Debates of May 15th, 2014

Opposition Motion—CBC/Radio-Canada

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her question.

There are two things that I think are very important. I said during my speech that this is a period of transformation and that media companies have to adapt quickly to new realities. Dwelling on ratios, as the minister suggests, is unrealistic at this time. However, the right thing to do is to work together on defining what we want from the public broadcaster and provide support for that change.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

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

Today, in a parliamentary committee, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage how she felt about the fact that her predecessor had initially promised that CBC's budget would never be cut, and that he might even increase it, only to break his promise by cutting the budget by $115 million. She told me that she did not do it and that she had nothing to do with it.

How could my colleague explain that a minister would distance herself from her ministerial responsibility and loyalty to the government if not for the fact that she is very embarrassed that her party once again broke its promise?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

I wonder if she is embarrassed or if she does not understand the consequences of her actions. What I am saying is very serious. I sincerely hope that what my colleague has suggested is correct. However, if she really is convinced that cutting more than $100 million from an organization, whether a public or private entity, will not have consequences or ones that do not concern her, I wonder what she is doing there.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his speech.

He raised some important points in his speech. In fact, since the arrival of the Conservative government, the gap between rich and poor, and also between men and women, has widened. Furthermore, he also pointed out that the cuts to CBC will further increase the gaps, particularly between the regions and urban centres.

CBC's mandate is much broader than what is on paper. Consider Radio Canada International and also the reputation of this institution, which is internationally renowned.

We know that CBC is a vehicle for broadcasting Quebec and Canadian culture and how that is so important in a North American context.

I would like him to elaborate on CBC's broader mandate.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which gets to the heart of this debate: do we still want to share something as a people? When we talk about culture, we are talking about sharing something. Do we still want to share something? Is that what we want, or do we want everyone locked up in their own homes, in their own little world, thinking that nothing is possible, that we cannot communicate with each other, can no longer express ourselves or create?

I prefer to look at things more positively. I absolutely think we need to have spaces to communicate with each other, to express ourselves, to show our creativity and abilities and, with the help of new technologies, to share them with the whole world. That is why I am proud of an institution like the CBC.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Malpeque, Public Safety; the member for Louis-Hébert, Intergovernmental Relations; the member for Vancouver Quadra, Natural Resources.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what the then Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, today the Minister of Industry, had to say on CBC News in Vancouver on May 3, 2011, the morning before the Conservative Party's re-election:

We have said that we will maintain or increase support for the CBC. That is our platform and we have said that before and we will commit to that.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government once again broke its commitment. Budget 2012 took a hatchet to Canada's national broadcaster, slashing $115 million from the budget.

That figure is a known fact. It is on page 34 of the 2014-15 estimates. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, CBC/Radio-Canada has lost $227 million in parliamentary appropriations, in 2014 dollars, which is equivalent to a cut of 18%—nearly one-fifth—of its budget.

Furthermore, CBC/Radio-Canada lost $7 million with the reduction of the Canada media fund and $47.1 million as a result of the CRTC's decision to put an end to the local programming improvement fund. When I asked a question in the House about how the cuts were affecting CBC/Radio-Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages replied that the government was not involved in the corporation's decision to cut to services and jobs. How can she make such a claim? The budget cuts imposed by the government are certainly forcing the corporation to make drastic decisions, such as eliminating 657 full-time jobs and cutting a number of programs.

Today, in parliamentary committee, the minister told me that she was not the one who promised not to cut the CBC/Radio-Canada budget in 2011, only to cut it in 2012. She dissociated herself from her government. It is understandable that she did not want to be associated with a broken promise. In this context, it would be wrong to liken the cry of alarm from CBC employees to a corporatist reaction. Yes, the CBC is slowly dying, and we are reaching a breaking point.

It is important to realize that our public broadcaster has been living in the shadow of budget cuts since 1990. According to CBC/Radio-Canada's figures, in 2014 dollars, the corporation received $1,673,000,000 in parliamentary appropriations in 1990 and, in 2014, is receiving no more than $1,038,000,000, which represents a 38% decrease. Naturally, the combined effect of these cuts has weakened the institution. CBC/Radio-Canada has quantified the results.

Following recent cuts to parliamentary appropriations, the reduction of the Canada media fund and the elimination of the local programming improvement fund, the amount allocated by the government to the public broadcaster is only $29 per Canadian. That is much less than the $87 average for other developed democracies. Per resident, countries like Japan, Spain, Belgium and France financially support their public broadcaster twice as much as we do; Austria and the United Kingdom, three times more; Germany and Sweden, four times; Switzerland and Norway, five times. Only the United States and New Zealand are cheaper than we are.

Is there another country that needs a public broadcaster more than we do? Ours produces more national programming than all the private broadcasters combined. It offers local talents an irreplaceable springboard. It almost single-handedly provides broad coverage of international news. It is the only one to be required to provide programming that reflects a diverse country with two official languages, a country the size of a continent. It admirably serves the French cause in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, in addition to providing English-speaking Canada a voice that differs from the voice of American culture.

More than ever, Canada needs a quality public broadcaster. However, the broadcaster must receive the means it needs to carry out its mission in a rapidly changing world. The CBC does not have those means.

The corporation is increasingly forced to go after advertising revenue, at the risk of undermining its special status as a public service.

As our friends from the CBC remind us, our public broadcaster has increased its TV advertising by 33% since 2012, from 12 minutes to 16 minutes per hour. However, not only is the advertising market more segmented than ever, with 742 competing channels, but it is difficult to succeed when, like the CBC, a broadcaster does not have access to revenue from digital broadcasting. In a decade, the revenue from digital content has caught up with and is now exceeding the advertising revenue of traditional television.

CBC/Radio-Canada must stop being haunted by budget cuts that, year after year, are forcing the broadcaster to take a short-term patchwork approach. It is high time to provide the corporation with the resources it needs for proper planning—like the resources BBC has—and with multi-year, stable and predictable funding, over a five-year period perhaps.

The Broadcasting Act must be reviewed, because it has not been reviewed since 1991. The act does not even address digital content. It is crucial to reaffirm the independence of the public broadcaster, and as a first step to restore its autonomy in labour relations, which have been undermined by the Conservative government.

To justify the current cutbacks, the Conservative government often mentions those made by the Liberals, but that argument cannot hide a fundamental difference. We Liberals were forced to cut government spending to eliminate the huge structural deficit left behind by the previous Conservative government.

Despite that, we kept to the objective of preserving the public service, because we believed in its mission. As soon as the budget was balanced, we cautiously resumed investment in government action. That was true for CBC/Radio-Canada.

It is a fact that the Chrétien government had to reduce our public broadcaster's budget to get the nation's finances back in order. However, we did our best to protect its ability to fulfill its core mission, and once the budget was balanced, the Liberal government invested in the prestigious institution.

What a difference from today's situation, with the Conservative government imposing repeated drastic cutbacks on CBC/Radio-Canada motivated not so much by financial necessity as by the ideologically motivated desire of a large part of the Conservative caucus to dismantle this public institution.

It is a given that the Liberal government, if elected by Canadians in 2015, will impose an ironclad fiscal discipline on itself. However, this discipline will be based on proven and impartial data, not on ideological obsessions like the one of the Conservative government against the CBC.

The Liberal Party will combine fiscal discipline and firm support for CBC/Radio-Canada, as we believe that a strong public broadcaster is a critical part of maintaining and promoting Canada's diverse and rich culture in both official languages.

Conservative cuts have served as a severe setback for both the development and diffusion of innovative bilingual programming and have undermined CBC/Radio-Canada's capacity to fulfill its mandate, especially as it works to realign operational models to reflect 21st century program and consumption demands.

This brings us to motion moved by our colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, who is calling on the House to:

(a) reverse the $45 million in cuts for 2014-2015 in Budget 2012; and

(b) provide adequate, stable, multi-year funding to the public broadcaster so that it can fulfill its mandate.

The Liberal opposition supports this motion in that it is consistent with what we have been saying for some time now.

We would also add the notice of motion moved unsuccessfully, unfortunately, on May 13, 2014, by my Liberal colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain that the Standing Committee on Official Languages undertake a study on the impact of budget cuts on Radio-Canada’s programming for rural and urban francophone communities across the country.

There are many more things to be done, but the most important is for the government itself to truly believe in the essential mandate of a top-notch public broadcaster. The government must acknowledge that CBC/Radio-Canada provides an essential service to Canadians. It must acknowledge that and prove it through tangible actions, starting with supporting this motion.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for stating his intention to support the motion and for his speech and the intellectual honesty he has displayed time and again, particularly by mentioning the cuts that his own party made in the 1990s. I admire his intellectual honesty. I would like to say the same about his entire team, but I think he is on his own.

However, I would like to say to the hon. member that in my most recent remarks to the House I mentioned the extent of the partisanship on the CBC/Radio-Canada board of directors. I would like to know whether the hon. member has an idea or suggestion regarding the composition of this board of directors and the appointments that are made to it.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I also thank him for the motion and the work that we do together on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Indeed, we do have concerns in that respect. However, we are cautious. I would not want to assume anything about the existing board, but I do not like how its members are appointed and the fact that there are no criteria.

Just like we are proposing for the Senate, even though the hon. member belongs to a party that has doubts about what we want to do with the Senate, we need to minimize partisanship for all appointments. There are ways to achieve that. Our committee should receive a new mandate to determine which criteria and what process could be established to have less partisan appointments in organizations that are not supposed to be partisan bodies.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the next question, I noticed some looks of surprise when I took the first question from the New Democratic Party. It being an opposition day today, normally after a Liberal member has just spoken, the first question would go to the party that has proposed the motion on the floor today. Then we would go in the normal rotation.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the member's speech. He reminds me of the Li'l Abner character Joe Btfsplk, who always has a cloud over his head and everything is doom and gloom.

I just want to share some very good news about media, entertainment, and television in this country. The Ontario Media Development Corporation published its latest results. It has been a banner year once again in Ontario, $1.1 billion, the third year in a row with an all-time high.

Right in my own riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, are productions like Lost Girl, season five, which is very successful on the Showcase network; Rookie Blue, season five, which is on Global; The Strain, which has drawn the greatest film and television producer from Mexico, Guillermo del Toro, which is on the FX network in its first season; Beauty and the Beast, season two; and Reign, which is on CTV. These are all great things that are happening in this country.

Members will notice in my comments that none of it seems to be happening on CBC. It is just a challenge for CBC to produce the shows that Canadians want to watch. It is a competitive industry. There is all kinds of fabulous work going on in Ontario and across the country. The challenge is for CBC to do its work and produce those great shows. We know it is capable of doing it, but it is certainly not all doom and gloom.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to say that Canada has enough resilience to resist the doom-and-gloom government we have today. It is good news to find out what Canadians are able to do despite the government.

I am disappointed that my colleague did not take the opportunity to answer the question I asked his government, which was why it committed to never cut the CBC. I have the quote of the then minister of Canadian Heritage the day after the electoral victory of the Conservative government. He said:

We have said that we will maintain or increase support for the CBC. That is our platform and we have said that before and we will commit to that.

The Conservatives broke their commitment. How does the member feel about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague provide comment regarding our minority communities here in Canada? Right offhand, I am thinking of Saint Boniface in Manitoba, for example, and how valuable a role the CBC plays in having the multicultural, bilingual services that are provided through its network.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, although he knows the answer better than I do. He is so close to his community. He knows how much Radio-Canada is key for Franco-Manitobans and throughout the country.

For many communities, it is the only way by which they may have news in their language. Can members imagine that? All of us have a lot of choices. Some of us have no other choice apart from Radio Canada. We should never forget that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was kind of surprised earlier today to hear some responses from the government side. About 25 years ago, I was part of Bell bargaining, for the union side. Before we sat down to start discussing bargaining with Bell, we looked at its budget and what the opportunities were for us to gain from the productivity of the company.

When we do that, we look at a total revenue pie. In this place, we had the members from the other side talking about the fact that when the CEO of CBC looked down at his revenue pie, and there was a reduction in his revenue that caused him to have to make cuts to CBC, of course it was not the government's cut to the revenue. That is kind of ludicrous. I would say that it borders on mismanagement.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we should ask more of CBC to have better results. However, the fact is that it does not have access to digital revenues as much as the private sector for the very simple reason that the private sector is able to merge and have companies that are directly in the digital economy. This is something that CBC cannot have. In addition, we have 747 channels in competition there.

Therefore, to say to CBC that it has to do it on its own, the question is which public broadcaster has been able to do that anyway? Most of them are supported by the state three to four times more than CBC.

We have to choose, as Canadians. Do we want to have a public broadcaster? Do we believe in it in the 21st century, and do we want to invest in it as we should? I am sure that the answer will be yes. We will see that at the next election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pass on the moment in recognizing how we talked about the francophone community, but we do not want to limit it to just radio. In fact, if we take a look at CBC as a whole, we will find that many of the international talents that we have today originated from CBC. CBC has, in many ways, provided opportunities for Canadians who would not have had those opportunities had we not had the crown corporation of CBC.

Might the member want to add some comments to that?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to find another public broadcaster doing more to raise local talents than CBC/Radio Canada in any country that we could imagine. It is incredible what it has been able to do.

I am from a province, Quebec, where a lot of what we call the Quiet Revolution came from Radio Canada. A lot of the stars of the Quiet Revolution were raised and developed and learned their skills through Radio Canada.

We cannot overestimate what that means for local talents in Canada and for Canadian content, if we compare it with the fact that all of the other broadcasters together have less Canadian content than CBC alone.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who just made a speech. He reminded us of the importance of having a public broadcaster like the CBC, not only for Canadian culture, but also for the Quebec, French Canadian and English Canadian cultures.

Could he elaborate on the difference between a public and a private broadcaster and their respective mandates? Also, how important is the public broadcaster in terms of how it contributes to the development of Canadian talent?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

CBC's mandate is unique. It consists in educating and informing people. Take, for example, the coverage by foreign correspondents. It is increasingly difficult for the corporation to provide that coverage. However, private sector coverage is also decreasing. Therefore, if Canadians want to have journalists abroad, they will have to rely more and more on CBC.

We need a public broadcaster to carry out several of our public missions. The private sector has its own priorities and we understand that. Private businesses must make ends meet and they must make profits. That is fine and I have nothing against that. However, a public broadcaster has a vital role to play in a country like Canada.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Today, I will talk about things that people under the age of 40 know nothing about. I will also talk about things that people in the rest of Canada know nothing or very little about: the tremendous contribution that the French arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made to the development of the Quebec nation's identity.

Radio-Canada first entered Quebec homes over radio and television airwaves during the time known as the “grande noirceur”, the great darkness. We were an oppressed and nearly voiceless people.

To Quebeckers, Radio-Canada's French network is more than a television network. It was one of the most powerful enablers of our collective emancipation. If the Quebec nation is aware of its distinct nature within North America, if it is aware that it is a distinct society within Canada, I believe that is due in large part to the amazing legacy bequeathed to us by Radio-Canada broadcasts.

That is why I get worried when the government cuts funding for our French-language public broadcaster. Radio-Canada is a diamond, and if you want to bring out the best in a diamond, you do not use a hammer. You use knowledge and finesse to make it even more beautiful and useful. That is not what I am seeing now in the government's cuts to the corporation.

Will the government continue to weaken and emasculate this cultural tool that is critically important to maintaining the French fact in North America?

I remember when we were kids sitting in front of the TV. The first time we turned the TV on, Radio-Canada had just come on the air. We saw that picture of the Indian who was waiting, just like we were, for the shows to start. Little did we know that our world was about to change.

I am a child of the Quiet Revolution. I am a child of the public schools, but there is something else I am proud of: I am a child of Radio-Canada. I watched La Boîte à surprise, and there are others here who remember it. Those programs were catalysts and incubators for Quebeckers' creativity, and that creativity is now our calling card internationally in both arts and culture and in business.

I remember Sol et Gobelet, those two wild and crazy guys played by Favreau and Durand, who looked at spaces and objects in different ways. In those two characters, how can we not see a foreshadowing of what Robert Lepage would do in his productions? They are not so different. That is where the ideas were hatched. I think back to La Ribouldingue, with Mandibule, Bedondaine, Paillasson, Friponneau, Dame Plume and Giroflée. After them came the casts of the Cirque du Soleil. There is not a lot of creative distance between the imaginary world that Radio-Canada created for children and what has now been created for children and grown-ups the world over. That was where it came to life: on Radio-Canada.

Growing up with an imaginary world is fantastic. At the same time, our eyes were opened to this planet. Our eyes were opened and our minds were inspired by fantastic voices, francophone voices. My mind goes back to Henri Bergeron opening Les beaux dimanches: “Mesdames et messieurs, bienvenue, voici Les Beaux dimanches”.

What we were seeing on television was the dawning of our culture. I remember seeing Michel Tremblay's play Hosanna, with that incredible transvestite as a character. That is where the darkness from which we were emerging gave way to the light ahead.

I also remember the joy in listening to the wonderful, intelligent voices of Jean-Maurice Bailly and René Lecavalier. They hosted La soirée du hockey and dissected every hockey game using their words as precisely and skilfully as if they were master craftsmen. They were magicians of the spoken word and masters of French. That was the Radio-Canada of my childhood. They introduced us to all our heroes on skates, of course, and they were francophone heroes. That told us that we Quebeckers were good and quick on our skates too. That is what those commentators told us. It was wonderful.

On another level, I remember René Lévesque on Point de mire. René Lévesque, the greatest Quebec premier in history, ensured Quebec's survival for decades to come with Bill 101, which allows us to integrate immigrants into the French language in Quebec. I remember one episode of Point de mire in particular. René Lévesque was talking about the importance of unions in society. He had his blackboard—he always worked with a blackboard—and talked about capital—not a word we hear a lot—about trade unions and about the importance of the balance between the two in ensuring that wealth was distributed. That is what unions were for. To me, it seems that the show should be rerun quite often. The members opposite would learn a lot from that show and from that great man.

There are also the women of CBC television who paved the way for the emancipation of women in Quebec. I am thinking of Aline Desjardins, Jeannette Bertrand and Lise Payette, to name but a few. I remember how my father hated them. He said that those women got my mother all worked up. She no longer wanted to prepare the meals or iron my father's shirts. My father accused the women of CBC television of having an influence on this behaviour. The women of CBC/Radio-Canada made us better men, better fathers, better husbands, and better partners. Those women changed us and Quebec society. That is why we are proud of CBC/Radio-Canada.

On my way here I was remembering other shows such as Quelle famille! We watched that show every week. We identified with the characters in the shows we watched: Les Couche-Tard with Roger Baulu and Jacques Normand; the major dramas, such as Un homme et son péché—22 years of avarice—and Le temps d'une paix with Rose-Anna and Ti-Coune. I do not think there is a French network in the world that has produced as many fine shows with as much creativity and connection to a people as the French section of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I could go on for an hour celebrating all the magic this institution created back home, but the underhanded attack on the news service concerns me. The news service is affected by the latest cuts and that doubly concerns me. For one thing, it is the main news source, not to mention the most consistent and most reliable one, that we have in Quebec. For another, this affects Mr. Gravel's team of journalists on the program Enquête in particular.

If Alain Gravel were living in the United States, he would have won the Pulitzer Prize. The first-hand information he gathered that led to the Charbonneau commission is the type of information that brings down governments. I hope that Radio-Canada will not suffer unduly as a result of these cuts because I expect that our very own Eliot Ness will come stick his nose in the Conservatives' business. He would come to Ottawa, look at SNC-Lavalin's contracts and the Conservative donors and see whether there are some front men involved. That is the type of journalism we need and it is going to be affected by these cuts. I find that truly dangerous for democracy.

The Conservative government started by going after scientists, whose findings and studies it does not like, and now it is turning toward journalists, whose investigations and analyses it does not like. What are things coming to? That is my question.

On that note, I agree to answer some questions.

Congratulations to my colleague.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, typically when we look, even in government, at the services we offer, we try to define what they are and what they mean. I would think in this case, with CBC, across the board, it would be the content it delivers or broadcasts. My colleague talked a lot about content. I would say that one of the metrics is whether the content is being consumed and enjoyed by Canadians and whether Canadians are finding it of utility. Part of the metrics around that, and I am not saying all, but a good chunk, would be the revenue it receives from advertisers in terms advertisers being willing to pay for a spot during the content.

As I look at the consolidated statement of income in CBC's 2012-13 annual report, if I read it correctly, I see a $45-million decrease in advertising revenue year over year. I am wondering if my colleague opposite would agree with me that it is an indication that perhaps there needs to be some process adjustment in terms of the content being delivered, if Canadians are enjoying it, and whether he believes that, in fact, CBC should continue to increase its programming and services around advertising.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the funding for the institution, I think I spent 10 minutes explaining that the essence of this corporation does not lie in the number of ads it shows or the number of viewers it has, but rather in its ability to inspire people to see and recognize themselves, to understand each other and to be informed. I personally question the whole issue of ads on public television. I do not want to speak for my party on this matter, but honestly, since the minister asked me the question, I change the channel whenever there is an ad.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague. I appreciate his comments, but I want to ask him about a pattern of conduct in the government with respect to crown corporations of this kind.

Five or six years ago, I began raising the spectre of the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and the government scoffed. That was before it sold it off at fire-sale prices to SNC-Lavalin, and now it is privatizing the management of our isotope production facility in Chalk River.

A second crown corporation in play now is Canada Post. It has been seriously weakened. A plan was put out by the PMO and rubber-stamped by Canada Post. Third is VIA Rail, which was cut by 15% last year.

My question for the member is very simple. We appear to be on the slippery slope to the privatization of a number of crown corporations. Can he help us understand what his perspective is in this regard? I ask because my constituents in Ottawa South are furious about these cuts.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the Conservative and neo-liberal line: private companies do things better than public corporations. Surreptitiously and gradually, public services are allowed to deteriorate so that it becomes easy to justify doing away with them and moving toward the private sector. The Conservatives have completely forgotten the concept of public service. Just like Margaret Thatcher's neo-liberal supporters, the Conservatives think we live in a vast market. Everything is about the market. That is not true. We can live in a society with institutions that connect people with each other.