Colleen Beaumier

[Broadcasting Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7 which would amend the Broadcasting Act to allow the CRTC to award costs with respect to broadcast authorities.

I remind the House that the underlying principles and objectives of Bill S-7 were unanimously approved during the first debate on October 19. Our colleague from the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Crowfoot, questioned the need to amend the Broadcasting Act at this point in time since the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was preparing to study and make recommendations on the entire Canadian broadcasting system.

To place the study in its proper context and prevent any misunderstanding about the timeliness of passing Bill S-7 at this moment, I will describe the mandate of the standing committee's study of the Canadian broadcasting system.

On May 10 the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage announced that it was undertaking a study of the entire Canadian broadcasting system and on the extent to which it met the objectives of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As with previous studies by this committee Canadian content and cultural diversity issues would be central to this 18 month undertaking.

In recent months the committee devoted great attention to the globalization of broadcast communications in Canada and throughout the world. It concluded that there was an urgent need to review some major features of the 1991 Broadcasting Act to determine whether the act is still appropriate in view of the difficulties facing the broadcasting industry and its stakeholders.

I will give a brief historical overview of the evolution of the legislative framework of the Canadian broadcasting system. The first legislative measure providing a regulatory framework for Canadian broadcasters was the 1932 Canadian Broadcasting Act. With the advent of television this act was replaced with various versions of the Broadcasting Act enacted successively in 1958, 1968 and 1991.

Over time the Broadcasting Act became an instrument that confirmed the mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the national broadcaster, imposed restrictions on foreign ownership, required primary use of Canadian creators and other talent, and promoted a vision of the broadcasting system as a means to reinforcing Canada's cultural, social and economic structures.

For over 75 years Canada made every effort to preserve its Canadian identity in a world of constant change. Its efforts to find a legislative or regulatory framework that reconciles cultural, social and economic concerns led to the current broadcasting system. Since the enactment of the 1991 Broadcasting Act developments and new technologies opened up new avenues for broadcasting in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

It has become essential for the standing committee to study the key features of the Broadcasting Act to determine whether it still effectively helps the CRTC face the new challenges to the broadcasting industry and its stakeholders.

The study would be guided by the objectives of the current Broadcasting Act which state in subparagraph 3(1)(d):

The Canadian broadcasting system should:

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,

(iii) through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society, and

(iv) be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change.

In conducting its study the standing committee identified two main areas of interest: the current state of the Canadian broadcasting system and the future directions of the Canadian broadcasting system.

To provide a proper framework for its work the standing committee also identified six themes it intends to explore in depth: context which includes the development of broadcast technologies, globalization, new media and international perspectives; cultural diversity which includes issues of Canadian content, broadcasting in keeping with the diversity of cultures, linguistic and minority characteristics, as well as regional representation and community television; broadcast policy which includes issues surrounding the role of the government and of the CRTC, the development of a Canadian policy and rationale for new legislation or amendments; ownership which addresses ownership models, mixed ownership and vertical integration; private sector and public sector environment which includes matters pertaining to the CBC, provincial broadcasting, cable distribution and satellite services; and finally production and distribution which deals with the development of new production and distribution methods, copyright issues, specialized services and the Internet.

The scope of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage study will help assess the health of a forward looking broadcasting system. If passed, Bill S-7 would not in any way affect the work and recommendations of the standing committee since it is essentially a technical amendment with a view to harmonizing the two acts from which the CRTC derives its authority.

In the interest of democracy I support Bill S-7 and believe that it should be passed at second reading and referred to committee for further study. I am confident that if my honourable colleagues pass Bill S-7 it would have a positive impact on Canadians wishing to play a role in broadcast authorities since it would offer equal opportunities to all.

I have spent a number of vacations in the United States. The one thing that makes us different and makes our broadcasting different is the Canadian broadcasting system with our Canadian requirements that give us a special identity. The content is part of our quiet heritage. I am fully in support of the bill.

[Remembrance Day, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Remembrance Day is not an option but a promise. On November 11 I urge all Canadians to join our veterans and their families to pledge once again that we shall never forget our fallen heroes.

We stand with Silver Cross Mothers who have lost a child to war or peacekeeping operations. We stand with sons and daughters, brothers and sisters and grandchildren who were robbed of the love of a fallen hero.

Fortunately most of us can only empathize with their pain. The sacrifice made by both the fallen and the survivors has given citizens of the western world the luxury of a free society without the fear of war or violence.

Each year we come together showing respect and remembering in prayer and praise as we lay our wreaths to honour the brave young men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. To the veterans we say thanks; to the fallen we say may they rest in peace.

[Landmines, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Israel's military withdrawal from South Lebanon left the area heavily contaminated with landmines. Most remain unmarked and unfenced. This is a serious threat to the lives of thousands of displaced civilians returning home.

In the month following the withdrawal 99 people were maimed and 20 were killed. Landmines have accounted for 80% of the mine related casualties registered in the last year.

While UN peacekeepers are co-ordinating mine clearance activities in the region the maps provided by Israel are incomplete, making mine clearing very unsafe. The UN reports that over 100,000 landmines exist throughout the region, their exact locations unknown.

The Ottawa convention demands that each state in a position to do so shall provide assistance for mine clearance and related activities.

I encourage our government to seek creative ways to help solve the crisis in South Lebanon and attempt to accelerate the process of clearing these hidden killers by asking the Israeli government to provide full disclosure of all maps, and for Canada--

[Foreign Affairs, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is currently in the Middle East, with a visit to Iran. Given the events of the past six and a half weeks, could the parliamentary secretary to the minister please inform us of the purpose of this trip?

[Petitions, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling on the Parliament of Canada to uphold the Latimer decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Terry Fox Day Act, April 27th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act respecting Terry Fox Day.

Madam Speaker, the name of Terry Fox is one of the best known names across Canada. His efforts to fight cancer and to raise the awareness of Canadians are legendary. He was courageous, noble and modest. He united Canadians as no one has ever done before. Today over 60 countries hold the Terry Fox Day Run for Cancer. In memory of Terry, I have the honour to present to the House an act to establish throughout Canada in each and every year the second Sunday after Labour Day as Terry Fox Day.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[International Co-Operation, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday an historic labour agreement was signed with Costa Rica.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Could she explain to the House the importance of this agreement?

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was totally irrelevant.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I believe Canada is an inclusive nation of which Quebec is a very, very important part.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition motion. It is the first time in a long time that all responsible members of parliament can work together to make sure that the consultative process is an open approach, one which was initiated by the government and will continue in the future.

As a member of the foreign affairs committee, I have had the privilege of travelling across this country to hear representations from Canadians who belong to every sector of society. Some who take a cynical approach to the government went through this exercise merely to pay lip service. However, I can assure the members of the House that every view was represented in the completed reports.

Also, I believe it would be a fairly accurate guesstimation that at least 60% or more of the committee's time has been spent listening to the many well informed Canadians whose careers are directly linked to the study of the economic implications to business as well as labour in regard to the trade agreements into which Canada enters.

In November 1999 Canada hosted the FTAA ministerial in Toronto. Canada supported a civil society forum which was arranged by a coalition of hemispheric organizations to parallel the Americas business forum. A record 22 FTAA ministers and country representatives were there to hear civil society's views and recommendations on trade and investment, labour standards and poverty reduction.

The thing that really puzzles me about the Bloc members is that Quebec elected members from the Bloc to represent them in all international fora, so I do not really understand why the Bloc feels there should be 10 provincial negotiators at the table along with the federal negotiators. Do they also believe that the United States should have 50 negotiators along with their federal negotiators and that as well there should be additional state negotiators for every country in Central and South America?

This is a federal jurisdiction. Canada strongly believes that a more democratic, prosperous and equitable hemisphere can be achieved only if all sectors of society are involved in its construction.

Once again, Canada has proved to be in the vanguard in promoting greater inclusion and engagement. At the summit of the Americas, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Cooperation and the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa were joined by high level representatives from 20 countries and 5 international institutions to meet with more than 60 representatives of civil society networks, groups and associations. These representatives, who have been closely involved in the development of the summit's action plan, came from across Canada and across the hemisphere.

Also, in October 2000 Chile requested that Canada participate in a two day workshop in Santiago to share our experience in consultations with other countries looking to develop their own expertise in consultations via new systems, organizations and/or mechanisms.

Earlier I referred to the cynics. I must confess that at times I sound somewhat more like a cynic than a team player. The patience of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has not gone unnoticed, especially by me, but I also must confess that I am more of a believer than I have been in a long time because I have seen the result of the consultations and of the reports that come out of foreign affairs.

Not only has the government been open and transparent in preparation for all its trade debates, it has been inclusive. Every citizen has had an opportunity to participate.

There was a comment made from the member across the way that the chair was on the inside track. It would be nice if we could all be on the inside track, but it would be totally and completely unmanageable. I cannot think of anyone I know who can better represent or who should be more on the inside track than the chair of the foreign affairs committee.

I would like the member to know that neither she, her party nor anyone else has the monopoly on caring about social issues, labour conditions or environmental conditions. No one has more of a monopoly on this than our chair does. He is diversified. We cannot all be on the inside track, for a couple of reasons. Sometimes we are not all capable of comprehending it. He was elected to do that and elected to chair the committee.

Canada has set the standard for all FTAA participants. I believe that we as Canadian parliamentarians can be very proud of that.