Gaston Leroux

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, "the need to unite Canadians is at the heart of the CBC's mandate" according to Mr. Perrin Beatty, president-

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House this morning in support of the amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, calling for nothing short of the withdrawal of Bill C-11.

Need I remind members that the Liberal Party of Canada, faithful to the objectives established by its guru of the last decades, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, took office in the House of Commons in October 1993 with the clear intention of giving government in Canada a more centralized structure. Right from the beginning, there was a major offensive action against the autonomy Quebec was aiming at.

During the more than two years of the present administration, we have seen countless examples of this thrust towards centralization, bill after bill. Bill C-11, creating the Department of Human Resources Development, and arising from the reform of that department in June 1993, is yet another manifestation of the centralist intent of the federal Liberal government.

Bill C-11 is but another step in the invasion, by the Liberal central government, of Quebec's jurisdictions in the area of social and economic development.

Clauses 6 and 20 of that bill are extremely revealing about the federal government's will to limit the freedom of action of the Quebec National Assembly. Clause 6 defines the powers, duties and functions of the minister which now extend, and I quote:

-to include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of human resources of Canada-with the objective of enhancing employment.

The minister is given considerable powers and will be free to act without the approval of the provinces, I repeat, without the approval of the provinces.

In fact, this bill contains no provision on provincial jurisdiction, let alone on honouring this jurisdiction; on the contrary, it denies Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training and development.

Consensus has just been established once again, with a unanimous statement at the latest summit held in Quebec, a consensus of all parties: employers, unions, as well as the social and political communities. But they refuse to recognize it and thus fail to respect Quebec's dominion in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, that is, manpower training and development.

Clause 20 lists the organizations with which the department may enter into agreements. It reads as follows:

1. For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of any program or policy-the minister may enter into agreements with a province-, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate.

So the minister may put anyone he wants in charge of managing his department's policies and programs without having to justify himself in the House or worrying about the Quebec government's directives. And what are those directives? Nothing very complicated: the Government of Quebec has its own legislation, an act relating to the executive council of the Government of Quebec. And what does that mean? Allow me to review it for the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am waking up two or three hon. members. They are awake now, fine.

The legislation on the executive council provides that only the government, through its intergovernmental affairs, can enter into agreements, make arrangements or establish programs on behalf of all agencies, municipalities, school boards and parapublic agencies.

What is the Liberal government doing systematically in its legislation? It ignores the executive council act and the exclusive

responsibility of the Government of Quebec for agreements outside of Quebec. Now, not only does the Liberal government systematically treat Quebec lightly, but it does so explicitly in all its bills in a pernicious and vicious way and with total disregard for provincial jurisdictions.

The minister will have the power to enter into agreements with all local agencies and municipalities. And we all know there is a clear consensus among Quebec municipalities regarding a regional development strategy with the federal government and its secretary of state and bypassing the Quebec government. According to Quebec employment minister, Mrs. Louise Harel, this bill is the antithesis of the Quebec consensus on manpower policy, the antithesis of the single window concept.

This bill prevents Quebec from implementing its own integrated social policy. On the other hand, the federal government is giving itself the legal basis to encroach on provincial jurisdictions whenever it feels like it, for example in the areas of childcare and manpower.

As the official opposition critic for heritage and cultural industries, I cannot help but relate this bill to Bill C-53 establishing the Heritage and Cultural Industry Department. Both are extremely centralizing.

In the area of communications, for instance, the action of federal government is unequivocal. The successive rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada on broadcasting in 1931, on cable television in 1977 and on telecommunications in 1994 have given exclusive jurisdiction to Ottawa in those areas and thus have deprived Quebec of any prerogative in the area of communications.

Here are a few examples of the federal government's tendency to centralize everything in this area. On February 27, 1992, with Bill C-62, the legislation on telecommunications, Ottawa announced its intention to pass new legislation in order to put in place a consistent policy for the entire country overseen by a single regulatory body. In this, however, it totally ignored Quebec's identity and legitimate aspirations of wide reaching autonomy because of its distinct nature.

Another example of centralizing policy. On October 31, 1994, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the information highway should be controlled by the federal government, meet national objectives and promote Canadian culture. Quebec should be able to control the socio-economic and cultural issues relating to the information highway since the federal government did not share its strategy for the French content of the information highway.

In setting up her cabinet on June 25, 1993, and I am talking about the Conservatives here, Prime Minister Kim Campbell created the Department of Canadian Heritage in order to promote a Canadian cultural identity based on Canada's foremost characteristics: its bilingualism and its multiculturalism.

The federal government decided to combine under the authority of the Department of Canadian Heritage all areas, according to Bill C-53, which established the department, relating to Canada's identity, values, cultural development and heritage, thereby denying Quebec's true cultural identity. This department's mandate made no provision for the difference in Quebec's culture and so, as usual, Ottawa denied Quebec's cultural reality by melding it with Canada's cultural identity based on bilingualism and multiculturalism.

In fact, all legislation concerning the major policies of the Liberal Party of Canada is extremely centralizing and continues to be expressed bill after bill. The Canadian federal system is a centralized political structure, and the Liberal Party is its master builder.

Bill C-11, which establishes the Department of Human Resources Development, is nothing more than the logical conclusion of a long series of legislative measures aimed at denying the existence of Quebec and its ability to establish a legislative and institutional framework to suit its needs, its uniqueness and its aspirations.

Bill C-76, legislation implementing certain provisions of the budget of February 1995, is another example of the Liberal government's efforts to negate the state of Quebec. I would remind you that, under this legislation, the Minister of Human Resources Development is using savings realized from the reform of unemployment insurance to set up a human resource investment fund. This fund will be used for manpower training, among other things, and will therefore give the central government massive discretionary and centralizing powers over an area that is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction-education-thereby completely disregarding Quebec's policies in the area.

Let us look at other examples. Interprovincial trade is another area in which the federal government likes to impose its centralizing vision. Bill C-88 shows the federal government's determination to act as judge and jury in interprovincial trade and to give itself, through this bill, a power of enforcement through orders it issues. Thus, it can extend the application of any federal legislation to the provinces, as stated in clause 9(1)( c ), in other words, to exert control over its partners by declaring itself in all disputes the sole judge and jury able to decide.

This unitary state attitude of a centralizing federal system is in contradiction with provincial identities and, as such, impedes the development of Quebec. This attitude is also reflected in Bill C-46 establishing the Department of Industry. Its clause 8 states specifically that the Minister of Industry is responsible for regional economic development in Ontario and Quebec.

This bill only goes to show that there is overlap with respect to regional economic development by confirming the federal industry

department's right to interfere in an area of jurisdiction over which Quebec has been demanding control for a long time.

Bill C-91 to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada is another example of centralizing federal legislation. Clauses 20 and 21 of this bill are totally unacceptable to Quebec. Clause 20 provides that the Business Development Bank "may enter into agreements with, and act as agent for, any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province, for the provision of services or programs on their behalf".

This is another example of how, bill after bill, the government is invading provincial areas of jurisdiction, and going as far as stipulating in a piece of legislation how to do it, completely ignoring the legislation on Quebec's executive council where it is said that the Quebec government alone may enter into agreements and arrangements with governments outside Quebec on behalf of its own agencies, institutions, and municipalities.

However, the federal government keeps turning a deaf ear, refusing to abide by the laws of Quebec. Bill after bill, it keeps on centralizing without any constitutional consultation. It claims it is decentralizing, it claims it is willing to talk to everybody, but quietly and slyly, one bill at a time, it is giving itself all the tools to centralize.

Moreover, government members congratulate themselves for being open, flexible, ready to talk to anyone. But talks will not go very far, since with every new bill they become judge and jury, and can impose their own policies and legislation.

Under this clause the Liberal federal government pursues its strategy of centralization, a political strategy the objective of which is, I remind you, to substantially restrict the Quebec government's ability to act in the area of economic development, ultimately preventing it from achieving political autonomy.

The demagogic approach developed by the present Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who claims that Canada is the most decentralized country in the world, is an insult to intelligence and reflects a bad faith which is a major impediment to finding a solution regarding Quebec's place in North America.

In spite of the incessant pleas of the Quebec government to develop its own economic and social policies, the Liberal Party of Canada always said no and used every available legislative means to restrict the decision making power of Quebec National Assembly.

The new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may very well claim that the Canadian federation is one of the most decentralized, but we are of the opinion that it is one of the most centralized in the world. This is why 2,308,266 Quebecers voted for sovereignty on October 30.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder on which planet the hon. member for Saint-Denis lives, given what she said about subsidies being given to French speaking communities everywhere. She should reread this blue document called the budget. She will realize that there are cuts, year after year, and that the assimilation rate keeps growing. It is time the hon. member woke up.

The hon. member claims that her government provides many good things in its budget for culture. Let me just remind her of a few facts which she does not appear to have figured out: the CBC, cuts totalling $150 million and close to 5,000 jobs eliminated; Telefilm Canada, cuts of $19 million; the National Film Board, cuts of $10 million; the National Archives, cuts of $11 million; the writing and publications program-books are important, our authors tell our story-cuts of $14 million; heritage programs, cultural development, cuts of $22 million.

Please, wake up. These are cuts, not support. These are cuts and when cuts are made, it results in a reduction, not an increase, in production and in the number of jobs.

It is time to wake up and realize that the budget tabled in this House does not promote cultural development and does not in any way support one of the main recommendations made in the Juneau report, which provides that we should not only ensure the recognition of our cultural institutions such as the CBC, Telefilm and the National Film Board, but also their long term funding. Not only does this budget not follow up on these recommendations, which have gained unanimous support, but it also cuts everywhere, thus creating losses of jobs and services, while jeopardizing cultural development as a whole.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as official opposition critic for heritage and cultural industries, I cannot stop myself from referring to the throne speech in my response to the budget speech.

What is written in the conclusion to the throne speech must be noted as something of great importance to the cultural industries, "Culture is at the core of our identity as Canadians. The Government is committed to strong Canadian cultural industries". This speech also confirms the government's desire to ensure the viability of the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. The statements of principle in the Minister of Finance's speech are, however, unequivocal. The Liberals want to reduce expenditures, while at the same time encouraging improved job prospects. Such a contradiction! Regrowth and reducing expenditures in the same breath. They claim to have a strategy which works via reallocation.

Let us be serious now. Contradictions do not belong in administration. The Liberals are full of great statements of intent, which we all know very well they have no intention of putting into practice. This government's sole objective is to make cuts, and its true cultural policy is to make cuts in culture. With a policy applied to strategic sectors that is threatening social cohesion through massive budget cuts, and threatening economic growth through a systematic layoff policy, we cannot look at the future with any hope.

Yet, if there is one sector that is strategic for maintaining cohesion and social equilibrium in Canada and in Quebec, it is culture. And what is this government doing? In the Liberal Party of Canada's budget, national cultural institutions are facing cuts of 9.7 per cent. Telefilm Canada, the NFB and the National Archives are the most affected, moreover. Let us take an example. The CBC alone is being hit the hardest, with cuts of $102 million between fiscal 1995-96 and fiscal 1996-97. According to Mr. Beatty, its president, there will be additional cuts of $48 million.

Telefilm Canada will face cuts of $19 million in the upcoming fiscal year just when it is looking at the possibility of going multimedia. The National Film Board alone will be hit with cuts of $10 million on top of the $16 million cuts in the 1994-95 budget.

The National Archives will be cut by $11 million. Publishing support programs will be cut by $14 million, and the heritage and cultural development program will cut by $22 million in the coming fiscal year. Contributions to the cultural infrastructures project will be cut by 69 per cent in 1996-97, on top of the 44 per cent in 1995-96. This is totally unacceptable.

I ask this House if this the expression of a desire to develop cultural industries in Quebec and Canada. How can the Liberals claim to be promoting job creation with such cuts? How do we assure the long term viability of the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada? When the government systematically cuts the operating budgets of these organizations, there is no guarantee of a future.

When everyone knows the importance of our cultural institutions, how do we convince the government that it is heading in the wrong direction? This lack of political will to develop the cultural industries is having a dramatic impact, let us face the facts, on lost jobs.

The $227 million cut from the CBC since 1995 represents 2,400 lost jobs, and the forecast cuts of $150 million between 1996 and 1999 will mean another 2,500 positions, making a total of 4,900 jobs lost in the years the government is giving expression to its alleged intention to develop Canada's cultural industries.

Such job losses have a significant impact on the cultural fabric of society in Quebec and Canada. Culture is made up of real people: actors, screenwriters, authors, musicians, performers, composers, model makers, make-up artists, costume designers, scenic artists, and others. They are the raw material of cultural creation and production. The very essence of our identity could be ruined and driven to despair by this Liberal government's extensive cuts and lack of strategy, vision and policy in cultural matters.

The prospect of an Anglo-American culture threatens our culture, as everyone knows. The Canadian Minister of Finance's budget is a major culprit, as it jeopardizes the very existence of our cultural industries.

That is one of the reasons why the Government of Quebec claims full responsibility for the management of its share of the federal funds allocated to cultural industries. The federal government's estimates for heritage and cultural industries directly threaten all of us as a culture. In these circumstances, the Bloc Quebecois, as the official opposition, urges Ottawa to withdraw from the whole area of culture and communications. While the Government of Quebec was increasing its contribution to cultural funding by 4 per cent a year and its share of all public expenditures affecting Quebec culture from 32 to 37 per cent, the federal government's contribution fell from 45 per cent in 1989-90 to 34 per cent five years later.

According to Louise Beaudoin, Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications and Minister responsible for the Administration of the Charter of the French Language, although Quebec makes the greatest effort in Canada, it is not enough to compensate for the federal government's gradual withdrawal from culture. It is certainly logical.

At a time when Quebec is taking action and increasing its budgets to ensure the viability and development of its culture, the federal government continues to withdraw and to cut funding. The Government of Quebec has no use for the more or less political goals pursued by the Department of Canadian Heritage through the distribution of millions of flags. At a time when everything is being cut, they suddenly found $17 million and hired 10 full time telephone operators to handle callers who want the flags promised to them by some deputy minister. As we speak, at a time when everybody is being hit by budget cuts, including those who create our culture, who guarantee our identity and development, they have just spent close to $7 million.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Ottawa River, the federal government plans to reduce the funds spent on culture, something that would greatly compromise our cultural future.

In closing, this budget shows once again the government's inconsistency and lack of vision and respect for Quebec culture. We must, however, admit that the federal Liberal government is true to itself, making and breaking its own promises as it pleases.

[Information Highway, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister just demonstrated all the respect she has for areas of provincial jurisdiction. Such is her position. In the information the federal government is releasing about Rescol, teachers are invited to apply to the federal government to get funding for this Internet project. Again, the federal government is going over the heads of the provinces.

When will the minister and the government recognize the provinces' jurisdiction in the matter and transfer all the money they spend on schools?

[Information Highway, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that what is good for manpower training is also good for the information highway: the federal government keeps infringing upon areas of provincial jurisdiction, increasing the overlap and the waste of public funds and getting taxpayers in deeper trouble by adding new programs left and right. We just had another example of this when the Minister of Industry announced he intended to link every school in Canada to the Internet, even though some provinces already have similar programs.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When will the federal government recognize that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction and transfer to the provinces all the money it currently spends on these institutions?

[Copyright, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Can the minister promise us that she will not take advantage of this being a new copyright bill to add exceptions, thus limiting the rights of our creators?

[Copyright, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, heritage department officials have announced phase I of the copyright bill for mid-April. It was time. The cultural community has been waiting a long while for this bill to be tabled. One might wonder, however, what price the minister has paid to have this bill approved by her caucus.

My question is for the heritage minister. Will she confirm that the copyright legislation will be tabled in mid-April, and can she assure us that it will recognize neighbouring rights in a real and concrete manner, not just symbolically?

[Broadcasting Act, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which was introduced by my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton. I am happy to participate in this debate both as the member for Richmond-Wolfe and as the official opposition's critic on heritage and cultural industries.

I would like to tell my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton that I applaud his initiative because it clearly shows his concern for consumers, who are too often left to fend for themselves when dealing with organizations such as the CRTC. Also organizations like the CRTC and others often let things slide without taking a stand.

The purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton is to protect consumers against a questionable business practice called negative option billing that forces people to pay for a cable service they did not request. They receive this service and, if they do not ask for it to be stopped, they are considered to have bought it.

For the benefit of our listeners and my colleagues, I would like to put the situation in context. I would remind you that, by amending section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, this bill provides that a cable distributor should not demand money from a person for the provision or sale of a new programming service where the person has not agreed to receive the new service. It seems to me that, in our society, people should not have to pay for a product or service they did not ask for.

This business practice of selling programming services to consumers who have not asked for them, which is called negative option billing, started in 1994 when the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC granted eight new special cable service licences.

Why were eight new licences issued? The CRTC had one main goal, namely to strengthen the Canadian presence in the Canadian broadcasting system in anticipation of this system being inundated by American services, thus preventing an American invasion of Canadian distribution systems.

This goal in itself is certainly commendable. However, after this decision was made by the CRTC, in many cases, new channels were added to cable subscribers' discretionary service package. This means that those who already paid for a cable package now had this service added, and that made them angry. Why? Protests were sparked by this marketing strategy used by cable operators, which consists in imposing new and unrequested services on consumers and charging them extra for it.

No one in this House has to pay nor wants to pay for services they never asked for, that appear out of nowhere.

The CRTC decision resulting from the public hearings on the industry's structure released in 1993 kicked off a number of regulatory reforms that were implemented when the eight dedicated cable broadcasting licences were issued. Marketing strategies based on negative optioning were debated and tacitly agreed to, since the CRTC did not take a stand.

The CRTC never regulated or attempted to regulate the negative optioning marketing practices of cable operators.

It seems obvious that a deliberate choice was made not to make public statements on the appropriateness of such practices. The CRTC did not react. It gave tacit approval by letting cable distributors set the rules themselves. It seems that, in the past, such practices helped new specialty services succeed on the market, while also promoting the cultural development goals set out in the Broadcasting Act.

So, the CRTC said: "Since this has worked before, we will leave them alone". Monopolizing consumers' ability to buy at their own expense is definitely a curious way to protect the culture of Quebec and Canada. Consumers are the ones who should decide on the content and the services they want.

During the 1993 public hearings on the industry's structure, however, some witnesses expressed their concern regarding the negative option billing for new services. Later, consumer protection groups expressly asked that the Broadcasting Act be amended to force the CRTC to protect the interests of consumers, not just cultural interests, when regulating the monopoly that the cable television industry is.

We agree that the content should be Canadian and should protected from neighbouring countries, but not at the expense of consumers, not by leaving them at the mercy of cable distributors. This does not make sense.

Cable television subscribers had already started rebelling. The CRTC's way of looking after their interests was to merely urge cable distributors to pay greater attention to consumers' requests. It said to those who provide the service and make money in the process: "Set your own rules, but please act properly".

In reality, the marketing component in the Canadian cable distribution industry is left to the association itself. In the end, the association is the one that sets the marketing standards advocated by the national Cable Television Standards Council. As regards this issue, it is clear that not only the CRTC but also the Liberal Party dragged their feet and did not take their responsibilities on time, since consumers had to send a wake up call.

On January 5, one year after consumer associations protested against negative option billing, Rogers Broadcasting Ltd., the largest cable distributor in Canada and the initiator of that practice, gave up the idea and apologized for its mistake. The company called itself to order, which is a good sign. But it was the result of pressure from consumers and not the government acting responsibly and declaring that, in this field, the commercial practice was unacceptable. From now on, says the Canadian Cable Television Association, in an attempt to reassure us, the practice of negative

option billing is a thing of the past and the cable distribution industry will listen to consumers.

Thus, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton merely confirms a single practice. This brings me to the question of duplication. A single practice. The bill confirms an intrusion into the jurisdiction of provinces that have already taken responsibility in this area. This is not the case in all the provinces, I admit, but for Quebec particularly, where the Consumer Protection Act is strong and has been around for a long time, the proposal of similar legislation in the House of Commons represents a direct intrusion into one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

I am pleased to see this initiative by the hon. member, because he is, to all intents and purposes, reminding his own government of its responsibilities. He has just told it: "You have neglected the situation". And unlike in Quebec and in another province that has a consumer protection act, in all the other provinces, no action is taken and cable distributors are asked to regulate themselves and decide on their own what the rules should be.

The Government of Quebec has already established its jurisdiction by way of its Consumer Protection Act through a general prohibition on the sale of any service through negative option billing. Paragraph 230 (a) of this act is very clear. By regulating the commercialization of cable distribution services through an amendment to its Broadcasting Act, Ottawa reveals once again its determination to interfere in an area of provincial responsibility.

In Quebec, however, any contractual agreement between a consumer and a cable distributor has been subject, since the introduction of these services, to the Consumer Protection Act.

I must therefore reiterate that any such bill tabled in this House is very clearly a duplication of regulations and an intrusion of the federal government into the jurisdiction of the State of Quebec. It is not ill will on the part of the member. It is because his own government has not taken its responsibilities and he is calling it to order. He is also reminding the government that many provinces have no consumer protection legislation and that the present government, with the CRTC, is sending a very clear signal to cable distributors to take whatever action they see fit.

In terms of the content of the bill and the concerns of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, I would say to him that we think alike. But as for the principle of tabling a bill in this House that represents a direct intrusion into the province's area of jurisdiction, we have no choice, as the official opposition, but to vote against Bill C-216.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple, we are asking the minister to tell us what scenarios are being contemplated and what she is working on in terms of where the funds will come from. Given that both the past and the current presidents of the CBC agree that an extra $150 million in cuts will affect the CBC's mandate, are we to understand from the minister's response, since she stated that the mandate would not be modified, that the CBC will be allowed to run deficits, to be absorbed by the consolidated revenue fund?