Debates of May 15th, 2014

Question No. 434

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Shared Services Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 441

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Environment Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 447

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

— With regard to diagnosis, treatment, awareness and prevention, and research of eating disorders: (a) do the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Health Canada (HC) have any statistics about how many Canadians suffer from each of the following conditions, (i) anorexia nervosa, (ii) bulimia nervosa, (iii) binge eating disorder; (b) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about the average costs of each of (i) anorexia nervosa, (ii) bulimia nervosa, (iii) binge eating disorder to the health system; (c) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about how many Canadians (i) recover, (ii) relapse, (iii) die each year as a result of eating disorders; (d) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what treatment is available for eating disorders, broken down by province and territory, from (i) daily care to long-term residential care, (ii) how many publicly funded beds are available; (e) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about how many Canadian psychiatrists specialize in eating disorders, and any statistics or information about what succession planning is in place to replace those who specialize in these disorders, broken down by province and territory; (f) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what eating disorders training programs are available for health professionals, and any statistics or information on what succession planning is in place to replace those who serve Canadians with eating disorders, broken down by province and territory; (g) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what long-term, publicly-funded residential care facilities are available, (i) the average wait time for treatment by such a facility, (ii) how many Canadians are forced to leave the country for treatment, (iii) the average cost to the family for out-of-country treatment, (iv) the cost to the health care system if the province or territory reimburses families for out-of-country treatment; (h) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about Canadians who are forced to go abroad for private treatment, and any statistics or information on what follow-up care, is available, if any, broken down by province and territory; (i) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about the average economic costs for eating disorders to families including, but not limited to, (i) weekly uninsured costs of appointments to psychologists, (ii) nutritionists, (iii) being unable to work or house oneself; (j) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what specific eating disorder diagnostic data the Hospital Mental Health Database captures, as well as information about this data; (k) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what percentage of deaths related to eating disorders are not being captured by the Hospital Morbidity Database (HMD); (l) what discussion, if any, has the government had with its provincial and territorial counterparts about coding eating disorders in hospitalization records; (m) what discussion, if any, has the government had with its provincial and territorial counterparts about the Discharge Abstract Database covering all jurisdictions of Canada; (n) what, if any, discussion has the government had with its provincial and territorial counterparts about coding eating disorders in the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System; (o) why has HC or any other government agency not undertaken a review of funded eating disorder services in Canada; (p) what are the specific details of each of the “many initiatives” referred to in the government’s response to written question Q-225, that HC supports related to eating disorders; (q) why does the Public Health Agency of Canada not conduct surveillance activities related to eating disorders, and what government agency does conduct such surveillance activities; (r) why does HC not include low body mass index as a separate category; (s) for each of the 57 projects related to eating disorders that Canadian Institutes of Health Research CIHR funded between 2006 and 2013, (i) what are the details of the project, (ii) what is the funding, (iii) was the principal investigator a member of any of CIHR’s review committees; (t) of CIHR’s 11 peer review committees, which ones include a member who has expertise in eating disorders, and for each committee listed, identify the individual with eating disorders expertise; (u) which of CIHR’s peer review committees includes a Canadian living with an eating disorder; and (v) what consideration, if any, has been given to a (i) national eating disorders awareness and education campaign, (ii) pan-Canadian strategy to address eating disorders, including early diagnosis and access to the full range of necessary care, (iii) national registry, (iv) robust research program?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 452

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

With regard to suppliers of garments and textiles that are manufactured outside Canada, in whole or in part, and which have been contracted by any agency or department of the government: (a) what is the process by which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) may ask suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (b) on how many occasions has PWGSC asked suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (c) if PWGSC has ever requested evidence of supplier compliance with local labour laws, (i) which office within PWGSC initiated these requests and under whose authority, (ii) why were these requests initiated, (iii) when were these requests initiated, (iv) were these requests for evidence limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of the supplier, or did they extend to all inputs in the production process even if these inputs were contracted out or otherwise not directly manufactured by the supplier, (v) what type of evidence did PWGSC ask suppliers to provide, (vi) did PWGSC request that suppliers provide evidence verified by independent auditors or inspectors, (vii) did PWGSC ever give individuals from the public, organizations, or governments an opportunity to provide evidence about supplier compliance with local labour laws and to whom were these opportunities extended; (d) if suppliers have ever responded to requests made by the PWGSC for evidence of compliance with local labour laws, (i) how did suppliers respond to these requests, (ii) what information did suppliers provide as evidence, (iii) where and at which office are records of these responses kept, (iv) what method was used by PWGSC to ensure that evidence provided by these suppliers was accurate, (v) did PWGSC ever rely on the services of independent auditors or inspectors to verify the evidence provided by suppliers; (e) what is PWGSC’s policy toward suppliers that are not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (f) has PWGSC ever determined that suppliers were not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (g) if PWGSC has ever determined that suppliers were not operating in compliance with local labour laws, what actions did it take; (h) has PWGSC ever rejected a bid from a potential supplier on the basis that this supplier was not likely to comply, or did not have a record of complying, with local labour laws; (i) has PWGSC ever withdrawn from a contract with a supplier, attempted to withdraw from a contract with a supplier, or threatened to withdraw from a contract with a supplier on the basis that this supplier was not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (j) has PWGSC ever made the prospect of future contracts with a supplier dependent on that supplier demonstrating progress or improvement with respect to their compliance with local labour laws; (k) has PWGSC ever made the fulfilment of its contract with a supplier dependent on that supplier demonstrating progress or improvement with respect to their compliance with local labour laws; (l) has PWGSC ever determined that, if there are any countries or geographical areas in which labour standards are so unacceptable, it will not accept bids from local suppliers and, if so, (i) what were these countries or geographical areas, (ii) when were each of these countries or geographical areas deemed unacceptable, (iii) did PWGSC clearly communicate with suppliers in that country or geographical area about the conditions that would have to be met for PWGSC to resume its willingness to contract with local suppliers; and (m) is the PWGSC provision that requires supplier compliance with local laws limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of contracted suppliers, or does the requirement apply also to any firms sub-contracted by suppliers to provide either inputs or labour and, if it does not apply to any firms sub-contracted by suppliers, (i) what is PWGSC’s rationale for limiting the requirement in such a way, (ii) is PWGSC concerned that suppliers may avoid having to meet the requirement by simply subcontracting their work, and why or why not?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 458

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to details provided in the government’s response to written question Q-64: (a) what effort has the government made to reach out to Positive Change, an organization which represents mothers who have lost their sons to violence; (b) on what dates have officials from Public Safety Canada (PSC) met with mothers who have lost a son to violence, and with how many such mothers have PSC officials met; (c) why did the government not proactively reach out to the Somali-Canadian community when homicides among young Somali-Canadian men occurred in 2006; (d) what specific issues has the organization “Canadian Friends of Somalia” (CFS) raised with the government since 2009; (e) what specific support has the government provided in response to issues raised by the CFS concerning Somali youth in Canada “as they relate to radicalization to violence and terrorism, and to explore avenues of support from the federal government and law enforcement to address these issues”; (f) for each “ad hoc meeting” between PSC and CFS, (i) what is the date, (ii) how many people attended and from where, (iii) what is the purpose; (g) for each “ongoing meeting” between PSC and CFS, (i) what is the date, (ii) how many people attended and from where, (iii) what is the purpose; (h) at the initial meeting of PSC officials with CFS on July 15, 2009 in Ottawa, (i) what specific issues were discussed, (ii) in what riding, (iii) were Members of Parliament present; (i) at the October 7, 2010 videoconference between PSC officials and CFS, (i) what specific issues were discussed, (ii) who were the representatives from Ottawa, Toronto and Edmonton; (j) at the March 12, 2011 meeting, (i) which specific communities were included, (ii) in what riding were Members of Parliament present, (iii) what specific issues were discussed, (iv) why did PSC provide $1938.12 for one participant; (k) with which specific imams and from what mosques did PSC officials meet on June 18, 2011, (i) in what specific riding, (ii) were Members of Parliament present, (iii) what was the agenda for each meeting, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which imams to meet with; (l) at the June 18, 2011, PSC outreach session in Toronto, (i) which communities were represented, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (m) at the June 19, 2011, PSC meeting in Toronto, (i) which Somali-Canadian youth organizations attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (n) at the May 29, 2012, PSC meeting in Toronto, (i) which officials met with what community representatives, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) why did PS provide $700.05 for one participant, (vi) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vii) were Members of Parliament present; (o) at the June 8, 2012, PSC meeting in Hamilton, (i) with what community representatives did the former Minister of Public Safety meet, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (iv) why did PS provide $785.42 for one participant, (v) in which riding did the meeting occur, and were Members of Parliament present; (p) at the October 3 and 4, 2012, PSC meeting in Toronto, (i) what community representatives attended, (ii) how was the workshop event on crime prevention and community safety planning advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) why did PS provide $8958.12 in travel expenses for participants, (v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (q) at the February 20, 2013, PSC employment information event with law enforcement agencies for Somali-Canadian youth in Ottawa, (i) who attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) which law enforcement agencies were represented, (vi) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vii) were Members of Parliament present; (r) at the March 12, 2013, Ottawa PSC outreach session with Somali-Canadian youth, (i) who attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (s) at the ministerial meeting in Toronto on September 20, 2013, (i) which community representatives attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (v) why did PSC provide $1031.09 for one participant, (vi) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vii) were Members of Parliament present; (t) what action is the government considering regarding the more than fifty homicides in the Somali-Canadian community; (u) what action and investment has the government taken regarding Positive Change’s requests for an investigation into homicides of Somali-Canadians, specifically through (i) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, (ii) the development of federal-provincial job programs supporting Somali-Canadians, (iii) the development of job opportunities with the RCMP, (iv) an examination of witness protection; (v) who requested the October 17, 2011 meeting of PSC officials with mothers of victims of violence, (i) how many mothers attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) what was the agenda, (iv) in what riding did the meeting occur, (v) were Members of Parliament present; (w) why did PSC only follow up with mothers and fathers of the Edmonton Police Services; (x) why was the joint work plan developed in collaboration with CFS, (i) what other stakeholders had input, (ii) what other stakeholders across the country have seen the work plan and commented on the plan; (y) what specific action is outlined in the work plan regarding addressing the 50-plus homicides in the Somali-Canadian community, and was Positive Change consulted to comment; (z) why were participants for the PSC October 2012 workshop invited by “the CFS and the network that the community has built over the years”, (i) what stakeholders are part of the network, (ii) how did the government ensure that all stakeholder viewpoints were represented, (iii) were stakeholders informed prior to the event that a work plan would follow, (iv) where can members of the Somali-Canadian community view the work plan; (aa) were stakeholders informed prior to the October 2012 meeting that a “community’s primary point of contact” would be chosen; and (bb) will the government answer subquestions (i), (k), (l), (m) and (o) from Q-64?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—CBC/Radio-Canada

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a key role in informing, entertaining and uniting Canadians and is today weakened because of the many rounds of cuts over the past 20 years, and calls on the government 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.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons will be devoting today's debate to what is happening at CBC. It is a very serious situation.

This is more than just a simple debate. In truth, we are calling for an emergency debate today so that we can acknowledge the crisis at our public broadcaster. Never before has CBC been in such a crisis.

We decided that this debate needs to happen because the government has decided to wash its hands of the problem, even though it is responsible for this situation. This government ignored our calls for accountability. We asked for the government to be accountable for its actions and budget cuts at CBC.

I would also like to note that the minister pledged in this House to testify about the CBC situation before a committee. However, her big boss got his members on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to fix it so that she was not invited to come talk about this topic, which is an embarrassment for them.

The government is also choosing to disregard the tens of thousands of Canadians who are speaking out and expressing their dismay at the situation at CBC/Radio-Canada. Every member here in the House must admit that they have constituents who are taking a stand and speaking out—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Chief Government Whip on a point of order.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that we are not to wear props when we are in the House of Commons. The current speaker and some other members of the NDP are currently wearing props sponsoring a political cause, and I would suggest it is inappropriate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions in which Conservatives have worn pins to promote some particular cause. When we raised the issue, the Speaker at the time said that he felt it was in order.

I find somewhat surprising that the idea that wearing a pin that supports Canada's national broadcaster would somehow be offensive to the government. There have been MPs in this place who have worn hockey jerseys. My goodness, we are talking about supporting the national broadcaster. Certainly there have been precedents that the Speaker has passed judgment on, and there has been some leniency in this regard.

I am surprised, again, that the Conservatives have chosen this moment to suddenly raise an issue when other so-called “political paraphernalia” has been worn in a much larger size by Conservative colleagues, for which the member did not have such a problem. Suddenly, someone wears a button supporting the CBC, and the Conservatives have a problem with it. Of course, this is something that all Canadians support, and I am sure Conservatives, upon reflection, would support it too.

There is no need to raise such points and objections at a time when we are discussing the support of our national broadcaster, something Conservatives obviously do not so much believe in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I think we are all aware of the general policies that we have followed in this House for a long period of time on the use of props and also of wearing pins and other paraphernalia. I will respond to the whip in particular in this regard.

The general rule, of course, is that pins and paraphernalia are not to be worn if it causes disruption to the House. I am a bit concerned about the point of order being raised now because these pins have been worn for at least a week or 10 days, as has been my observation, to this point in time. Therefore, I am having some difficulty accepting any suggestion that it is causing disruption, because if it was, points of order would obviously have been raised earlier in this process.

Again, speaking to the members who are wearing the pins, if it is going to cause a problem at some point today, we may very well reverse the position that I am now taking, which is that members can continue to wear the pins. However, if it is disruptive to the process in the House, there will be a direction from the Chair to have the pins removed.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this government is also choosing to ignore the tens of thousands of people who have spoken up and expressed their dismay over the situation at CBC/Radio-Canada. None of us can deny that people in our ridings have taken a stand and spoken up in favour of the CBC. Every day, MPs receive calls and emails similar to the ones I receive. They know that over 25,000 people have gone to the trouble of signing the petition on our website because they believe that an effective public broadcaster is a vital part of a healthy media and cultural landscape, and a strong CBC is important to them.

There is no doubt that the Conservatives are wholly responsible for what is happening to the CBC. It has come to this because the Conservatives wanted it to come to this. When the Conservatives choose to attack the CBC by slashing its budget even as the corporation is coping with the toughest market conditions in its history and is already struggling, they are just showing how mean-spirited they can be.

The Conservatives did not really adopt a hands-off approach with the CBC. What they really did was make drastic cuts to the public broadcaster's budget: $115 million over three years. That will certainly have serious consequences: years of belt-tightening, service elimination, job cuts and talent loss.

We have only just begun to see how this will affect the CBC. We have all heard about the heartfelt appeal of the corporation's leading radio and television journalists: Céline Galipeau, Patrice Roy, Alain Gravel and many others have warned that the cuts will soon have a serious impact on the work of the creative people at CBC and especially the corporation's ability to practice good journalism.

We have every reason to believe that they will gut the CBC's sports service, which so many people tune in to, and that they will not spare regional stations either. When Céline Galipeau decides to publish an open letter in the newspaper, then we should definitely be worried too.

The two governing parties have developed a long tradition of attacking the CBC. The Conservatives cut another $115 million over three years starting in 2012, and $45 million of that will be cut this year. These cuts are why the CBC is in so much trouble today.

Before the Conservatives came to power, the Liberals had cut hundreds of millions of dollars to the CBC and left it more vulnerable than had any other government before it. Some of the Liberals in the House who nowadays will stand up to bravely defend the CBC were actually part of the government that cut $414 million from our public broadcaster in the first years of being in office, after promising they would protect the CBC. After playing this trick once in 1993, they played it again in 1997. The Liberals are responsible for some of the worst cuts in the history of the CBC and caused thousands of job losses at the CBC.

I speak today from a position of credibility as a New Democrat when I say that what we need for the CBC is adequate, stable, multi-year funding to allow it to live up to its mandate. This needs to be done if we want a strong, independent public broadcaster. Canadians know that we are the only party that can make this happen.

There are very serious consequences to cutting back the CBC's funding over so many years the way both the Liberals and the Conservatives have done. We are starting to notice the effects of this new series of cuts when we hear about some of the CBC's best journalists leaving so that a younger colleague's job will be spared. We are told that the host of the show the fifth estate is leaving so it can keep on working with all its producers. We know that a lot of the effect of these cuts is still to come.

The news programs on the French network and on the English network are the victims of the latest cuts, which are jeopardizing the role that CBC plays in our democracy.

The show Enquête with Alain Gravel on Radio-Canada television is losing journalists and people who work behind the camera. Those same journalists, researchers, technicians and producers are the ones who invest time and resources into stories that other media outlets do not always pick up. It is thanks to those journalistic efforts that the public found out about the many instances of fraud and breach of trust we have seen in recent years.

Imagine for a moment that the Charbonneau commission never existed and that the sordid affairs that we are just starting to hear about were still the norm. Investing in a show like Enquête is very good for our society.

Since I am running out of time, I will skip ahead in my speech.

When it comes to the cuts to CBC, the other thing some people keep telling us and those concerned about the near future of the corporation is that if CBC needs adequate funding then it should come up with interesting programing. A member of the House said that. Is that not pathetic?

That is also what the minister keeps saying when we ask her the question. She says that CBC has to offer programming that appeals to Canadians. That type of answer illustrates just how far out of touch the Conservatives are with the reality of Quebec and the francophone community. I am sure that it is easy for them to forget, but Quebeckers watch shows from here and like the content produced here. The same goes for the large francophone community outside Quebec.

My office is in the Vieux-Longueuil neighbourhood, which is often the backdrop for television productions because the production companies are interested in their community. Providing us with a reflection of our society is precisely the invaluable role that CBC plays.

The public broadcaster is important to people across the country who are hoping to have an independent broadcaster that is provided with adequate, stable, multi-year funding so that it can fulfill its mandate while being sheltered from the uncertainties of the advertising market.

Despite the current shortcomings, we want to keep CBC even more than ever. When we think of the cuts in the media, especially when it comes to covering international news, when we think of this culture of scrutiny that could be lost because of a government that would do well to adopt that culture, we realize how important CBC is to us.

We care about CBC. Just think of its excellent, award-winning sports coverage, which is greatly appreciated. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to mention the high-quality coverage Radio-Canada provided of the Olympics in excellent French.

We care about CBC. Just think about its educational role, which involves not only entertaining Canadians but also keeping them informed and making them better citizens who are more thoughtful and sometimes even more cultured. It is an unique mandate and no other broadcaster bears such a responsibility.

We care about CBC. Just think about the irreplaceable democratic role it plays in keeping an eye on our society, pointing out its overlooked realities and speaking on behalf of the voices that would otherwise not be heard. Unlike government broadcasters in other parts of the world, the role of our public broadcaster is not to be a spokesperson for those in power. On the contrary, its role is to keep an eye on the successive governments and the world of politics. We could use more of that, not less.

Over the past few weeks, 25,000 Canadians have joined the NDP in saying that they care about CBC. I urge another 25,000 to join us.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the comments are interesting. We have been consistently very supportive of CBC within the Liberal Party. In fact, it was the Liberal Party that was in power when CBC first came into being, and the Liberal Party has consistently supported it through its conception.

I am very familiar with NDP behaviour on crown corporations. For example, when the Manitoba Telephone System was privatized in the province of Manitoba, the New Democrats swore they would bring it back and nationalize it. True to form, they broke that promise the moment they took office and did not do it. The NDP, in opposition, proclaims a great deal of love for a lot of things but that never materializes when it is in power, at least that has been the experience in Manitoba.

It is important that we recognize everything CBC has done over the years for our country and be focused on what is happening today. What is happening today is going to have a profound and negative impact on Canada. The CBC is a vital part of promoting Canada's culture and heritage, and ensuring its longevity is of critical importance.

My question for the member is this. Is he not prepared to indicate that we need to focus our attention on the budget that CBC has today and ask the government to reinstate that money as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I particularly appreciate the fact that he said that we should forget about what happened in other provinces, because his former government's track record here in Ottawa is much more embarrassing.

I agree with him about the cuts. We are calling on the government to reverse the $45 million in cuts to CBC. Clearly, this is an emergency measure that, at the very least, will help the crown corporation get its head above water.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members that, of the 18 countries that have a public broadcaster, Canada ranks 15th when it comes to funding.

Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the United Kingdom, Austria, France, Belgium, Spain, Japan, Australia, Ireland and Italy all rank above us. Then comes Canada with a measly $29 per citizen. The countries higher on the list have funding of $180 or $164 per citizen, and the average is between $70 and $100. Who is below us? The United States.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is right. It was the Liberal Party that actually cut $400 million in funding to the CBC back in the nineties.

We know that CBC has declining listening and viewing audiences. There is a lack of revenues. It has not been able to get revenues from organizations. In fact, CBC has lost the contract for our National Hockey League. Now it is complaining that it does not have enough money. We are already providing the CBC well over $1.1 billion. It needs to be able to work within its budgets and make sure that whatever programming it is providing meets Canadian needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is really sad.

Honestly, I would like to go and have a beer with my colleague opposite because he obviously understands nothing. Nothing at all.

By blaming CBC/Radio-Canada for losing Hockey Night in Canada, my colleague is showing that he does not get it. It is absolute heresy when we know that CBC/Radio-Canada did not cut fat or muscle, but cut to the bone. We have reached that point. CBC/Radio-Canada cannot deal with this situation. It is shocking to hear such comments.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his strong statement today and for his motion in support of the CBC.

For those who are watching this debate, this motion:

....calls on the government 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.

Let me just say first of all why we need a CBC. I want to begin with a quote from Canadian producer and director Peter Raymont. What he has said is:

I think the arts, arts programming on CBC English Television in particular, could really help revitalize the CBC. There's been very little arts programming on the CBC for quite a few years now. I think it's a great shame that the artists of Canada, the musicians and poets and writers and filmmakers of Canada haven't had their voices heard and their work seen on CBC television, and it's a vital part of Canadian culture and Canadian identity.

It is still very essential that Canadians share their stories. That is what the public broadcaster allows us to do. We need to be able to tell our stories, from every corner of this vast country, not just the big cities. I come from Toronto. My riding is Parkdale—High Park. However, we need to know the stories of big and small communities right across this country as part of our Canadian identity.

The government does not seem to like our Canadian institutions, whether it is Elections Canada, the Supreme Court, Canada Post, or now the CBC. These cuts seem to be part of a broader assault on our public institutions in Canada.

Let us face it: our national broadcaster is part of our nation-building. It is an important element of our country. We need to share our stories. There is no private sector replacement for what the CBC does. These cuts are preventing us from effectively telling our stories across this country.

What are the cuts I am talking about? The cuts we are talking about today are a direct result of the 2012 budget from the Conservatives. However, ever since coming to power, the Conservatives have had the CBC and Radio-Canada in their sites. They appointed Conservatives to top management positions and instructed them to literally take an axe to the institution.

As a direct result of the actions by the Conservative government now, but also previous Liberal governments, CBC/Radio-Canada has been weakened at the same time as it is trying to survive in an extremely competitive television market, and struggling to transform and keep up with the 21st century technology.

New Democrats question whether the CBC/Radio-Canada can actually fulfill its mandate under the current conditions, particularly in respect to the regions and minority language communities. We so badly need these voices to knit our country together and not allow us to build on our differences but rather to celebrate our differences.

It is disappointing that the new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages seems to be pursuing the Conservative approach of abandoning this important Canadian institution.

The NDP believes in the importance of our public broadcaster. CBC/Radio-Canada should have an adequate, stable budget that affords it a measure of predictability. This would make it less susceptible to the whims of the advertising market and less affected by political influence, I might say, because they would not have to be as concerned about the government of the day.

These cuts are having a huge impact on the staff at CBC. We are losing hundreds of young people, good people who are the future of our broadcasting, people who could make a huge difference for this country.

I want to just quote Linden MacIntyre, the host of the fifth estate, who is talking about the 657 people who will lose their jobs under these cuts.

He is someone who stepped down to save one more job of a young person. Mr. MacIntyre has been a Canadian treasure in his role as host of the fifth estate. He said:

...the 657 people are young, bright, talented and they represent the future of the CBC. If we start losing them at this point, we are losing the future. It's a tragedy, it's a human tragedy and it's an institutional tragedy and, I suppose it's not pushing it to say, it's a national tragedy.

I agree. I believe that these cuts to CBC are indeed a national tragedy. However, it is not just the Conservatives, as I said, who have been making these cuts. It should be said that while they were in power in the 1990s, the Liberals imposed cuts on CBC and Radio-Canada to the tune of $400 million, and almost 2,500 people lost their jobs. The Chrétien era is generally accepted as the time when the troubles of the CBC and Radio-Canada began. It is on this terrible history of cuts that we are seeing these further cuts by the Conservatives today.

What does this mean to our major broadcaster? As I said, young talent is being lost, but we are also losing voices of Canadians. We are losing regional programming and diverse programming across this country and we are dropping in our ranking around the world. Among the 18 major western countries, Canada ranks 16th, third from the bottom, in terms of per capita public funding for public broadcasters, just ahead of New Zealand and the United States. That is sad testimony to the lack of support given to our public broadcaster.

This is a very important issue right across this country, but in my community and in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, it has been a huge issue. I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails, calls, and letters from community members who are very concerned about this series of cuts. I want to quote a couple of these letters. One of them, from a constituent named Joe, who is talking about now having advertising on CBC Radio. He writes:

I just heard the first ads on CBC Radio. Consider this a howl of outrage. Promise me the NDP will establish stable funding for the national public broadcaster so that we may be spared further erosion of this once-mighty institution. What's next, billboards on the side of the parliament buildings?

Joe can rest assured that the NDP will restore funding to the CBC.

I want to quote one other letter from a constituent named Cathy. She has copied me on a letter to the Prime Minister. This was about budget changes in 2012. She wrote to the Prime Minister:

Your disrespect for the intelligence of the Canadian people is transparent when you challenge the value of the CBC. At election time you suggested [you] would support continued funding for the CBC, but when handed a majority you've worked to de-construct an internationally respected network on the basis that it threatens your ideology. To lose the CBC or worse, make it a propaganda machine for any standing government is an offence to our democracy and evidence of your disassociation with the history of this vast nation and the irreplaceable role that the CBC has played in maintaining our ties as a nation. Decades of increasingly depleted funding and the staffing at upper echelons of Executive Officers prepared to dismantle the CBC, managing it as if it were a private company, continues to undermine the CBC's unique mandate to connect Canadians. Shame on you...

I thank Cathy for that letter, and I echo those words: Shame on the Prime Minister.

The NDP motion today is calling for stable, predictable, long-term funding for the CBC. Let us not attack our national broadcaster. Let us treasure it, preserve it, improve it, and leave it there for future generations for the benefit of all Canadians.