Bonnie Brown

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

No. Eighty per cent to 85 per cent of CBC's programming in prime time is Canadian programming. Just about the same percentage is American programming on the private networks.

By the latest figures released, we know the market does not help us to create a national vision of ourselves and does not help us tell our stories to each other. Therefore, I and this government still believe there is a role for government in the broadcast industry and in the creation, encouragement and evolution of Canadian culture for both francophones and anglophones in this country.

The member mentioned a gargantuan expenditure of money on the CBC. I guess that would depend on where one's values lie. Perhaps the member believes as I do that this country has a leading role to play in the development of a higher level of civilization in this world. We have not done a bad job of it having been named number one in the world by the United Nations. Perhaps the member values the things that Canadians

have valued over time, things like caring for each other, a sense of community, an abhorrence for useless war. If he did, he would not see the expenditure of money on the public broadcaster as gargantuan.

Some in this country would encourage us to spend more, believe it or not, and to reduce the gargantuan expenditure of money for example on our military. To some that is an obscene expenditure of money. They think the creation of arts and culture, which makes for a more highly civilized nation, is a valuable expenditure of money. I guess it all depends on one's viewpoint as to value for dollars spent.

This nation wishes to retain its identity, to hold on to the things that make us different from our friends to the south. They are our friends but we do not want to imitate them, their social structures, or their social problems for sure. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we strengthen our identity as Canadians.

It is necessary that we know who we are and that our children know who they are and that they are different. They are not English as the English in England. They are not French as the French in France. They are not North Americans as those citizens in the United States. They are different and they are special. We are poised between Europe and the United States as our main cultural influences. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we take strong measures as the representatives of the people in this government to ensure that the public broadcaster continues to play a strong role, a publicly funded role, in helping us to determine the vision of ourselves today and a better one for the future.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the opposition member's response to my remarks in the sense that I did speak strongly about the government's role in providing public broadcasting and the importance of public broadcasting.

Unlike the opposition member, I do not share his utmost faith in the marketplace delivering everything of value to all the citizens of this country. As a matter of fact, in this particular industry, that is broadcasting, while the private marketplace provides a service it has failed miserably to provide the kind of Canadian programming the CBC has managed to do in both official languages.

There is nothing preventing private broadcasters from creating more Canadian programming. However, particularly on English television, which he chooses to highlight, it is clear they can make a lot more money, according to the rules of the marketplace which they follow, by importing American sitcoms and simply rebroadcasting them.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as important as the question of future funding levels of the CBC is, I feel that a more fundamental issue must also be addressed in the House today, namely, the importance of public broadcasting in Canada.

I intend to use this opportunity to remind my colleagues on both sides of the House about why we remain deeply and fundamentally committed to public broadcasting in Canada.

It is widely recognized that the CBC television services of tomorrow must necessarily play a much different role than the role they were intended to play over three decades ago. Today, Canadians enjoy a wider range of programming and services than ever before. Although these changes are significant, they are only a preview of what we can expect in the broadcasting industry in the future.

In recent months we have been the recipients of many new services through cable and as the hearings before the CRTC on convergence attest, much more is to come. Indeed it is legitimate for members to wonder when we hear so much about the so-called death stars and the 500 channel universe, what the role of the public broadcaster will be in this environment of increasing choices.

As surely as the CBC is a vital topic today, so it will be even a decade from now. True, the government has a historical position of supporting the CBC and of supporting Canadian culture. At a time when a virtual communications revolution is taking place, Canada needs more than ever a strong cultural identity. No single instrument is more vital to the development of that national identity than the CBC.

The corporation is the single most important employer of writers, actors, musicians, dancers, film makers, directors and many other talented, creative people who shape our vision of ourselves. Nowhere else on the television dial can one see the commitment to quality Canadian programming that one can see on both the English and French language networks of the CBC.

With two mainstream broadcast television networks, one French and one English, a television wing of the northern service and 24-hour all news cable service in both English and French, CBC television brings Canadians together. The CBC has the awards, both domestic and international to prove it.

In a country as vast as ours the CBC alone provides some remarkable services. In addition to the television services already mentioned, it operates four mainstream radio networks, AM and FM in French and English plus a northern service transmitting in many native languages, including Cree and Inuktitut to name but two. These are the only radio networks in Canada and they reach about 98 per cent of the population.

If one visits some of our more remote corners it is easy to understand how much it can mean to a librarian in Iqaluit, for example, to know that her sister in Chester, Nova Scotia and her father in Nanaimo, B.C. are all listening to "Morningside", are all sharing that common Canadian experience. It is that sense of connectedness that is the essence of public broadcasting today. It is this commonality of experience which we must be able to continue to share. We live in an era of increasing specialization but Canadians can obtain almost anything they want on demand.

The question is, are they sharing experiences the way they once did? Our ability to record what we want and to watch it later, almost any time, can make for very selective and singular, some would say isolating, interpretations of our identity. As our national public broadcaster, the CBC must be strong enough to produce the quality Canadian programming that Canadians want to watch, the kind of programming that provokes discussion the next day, the kind of programming that helps Canadians share experiences that make us Canadians.

The former chairman of the CBC, Patrick Watson, said it far better than I can when he addressed the Paul Nitze Centre of Advanced Studies at John Hopkins University in Maryland in

1. At that time he said: "Canadians, like Americans, will be spending a tremendous amount of time whizzing out to the outer reaches of this new communications universe".

More than ever, if the particular kind of civil society that we have put our money on is going to survive, we are going to need a foundation to start from and return to, something like a media hearthstone, so that whenever we select one of the channels that belong to our own public broadcaster, it will be so clearly ours that Canadians will be able to say to themselves: "We are home".

After all, that is what good public broadcasting is about: providing a sense of home in a universe that is expanding all the time. It does not mean that the CBC can expect increased levels of public funding. To expect that in light of the fiscal situation the government is facing would be neither realistic nor responsible to the future generations who must pay our debts. Likewise, it does not mean that the CBC must perform exactly as it has in the past, for this too would be ignoring reality.

Times have changed and so have our tastes and our expectations. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has heard from many excellent witnesses about the importance of public broadcasting and about alternative ways of doing things. It is time for the government to take the next step, to review the legislated mandate parliamentarians have conferred on the CBC to ensure that we are not asking it to perform tasks which are no longer necessary, given the new services that are available to us or possible, given the resources available today. We must decide how best the CBC can enhance our feeling of connectedness as we enter the new millennium. I look forward to the upcoming announcement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in this regard.

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not salute the men and women who serve the CBC today and have done so in years past. Their enduring commitment to public broadcasting and public service are valued deeply by the government. As we endeavour to resolve the challenges facing the CBC in the days ahead, we will do our utmost to act with wisdom, diligence and respect for the cultural treasure they have so painstakingly created.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to compliment the mover of the motion, the member for Quebec.

In her motion she expresses the feelings a lot of us have, that we would all like to do more at this time to enhance our civilization, the civility of our country, and we would like to encourage those women's groups which have over time spoken out so eloquently and which have demanded more equity in their lives as Canadian citizens.

From that perspective I am in agreement. At the same time, as the government responsible for the fiscal balance of this country, we have had to cut back and it is not just on the backs of women, although that is the focus of today's discussion.

It is rather pretty well in every facet of our society, whether it is a businessman who used to get a grant or a women's group that used to get a grant. It is possible that neither may get a grant now. That does not mean we should leave our ideals behind. The member's motion helps us to keep those ideals in the forefront as we struggle through this period.

As for the last speaker, the member for Calgary Southeast, I find it somewhat difficult to follow her logic. She described the 1970s as the dark ages for women. She used some good examples to describe the days when women were less equal than they are today. At the same time she seemed to agree with the closing down of the council on the status of women and, if I am correct, she suggested that we should close Status of Women Canada.

Does the member feel there has been some progress over the last number of years in the way in which women can participate in our society today in civilian life, in the military and in Parliament? How does she think we got here in 1995? Was it not the work of volunteer women's groups, government funded women's groups, and governments of the past that put budgets together for Status of Women Canada to pursue the issues outlined by women as needing to be improved to improve women's lives?

[Goods And Services Tax, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

We all know that GST credits are supposed to be paid only to low income Canadians. It has been reported that they are also being paid to those with incomes above $100,000.

Is this true? If so, what is the minister doing to stop it?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As a member of the standing committee, I have had an opportunity to review the legislation and to hear firsthand accounts from witnesses. I believe this bill to be an accurate reflection of the mandate, activities and role of the department in fulfilling the mandate of the Government of Canada on several important fronts.

The department's programs have an effect on our day to day lives and their relevance, be it cultural or economic, is felt by each of us. Within this department are the programs that speak to us regarding what it means to be Canadians, that set us apart from the rest of the world and that have helped Canada earn its top ranking by the United Nations for overall quality of life.

The new Department of Canadian Heritage embodies the democratic principles that are inherently Canadian. We are a nation forged on fundamental respect, respect for basic human rights and values, respect for the use and equal treatment of two major official languages, French and English, respect for cultur-

al diversity and respect for the traditions and contributions of our aboriginal peoples.

Today countries throughout the world are trying to discover the formula that will enable them to create a real sense of national identity among groups of different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and racial backgrounds. Many of these countries are now taking a serious interest in the 100 per cent Canadian model we have created which exemplifies respect for each other no matter what our backgrounds.

In the bill creating this department, the government undertakes to advance the equality of all Canadians in their country's social, economic and cultural life. It recognizes the need to eliminate the barriers that divide Canadians and to provide opportunity to establish bonds built on confidence and mutual respect.

We know that social cohesion and a strong national identity can only be accomplished where there is understanding, awareness and respect among all the people who make up our country.

As the Right Hon. Lester Pearson put it: "In a diverse federal state such as Canada it is important that all citizens should have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the national administration and to identify themselves with and feel at home in our national capital".

I am proud to be a member of this Liberal government that believes in tolerance among its citizens and which strives to ensure that people of all origins who come to Canada have an equal opportunity to contribute to its growth, development and an evolving sense of identity.

Our diversity is one of the things that makes us stronger and more competitive in the global economy. The range of languages we speak, the cultures we know and understand provide us as Canadians with a distinct advantage from an international trade perspective. This has been recognized by the president of the Royal Bank who indicated that our future success as a nation depends on our harnessing the richness of diversity within the country so that we can become truly competitive in the global marketplace.

Dr. Barbara Ward, the British economist and writer, described us as the world's first international nation. We are admired abroad for the society we have built together and we can take real national pride in this accomplishment.

This bill provides the government with an opportunity to forge ahead in an area which has proven to be of real importance to Canadians time and time again. They want a government that will lead them forward in building a society that encourages all its citizens to contribute economically, politically, socially and culturally to all aspects of life in this great country of ours.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the amendment put forward by the member for Vercheres. I appreciate his initiative. This has come upon us fairly quickly. He has responded very quickly to the concerns of the steel industry by getting an amendment in by the deadline.

I think his speed and his responsiveness demonstrates the commitment not just of this government but indeed of this Parliament to both the management and the workers in the steel industry.

In the all-party steel caucus that support is obvious at every meeting. We sit around the table, people from all parties and management and labour, working together. It really is quite an exciting experience to be part of that particular group here where usually the setting is so highly partisan.

I should point out that we did have the opportunity yesterday to speak with the minister. He pointed out to us the difference in the wants of the way we legislate and the way the Americans legislate. It is much more their style to put a lot of details into their legislation whereas it is more our style to keep things pretty clean and put the details into regulation.

Yesterday the minister did not seem to be adverse to the idea of those concepts in the amendment in the regulations, however he pointed out to us that it was going to require as the parliamentary secretary pointed out the involvement of the Minister of Finance. He could not speak completely freely at that meeting knowing he had to get a cabinet colleague on side.

I would like to inform the mover of this amendment and those who are supporting him that I happen to know that this issue has been brought forward to the Minister of Finance in the last 24 hours by the Deputy Prime Minister. We now have three members of cabinet responding to the concerns of the steel industry as my colleague across the floor has responded today.

Keeping in mind that those three members of cabinet will work together on it, I think I can assure him that the general intention of what it is he wants to achieve will probably come forward. However, the idea of this amendment does not seem to be true to the Canadian tradition of how we write legislation and therefore I will have to join the parliamentary secretary in voting against it.

I would also like to assure the member that within the steel caucus we will continue to press to make sure that these things are achieved but in a more subtle way.

[Team Canada, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians love success stories, especially about themselves. That is why everybody is talking about the Prime Minister's trade mission to Asia. One hundred and forty political leaders and 350 executives created the impressive Team Canada. They signed almost $10 billion in contracts in China and Indonesia.

New contracts lead to new jobs and help us in our task of getting Canadians back to work. But this mission achieved something even more impressive. It re-established an atmosphere of co-operation in federal-provincial relations. It showed Canadians that the premiers and the Prime Minister can work together. It showed them that federalism does work.

Nothing succeeds like success. I for one am hopeful that this new sense of co-operation is the basis for future success stories and that Team Canada carries on.

[Credentials, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of the Prime Minister's announcement of October 26 which created the Canadian Tourism Commission and added a new boost of federal funding to the tourism industry.

Most Canadians do appreciate the features that our country has to offer from our shores to our plains to our mountains and the fact that these are simply backdrops for a variety of cultural and sporting pursuits that Canadians and visitors can follow.

I wonder if Canadians are aware that the care of those visitors employed 1.2 million people in 1993 and generated $30 billion in revenue which lead to $11 billion in tax receipts. These numbers are impressive but we know there is tremendous room for growth here because Canada has recently slipped from being the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world to the tenth today.

In this competitive world it is important to know your strengths and to emphasize them. That is why the Prime Minister has shown leadership here by recognizing this industry and this particular way that we might improve our economy by investing federal funds.

Today when most Canadians are concerned about the deficit and the financial situation of their country this is good news because this is going to be money well invested.

It also is an opportunity for Canadians to help with that deficit reduction, with that increase in jobs and increase in the economy because Canadians make decisions about their tourism destinations, where they are going to go on their vacation and how they are going to spend their money.

I think the Prime Minister is showing leadership and he is inviting Canadians to join in this effort to pick Canadian destinations, to show their children Canadian attractions, Canadian mountains, Canadian rivers, et cetera, and to help us in this pursuit.

Canadians have been asking me in my riding how they can assist with the deficit reduction. They are showing tremendous generosity and a team spirit in this effort and I wanted to share this idea with them today because perhaps they are planning their vacations for next year right now.

I would like to follow up my earlier question with a question to the parliamentary secretary, asking him what he sees as far as future job possibilities based on the Prime Minister's announcement of the Canadian Tourism Commission and the investing of a large number of federal funds in this industry.

[International Trade, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Today the Prime Minister leads Team Canada to China as an important strategy in our government's jobs and growth agenda.

I would like to ask the minister how he expects this mission to improve our international trade position and to improve the prospects for unemployed Canadians?