or a society. A person could be criminally charged for practising as a doctor or a lawyer, when the person is not.

However, immigration consultants do not need any qualifications. They can just set up shop. Some are unscrupulous. They can rip people off and nothing can happen to them.

The report said we should legislate. We should also make sure that we enforce. It said that there should be some procedures for complaints. We should change the immigration manual to make sure that people who need a consultant--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina has raised questions about what the government is doing to address the problem of immigrants being taken advantage of by unregulated immigration consultants. We certainly have that much in common. The difference is we have a government that takes this issue very seriously.

The hon. member's concerns follow up on recommendations of the standing committee's 2008 report concerning immigration consultants, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada is currently reviewing. The minister has noted that the government appreciates both the member's concern and the recommendations of the committee.

As I have said, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is reviewing these issues and is continuing to work to protect vulnerable individuals from unscrupulous and predatory consultants. These policy options address prevention and enforcement tools regarding unscrupulous behaviour and the governance of consultants. We are going to act.

Our government is committed to protecting vulnerable immigrants from unscrupulous consultants. On March 23 the minister announced the launch of an advertising campaign to inform potential immigrants how to protect themselves against false claims from dishonest immigration consultants.

Our ads in the ethnic and mainstream media outlets direct people to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website where they can learn how to find an authorized immigration consultant, lawyer or notary, if they choose to use one. The Citizenship and Immigration Canada site also contains links to websites where applicants and immigrants can go to take action if they believe they have been a victim of immigration fraud.

This campaign follows the recent launch of a multilingual warning video, which is now available on YouTube, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, through overseas missions, and on TV across the country through public service announcements.

The minister is also working with international partners on this issue. For example, during his visit to India in January 2009, the minister received assurances from Indian counterparts to step up efforts to combat unscrupulous immigration consultants in India. In addition to this, our government will take further action in Canada to improve regulation of immigration consultants to protect newcomers to our country.

The government wants immigration applicants to know how to protect themselves against fraud. It wants those seeking to represent these applicants to know that Canada will do everything it can to protect the integrity of our immigration system.

Therefore, the government is acting on the matter raised by the hon. member. We welcome her co-operation in the House and on the immigration committee to strengthen our immigration system and protect vulnerable newcomers and workers.

I know the member and I do not necessarily have a whole lot of things in common on the direction of immigration in this country. We do not necessarily share a lot of things in common, but we do share one thing and that is the treatment of vulnerable individuals who come to this country by choice, because they want to be here. Whether they come here under the temporary worker program, become a caregiver in a home, become a nanny, or work temporarily on a fruit farm, the fact is that under any of those categories, or applying to become a landed immigrant or permanent resident, there is some common ground.

I certainly want to thank the member for her efforts most recently on the immigration committee.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a nanny or a live-in caregiver, giving me a flyer about immigration fraud would not be enough because I may still be ripped off and told to work in a home even though I may not have the right visa to do so. That could still happen.

One of the recommendations in the report was about enforcement. Whether it is Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, CSIS, or the Canada Revenue Agency, we have to work with provincial partners to make sure we investigate and enforce. There must be sanctions. We must ensure that people will be punished if they are violating the Criminal Code or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I believe that investigation is important and enforcement must take place.