Maka Kotto

[Department of Canadian Heritage, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with my question.

Cultural and social groups are struggling. Short of money, women's advocacy groups have ceased operations; amounts earmarked for feature films have not risen in seven years; the present feature film policy is outdated; Quebec film and museums are underfunded; and the Copyright Act has been obsolete for ten years.

In view of the number of urgent issues accumulating, what is the minister waiting for to take action?

[Department of Canadian Heritage, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, several organizations submitted funding applications 11 months ago to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and are still waiting for an answer. They are desperate and some are living on credit or loans from members of their board of directors.

Does the minister agree that taking more than one year to provide confirmation of an annual grant is no longer a reasonable period of time but rather an excessive, even absurd amount of time?

[The Globe and Mail, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois decries the statements by journalist Jan Wong published in The Globe and Mail on Saturday, September 16.

To claim that there is any link between the tragic incident at Dawson College and Bill 101, which the journalist refers to as infamous, is the result of a defamatory delusion disconnected from the Quebec reality.

Quebec is an inclusive and welcoming society where it is pleasant to live. As an immigrant, I very quickly felt welcome and I deplore that the openness of Quebeckers is being attacked.

After the article on Quebecistan by Barbara Kay, it seems that English Canada is overly tolerant of Quebec bashing.

I urge the Conservative government and the other opposition parties to denounce without delay these unacceptable remarks that question the choices of Quebec society, its values and their foundation.

[Quebec film industry, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the federal government created the Canadian Television Fund to provide financial assistance to the television and feature film industry and to support production in Canada and Quebec.

On the heels of unprecedented growth in the film industry in Quebec within Canada, the federal government slashed the fund. In 2005, it was cut by $37 million despite its recognized importance and effectiveness.

In light of the fact that its performance has exceeded all expectations, it is vital that Quebec receive its fair share of the funds allocated to the industry. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women must ensure this and take action to increase the limits on funds available to francophones.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women is meeting with the Quebec coalition today. Let us hope she finds some political courage and takes advantage of this opportunity to take concrete action in line with the federal government's stated policy of openness. To do otherwise would be to show that there is no place for the Quebec film industry in Canada.

[Telecommunications, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry told the CRTC that it should rely on the invisible hand and the free market to meet its objectives. There is every reason to be concerned about whether the same criteria are to apply to radio broadcasting.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage reassure us and commit to never using her industry colleague's tactic to deregulate and thereby justify reduced francophone content on the airwaves, for example?

[Guy A. Lepage, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a Quebec television artist was recognized in Banff yesterday for his talent and the consistently high calibre of his work. His name: Guy A. Lepage.

Although he is only 45, Mr. Lepage was honoured as the first francophone to receive the Sir Peter Ustinov Comedy Award, which is presented to a television actor in recognition of his body of work.

For those who are not familiar with the prolific, creative world of Quebec television, Guy A. hosts the program Tout le monde en parle on Radio-Canada and captivated us with cult series such as Rock et Belles Oreilles and Un gars une fille.

This committed artist masterfully combines intelligence, strength, determination, humility and elegance.

The Bloc Québécois salutes Guy A. May he keep on inspiring and challenging Quebec.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my Liberal colleague for his presentation.

I would like to ask a simple question. In view of what we know today about the CBC and the means available to this public institution to fulfill its mandate, would it not have been advisable for the government to consider the possibility of actually reviewing funding for this institution in order to support its mandate rather than what has been proposed today? In other words, we must determine if the mandate falls in line with the means available to the government.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, supposing that—and I am speaking hypothetically—the Conservatives bring to fruition their plan, which is well laid out in the dissenting opinion on the Lincoln report, does my NDP member see the CBC, in the future, as an instrument fulfilling its ideal role as educator of the masses?

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague for his presentation. I would like to ask the following question with regard to the only commitment regarding the CBC made by the Conservatives during the last election. On page 40 of the their sacrosanct election platform Stand Up for Canada, they state, and I quote, “A Conservative government will: ensure that the CBC and Radio-Canada continue to perform their vital role as national public service broadcasters”.

I am asking my NDP colleague what does that mean? Is it a commitment that allows for cuts, that does not take into account the regional role of state television? Is it simply an indecipherable, superficial, insipid promise? I would like to hear his opinion.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, he is impugning our motives. I want to emphasize that. The minister came and testified before us in committee. We did not hear her speak transparently, clearly, about her intention to consider the motion we are debating here this morning.

I had to propose a motion like the one here today, looking for my Liberal colleague to approve it in the debate. If the minister or even the parliamentary secretary had provided us with clear information, I do not think that we would be here debating this morning.

Deception is one of the arts of the Conservative Party. We felt forced to have this debate today in the House as a precaution. If the parliamentary secretary makes a public promise today, many people and the media will probably report it. But this was hardly the case at first. His position on this matter was not public, or else why would we have had this up for debate here this morning?

As I said, this debate is based on the precautionary principle. We do not know what they want to do, we do not know where they are headed, but we do know what they said they intended to do.

I reject outright the parliamentary secretary’s impugning of our motives—those of my colleague from the NDP, my colleague from the Liberal Party and myself.

This debate is justified. I already said so. Television is important. It is a public institution that we are debating here. If it were ever allowed to fall under the dictate of private interests, the diversity of information would be at stake, as well as the health of the CBC's very mandate for television, which we must acknowledge is the only medium today where the people still have a say.

It is important to talk about museums, but there has been a host of studies on museums. A multitude of reports are gathering dust. They need only consider these studies and reports and propose a policy. Just do not try to take us off to play tourist all over. The work on museums has been done. They should do their work now; that is what they were elected to do.