Liza Frulla

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, we have indeed worked together. I would remind the honourable member that in those days, the Alliance had also prepared its own version of the review of the Broadcasting Act. So it is unfortunately a dissenting report. It would have been nice to have a unanimous report.

This being said, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage put the report back on the table. We have 150 days to respond. Members will remember that the report was presented to the Committee on Canadian Heritage while I was there. Before the election, the then minister had submitted a short version--

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is strange—but it is also quite right—that in the same party, there is one member who is questioning the role and usefulness of public television, while the other one—and rightly so—is saying that public television has a major role to play within Canadian components.

Because it is its role to do so, public television can present a variety of voices and it must also reflect on Canadians in general.

As for media concentration, it is important to ensure that we have a variety of voices in Canada. We are a very well informed society, with over 350 television channels that are available. However, this diversity must be reflected everywhere. This is not so much an issue of concentration of ownership. Indeed, today, to buy or to own media, one must have considerable financial means. Consequently, conglomerates are unavoidable in that industry. We must ensure that within conglomerates, there is a diversity of voices. We can say that one conglomerate is a little too much on one side. We can say that another one is too much on the other side. That being said, we must ensure that, within the same ownership, this diversity exists.

A Senate committee is currently examining this issue and is supposed to reach some findings. It has held consultations everywhere and is supposed to submit the conclusions of its findings before Christmas. Now, we are asking the Senate committee to share its findings with us so that we can refer them to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We will then examine the issue of diversity that is very important for Canada.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, first I would like to reply to my colleague's remark, when he said that I cannot have it both ways. In fact, it is possible to have it both ways. All I said, for the record again, was that public television needs to have good ratings.

When I talk about 15 million viewers watching Canada: A People's History , Le Canada: une histoire populaire , this is what I mean by good ratings. Nobody here will make me say that public television, where I and my colleague worked on serials or miniseries, is not useful in a country like Canada.

To come back to lieutenant-governors, it is obvious that as we are getting ready to celebrate the centennials of Alberta and Saskatchewan with much pleasure and joy, increased investments are necessary. On the other hand, another grant program came into force on April 1, 2004. In an edifying way, it gives lieutenant-governors more flexibility in spending public money as the Queen's representatives.

Having said that, I think that, unless the opposition is willing to say the opposite, and then it should say the same thing to each lieutenant-governor in each region, lieutenant-governors play a role which is very--

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chairman, the member asks “is it not of concern to the minister?”. I would tell him that my main concern is to make sure that public television remains public.

I will give you some examples. The series Canada: A People's History was watched by 15 million people. The videocassette and book of this series are best-sellers. The bilingual Web site comprises 500 pages and is consulted by students, professors and the general public.

The news team of the CBC television won the Excellence in Journalism Award of the Canadian Journalism Foundation, for its coverage of the Iraq war. The mini-series Shattered City: The Halifax Explosion captured the attention of 1.5 million viewers on CBC and was completed with 350 local activities. That is also what it is about. This is the role of the Crown corporation, non only as far as the image is concerned, but also as project originator and developer.

I think about ZeD TV, in Vancouver, and about Bande à part , for instance. These are all initiatives of our public television. Now, another program, Grande Ourse , is watched by over one million people every week on SRC.

In my opinion, our public television has to set standards. It is its purpose. Obviously, it should be provided in both languages, it should also serve the French-speaking communities outside Quebec that are minorities. This is the role of our public television.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I believe there are two ways to look at public television. Obviously, you have a simple yardstick, the ratings. This is one yardstick.

Having worked for the CBC, I honestly believe that this is not a yardstick appropriate for public television, which has a role it must play. It must be serve as a model. It must be the outlet through which Canadian dramas can be seen, produced and also distributed across Canada. Public television must also maintain a presence in the regions. This is why it was said a moment ago that it is important to re-examine the CBC's strategic plan. The goal is to ensure this regional presence.

Indeed, public television must have ratings, of a qualitative nature, however. This is the only television that must broadcast regional news, but also international news, public affairs telecasts, shows for children. Its mandate is quite specific. We must ensure that public television abides by this mandate and that the relevant ratings are based on qualitative factors.

I always said, when I was with the CBC, that the important thing for public television is that each viewer must watch public television and say: “Today, I have seen something new and I have learned something”.

For instance, a show like H2O , written and produced by Paul Gross, is fantastic. It can be seen on public television and it is its role to show and distribute it. This my idea of public television.

I honestly believe that a country like ours owes it to itself to have public television that is strong and also well funded.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is true that violence toward women, aboriginal women in particular, remains a very present and very pressing problem.

My colleague has referred to the conference of ministers. I would like to congratulate her on chairing the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. That committee is, moreover, an initiative of our government, which will, with the help of my colleague and all those sitting on it, cast light on subjects of urgent concern to women, and the cause of women in general.

That said, hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister held a round table this spring. At the end of it, the Prime Minister made a commitment to carry out a series of follow-up meetings in conjunction with the aboriginal peoples. These include one specifically aimed at addressing the issues of aboriginal women, children, social housing and violence.

I will point out also that, within our department itself, we have allocated $1 million over three years to help organizations address the issue of aboriginal women and violence. At the present time we are working on a specific project relating to aboriginal women and this terrible violence that affects them.

I must also point out that we acknowledge the concerns raised in the Amnesty International report. Status of Women will make use of funding allocated to it for the campaign against family violence to support the efforts being made by the aboriginal women's group.

The government has also committed to advancing the cause of gender equality, as well as implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I am working as well in close conjunction with my federal colleagues, my provincial and territorial counterparts, and the NGOs in putting this convention into practice.

There has been a report on violence against women. The provinces, along with the federal government, have reiterated their desire to work together so that their programs will be virtually interdependent, in order to resolve this inherent problem.

As well there is the entire issue of what is termed gender equality, that is equality of the genders and of what they earn. We have specific measures to encourage this, and to ensure that women are paid at the level their work merits, and of course at the same level as their male colleagues doing similar work.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I find the CEO's statement very surprising. But that is all in the past. We have to remember that the $400 million cuts were made 10 years ago. Canada's economy was then considered a Third World economy. Today, we have the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Finance announce surpluses. I think it is better to announce surpluses than to announce cutbacks.

It allows us to come together and discuss our programs and to tell the Minister of Finance that it would be great to renew them, and even to add some new ones. It is harder to do that when there is a deficit.

That being said, Radio-Canada was my home for four years. My show was live every day. I have strong feelings for the institution of Radio-Canada and the CBC. The CEO of CBC and I spoke last week about the possibility of reviewing regional programming in order to bring back Radio-Canada and the CBC closer to the communities across Canada, since it is in their mandate to do so.

Mr. Rabinovitch is supposed to submit his strategic plan for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We will use this plan as a framework to see what we can do and how much flexibility we have.

Again, discussions on the CBC, museums, Telefilm Canada and Tomorrow starts today are taking place today, right now, at this very moment. They will also be held next week with our colleagues during the redistribution exercise.

Of course, what is most important to say right now is that yes, we are deeply committed to Radio-Canada and the CBC.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, firstly, I want to reassure my colleague. Since the program review of 1994-95, the Canada Council saw its budget increase by more than $30 million dollars. Obviously, there has been some reinvestment at the Canada Council.

Now, I know what my colleague is talking about when he looks at the estimates review. Indeed, the Tomorrow Starts Today program will end in 2005. Because it ends in 2005, we cannot put it in the estimates. It will not exist anymore. We have to obtain new credits and get the program renewed.

Today, as I have mentioned and I repeat, we are negotiating. That being said, it is the goal of Canadian Heritage, and I think it is also the goal of my colleagues, to have the Tomorrow Starts Today program renewed. However, such a renewal requires the agreement of all my colleagues and of the Minister of Finance who looks at the overall picture and decides if we can afford it or not.

I have to tell you that we are negotiating intensively because, actually, the Tomorrow Starts Today program represents 65% of my department's programs, as far as culture is concerned. As I have said previously, this means that it is the most important initiative since the creation of the Canada Council for the Arts.

We certainly will not watch as it disappears without uttering a word, on the contrary. I have the support of all my colleagues here.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

We have had discussions about the Canada Council. In the first exercise the Canada Council was required to contribute. If that is what the hon. member is referring to, it was the exercise in early 2004.

I have been in this position for four months. We are talking about reallocation. It was an exercise done throughout the entire government. When we asked our major national museums to see whether they could cut 5%, we did not ask the Canada Council because we felt that as part of its role funding goes through the Canada Council directly to artists.

However, we did ask the Canada Council to ensure that all its programs run efficiently, that all its programs indeed are geared to the artists, and that they are administered as efficiently as possible.

Nonetheless, there were two exercises: the first one involved the contribution of $1 billion and the second is the entire reallocation exercise. This second exercise is not finished yet, given that we are currently talking about it, as are all the ministers.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

I want to be clear. I was talking about the reallocation program. Two exercises were done. The first was done at the beginning of 2004-05. The Minister of Finance asked for a contribution from everyone totaling $1 billion. That is why at Radio-Canada/CBC, for example, there was an $8 million cut to the $60 million supplementary estimates. In other words, instead of giving them $60 million, Radio-Canada/CBC received $52 million. In that sense, the Canada Council for the Arts did contribute.

Under reallocation, there were two exercises. The first was done in 2004, but there was another exercise and that is the one I am talking about. It is a reallocation exercise. It is this exercise in discipline that the government wants to use to make sure it reviews all the programs every time. It is in this context that we are saying we do not want to affect creators and artists at the Canada Council.