Julian Reed

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is somehow opposed to the people he calls the bureaucrats in Telefilm Canada refereeing who will get the support and who will not.

One question I should ask him is who should referee it? Certainly not a group of politicians from committee. Does he have any suggestions of who would be better referees than we have at the present time?

Another question jumped out at me during his speech. He was talking about banking systems responding if a company had an order. That is very commendable in itself, but what is an order for a film? What is an order for something that has yet to be created? It is not an order for a bottle of milk.

With it goes risk. It is a creative risk. It is all those things banks do not like to deal in. That is why it is still necessary to help allay some of the risk at least. Each film that is made, each television series that is ventured, each pilot show that is done, is done with some creative risk. Either it will be a success or it will bomb. Some of them bomb. They are not all successful.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are some productions where it is much easier to raise money. For instance, if Canada is shooting an American production that financing will be in place but it will be shot as an American production.

I refer back to "JFK: Reckless Youth", ABC movie of the week. That financing came here already in place. However in Canada there are many times when one is venturing into new areas where that financing is not as readily available and where the banks are not forthcoming 100 per cent. Members know how ventureless banks are when one gets right down to it.

The member would also recognize how expensive film production really is. It is a very expensive item. I hope there is a recognition that we are not dealing with new money in this issue. We are not trying to create new finances or increase the deficit and so on. We are simply attempting to direct money in a manner that is going to be most effective, if you like, the biggest bang for the buck.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the legislation is to lead toward that point. That is one of the reasons I suppose why we would deal in terms of loan guarantees rather than tax incentives.

We are at the point of near maturity in this industry in terms of our ability to compete on a world-wide basis and so on. There are still areas where this kind of assistance is desirable and often becomes necessary.

It is not always. I know the hon. member has pointed out that there are productions taking place in western Canada. I was involved in one last year which was an ABC movie of the week shot in Toronto which had no government funding whatsoever.

It is certainly getting there. We have certain things we can offer to our friends in other countries, most particularly in the United States because of the volume of material that it produces.

I think there is still a need to encourage and enhance the world-wide recognition of what Canada does and what Canada can do. We started it with some assistance. It was an investment. It has been paying off. I firmly believe that we will see the time, perhaps in our tenure here, where we may grow right through it and out the other side.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I thought this would be a question and comment period myself, but now that I have the floor I will address some of the comments made by my hon. friend from the Reform Party.

In this House I may be the only member of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. I have knocked around the industry performing professionally since 1966. I can recall where film was at that time, where it went and what the inhibitions were to its proper and orderly development in this country.

Film development and the development of a base for film production in Canada is much more than loan guarantees, although they are part of it. It is much more than tax incentives which have not always worked in the past.

The requirement has been for a consistent employment of both technical and performing talent which would allow the medium to continue to grow in this country. It is not enough to establish an industry on a one-time basis. What happens is you can bring in a lot of mediocre capability and end up with a mediocre product and then have nowhere to go from that point onward.

To this point the development of film drama in Canada with the assistance of successive governments has been consistent. It has been consistent enough so that the talent base has been maintained and cultivated in this country, not just the talent base for performers but the talent base for technical people, the technical base for all of the ancillary needs of a film industry.

It has grown to where it is starting to be recognized as being one of the best places to produce films and television programs in the world. That was not so in 1966 when producers and directors who in the main were from other countries looked upon Canada as a place to go to to get cold.

I recall a company in Toronto called Film House which established one of the most sophisticated and advanced systems for film dubbing. It ended up failing because it could not attract the volume of work needed to keep afloat.

It has been a constant battle, a constant effort, to prove that Canadian capability ranks as world class in order to attract the kind of-my friend refers to joint efforts with other countries-joint effort as a result of assistance to the Canadian film industry that allows the rest of the world to look on it as being second to none. As hon. members will know, we are now in a position where we are able and do produce television series and so on which we export to the rest of the world.

Film production as we know is a very individualized effort. My friend talked about making sure that these loan guarantees were spread across Canada. I have to tell him that film production is site specific. It is not relegated to the major centres of this country. Feature film is shot in every province of Canada but it is done on a film specific basis. I believe that loan guarantees in this case are probably superior to tax write offs.

I can remember when there were very attractive tax write-offs in the film business. A lot of film was produced that never saw a screen. It never got farther than the can but it fulfilled the requirements for the tax write-off.

I would suggest when we are considering assisting this kind of venture that we should be taking those elements into account. We have reached a certain stage in development. I use the phrase talent base. Talent base is a much more broad term than actors as I think we will all accept. We have reached a level where Americans like to come to Canada because grips, technical people, cameramen and women are able to compete on a world class second to none. Facilities now have developed to a point at which we have some of the largest sound studios in the world. We have the best technical people. We have a class that we can offer. What happens is that these productions in effect de facto become an export for Canada.

Support for the performing arts in the past has often taken second place to things that some people considered to be more important. I have to say that if we look at support for the performing arts, whether it is in theatre or film and so on, it has an economic spinoff that may be as high if not higher than any other venture.

If anybody wants to challenge that I would invite them to downtown Toronto any night of the week to see all of the theatres that are operating at the present time and the spinoff effects that has on the economy of metropolitan Toronto for the people who work in the service industries, et cetera.

When you and I go out and pay $65 for a ticket, which we think is exorbitant, to see "Miss Saigon", we probably buy dinner as well and take guests with us. All of that infuses economic activity into that area.

Assistance to the performing arts, regardless of what it may be, is an economically sound venture providing it is done in a responsible and proper manner. I heartily endorse it.

The other thing we must consider is that we are in competition with other countries in the world. Australia was one of the early lower populated countries to begin to export film and television programs. Over the years it has been very successful. Canada is now perhaps behind in the volume of export that goes on. It is because these countries support their industry. We can do no less in this House than to provide that kind of support. I of course endorse this bill wholeheartedly for the reasons I have put forward.

I would hope that every member in this House understands that this kind of support is a positive thing. It is an investment. It is something we do and we expect excellent sustaining returns.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend from the Reform Party. I commend him for his dedication to education and recognize his long career as an educator. Certainly he has some very positive things to say to government about education.

I was so encouraged by much of the hon. member's speech that I expect he will be supporting this bill when it goes through. I certainly hope he will do that.

I would make a suggestion to the hon.member, and I speak from experience also, being someone who worked his way through college without student loans and so on. I recall those days in our situation just breaking even with what one could earn the summer and what it would cost in the winter. In thinking back on that education system we had in the late 1950s, our course was very heavily subsidized by government. Therefore our tuition was relatively low by today's standard. We lived in residence and our board was relatively low by today's standards. I suggest that all the costs cannot be laid on the shoulders of the national debt. It seems to me there was a different approach toward education at that time. In my case, which was agricultural college, agriculture was considered enough of a priority so most of the costs of those courses were paid for by government.

I would like to respectfully ask the hon. member if he will support this bill and in so doing be able to contribute to the education of our young people across Canada. Perhaps he could bring these new ideas and suggestions to our government.

[Bosnia, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canada-Croatia parliamentary friendship group and as a member of the parliamentary committee on human rights, I rise in the House today with so many of my colleagues in a joint effort to honour the victims of the present war in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

From the selfish pursuit of territory and the inhuman drive known as ethnic cleansing, over 200,000 souls have lost their lives in what is today not the only but one of the bloodiest parts of the world.

Countless more have been physically injured, psychologically tormented and driven from their homes as refugees. Thousands of these deaths as well as refugees have been children on whose shoulders lie the only hope for a more tolerant world.

As parliamentarians, citizens and humanists, let us welcome refugees to Canada from this area of conflict in the world as from such other areas and let us celebrate their courage.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I have a hard time coming to grips with the root of his reasoning.

He suggests somehow that Canada is giving them something. In his speech he even goes on to suggest that other agreements would have given them less. I cannot really comprehend it. Then the hon. member goes on to say we are going to give them these things but what are their obligations. In other words he wants to pay homage or lip service to self-government but then turns around and says we should be making the rules for them and tell them what their obligations are. That is what I hear in the speech.

We are not giving the natives anything. It is already theirs. We are simply arriving at a suitable accommodation so that the country can forge ahead.

I saw a cartoon once where two Indians are standing on Mount Royal watching Jacques Cartier land. The soldiers are about to get off the boat and come ashore and one Indian is saying to the other: "Let them land. What harm can they do?"

Does the hon. member really believe that we are giving them something by these agreements? I have really failed to understand what direction he is coming from. We have already taken. It is already theirs.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Halton-Peel was originally created by a gentleman many of us know: Gerrymander.

One would think with the proposed boundary changes the member would be quite thrilled that a new riding would be created. I believe the new dividing line was created by his brother for it splits a community right in two in a line that is anything but straight. Some of it does not even follow road allowances but travels through the middle of farmers' fields.

It is so ridiculous. Part of the farm on which I live is in the new proposed riding and the other part is in the other. There was immediate response from a returning officer, from a Chamber of Commerce and from a municipality exhorting an appeal of that line.

As a bit of an aside, it is also interesting to note the borders printed on the map in the book the commission released. You will see that the new boundaries are printed upside down on the map. It puts part of the land mass in the southern part of the proposed riding in Lake Ontario. It was cause for some concern. We will have to enroll fish I suppose.

Having said that I was prepared to launch an appeal trying to point out to the commission where changes could be made that might at least improve the situation.

I was very disturbed with the proposal to create new ridings at a time when we consider ourselves to be in a period of extreme restraint. When we want less and less government spending it seems this process is creating more and more.

In my region and others nearby school boards are considering reducing the number of trustees in an effort to save money. The last report I saw was that the region of Durham is proposing to cut five trustees saving $200,000 through that process. It does not really show a great deal of leadership to advance the cause of increasing the numbers in this House.

Other countries operate reasonably successfully with much higher populations per member than Canada. Australia is one of them with actually double the population per member in its House.

We have a lot of things to consider. If we are going to review legislation which is 30 years old, at least it is appropriate that we do it now if it has not been done in the past. As has been mentioned, it may be that it has outlived its usefulness and we have to reconsider what will be done in the future.

In terms of the argument my friends in the Reform Party put forward about time allocation, I would like to point out the reality to them. I do not think it is the intention of any government to impose time allocation for frivolous reasons.

Hearings were scheduled to begin in April on this proposal by the commission. We are now going into a recess for two weeks. I am not sure what the Reform Party would have preferred to do, whether it would have preferred to stay and debate this for another couple of weeks. We could have filibustered. However there is plenty of time in the time allocated to put the points of view across and make sure all of the arguments are on the table.

I am sure the Reform Party is as interested in the reform of this process as the rest of us. I do not think any hon. members would disagree with the fact that it is time for a change. We cannot go on filling up the House especially if we have a few guys my size. If we went on without any changes we would be forced to knock out the back walls, or put another row in the front, or only elect lean people.

I enthusiastically support this thrust. The time has come for change. The time has come to reconsider how the people of Canada are represented. The time has come to listen to those people and give them time to bring their views forward so we can truly represent the people of this country.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of the hon. member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He quite rightly points out the very difficult financial situation which exists in Canada.

We have all been through the stages leading up to where we are today. A brief history is that it started many years ago when Keynesian economics were applied to the economic situation of the day creating a national debt. The subsequent government that took over, if it was going to apply that same philosophy, during the years of increased economic activity in this country, should have been taking that money back and paying off the national debt. But it did not. Therefore what was a debt of $160 billion 10 years ago escalated another $340 billion over the two terms of office of the previous government.

The challenge has been how to turn the ship around without capsizing it in the process and put us on a new tack. Our Minister of Finance did an admirable job in focusing on the vision in the red book, which we all used during the last election campaign, and in applying it in the first phase of a double budget. My friends in the Reform Party have insisted we have to make more cuts. The government has introduced a multitude of measures.

I fail to understand how the hon. member believes that separation, or as he words it, the sovereignty of Quebec, would help with this financial problem.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in listening to my friend in the Reform Party talk about the $6 billion as representing such an infinitesimal part of the gross domestic product, it makes me wonder if he has ever been a farmer or ever been a gardener and planted a seed. When one plants a seed it grows and it bathes in the sunlight and takes nutrients from the soil and multiplies. That is exactly what this infrastructure program is intended to do. It is the seed that we have planted.

In the great riding of Halton-Peel I have had reports from the municipalities which say that the choices they have made for infrastructure renewal will have a spin-off effect in those municipalities for the next 10 to 15 years. Therefore, I would say to the hon. member that when he is thinking about this investment in infrastructure this is not just a two-year wonder that will employ a few people and then end. If the projects are well chosen, I can assure him that it will help greatly with economic renewal in this country.