Paul Crête

[Canadian National, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with each passing day we see how carefully the federal government and Canadian National have orchestrated their campaign to attack the working conditions of their employees. Now we are seeing televised messages by Canadian National about the importance of rationalizing the company.

These messages were certainly not put together in the course of the week and are proof of CN's bad faith in these negotiations. Is it not completely unacceptable that the employer is running down its employees publicly, on the eve of the mediation-arbitration process that the federal government so prefers to what the Bloc has proposed?

If CN is so confident, it is because it knows it has the backing of the federal government, which in the end bears sole responsibility for the present labour conflict. Through its collusion with the employers and its inflexibility with respect to the special legislation, the federal government is disrupting negotiations, acting in a cowardly manner, and indicating clearly its lack of regard for the rights of workers.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member and I think that she certainly deserved our attention, as do all the other members of the House.

She spoke briefly about unemployment insurance, and it is on this subject that I would like to comment and ask a question.

In its budget, the government established a human resources development fund from the surplus that will be generated in the unemployment insurance fund. Does the hon. member not feel it would have been a much better idea to consider a quick reduction in unemployment insurance premiums so that both individuals paying their own premiums and business could enjoy the savings right away and put this money back into the economy? Does she not feel that approach would have a more immediate direct effect on employment than an artificial fund created solely to enable government to get around jurisdictions and intervene in a whole lot of areas under provincial jurisdiction?

Does all of this not strike the hon. member as a course of action that runs contrary to the federal government's fine words about really intending to reduce the size of government? Is it not actually going to increase intervention by the federal government in areas of activity that are not in its jurisdiction and where it has proven to be ineffective?

[Port Of Montreal, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great relief that the official opposition learned that the mediator had managed to bring the parties close enough to allow workers to return to work in the port of Montreal. This is an encouraging sign that it will be possible to solve that conflict through negotiations.

If the Minister of Labour had appointed the mediator earlier, the strike might have been avoided or, at the very least, been considerably shorter. The slowness of the minister in this conflict clearly shows that the government neglects the economic interests of Montreal. The success of the mediator should be an inspiration to the Minister of Labour.

Mediation can work when the parties can truly negotiate. It is undemocratic and irresponsible on the minister's part to impose arbitration so quickly in the rail strike and in the Vancouver port conflict, without first giving mediation a chance.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then ask a question.

As regards cuts in Quebec, we have indeed been penalized in recent years, particularly since these cuts were not only budgetary ones. Just think of the closure of the only French-language military college in Canada. The impact is not strictly financial, as shown by the drastic reduction in the enrolment of French-speaking aspiring officer cadets since that decision was made. Canada cannot be proud of that decision.

My question is as follows: Has he met, in his region, people from the armed forces reserve who want the situation to be cleared up because they feel that the things for which certain elements are being blamed, as well as the fact that no light is being shed on the issue, are hurting everyone? The result is that people who were once very proud to be members of the reserve or of the Canadian Forces now feel rather uncomfortable.

These people feel that things should be made very clear. We support the Reform Party's motion because it asks that light be shed on this issue. Can the hon. member tell us if members of the reserve forces in his region feel the same way? Do these people feel that the bad apples should be expelled, to avoid letting the situation deteriorate even more?

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is strictly a question of privatizing the national network. In Quebec and Canada, there is the issue of production. For example, in order to ensure an adequate coverage and the broadcasting of programs reflecting what we really are, it was decided long ago in Quebec that we would create Radio-Québec. Because Quebecers had worked for the CBC, they also wanted to be involved in a television which would picture Quebec adequately in the future. That probably brought about much higher expenses than what should have been.

The solution probably lies in better defined jurisdictions. It should be clear who is responsible for an area, who will have the power to levy taxes and who will have the spending power. Someone should have the authority to sign international treaties, on networks like TV5 for example, in order that we may be sure the money is really spent on production and not on some competition which is not always appropriate and which causes useless expenditures and squandering.

Today, we refuse to question the principle of the existence of the CBC, but we are cutting its air supply at the source. Well, why not try to seek the solution elsewhere? Perhaps we should first understand that there are two cultures in Canada and that each of them must have the adequate tools to ensure its own development.

It is also easy to see the ripple effect of the CBC on the quality of programs and on the fact that the French network airs many more Quebec content programs during prime time hours. These programs promote what we are and, for various reasons, they are quite superior to whatever is shown on the English network. Therefore, we can be proud of the results, at least on the Quebec side.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are more than two oceans in Canada. There is also an ocean of difference between the hon. member's position and my own. I am starting to understand some of the identity problems of English Canada. If a member of this House considers that culture is not transmitted by the media, by radio and television and the information highway and the rest, all the different ways we communicate, I am beginning to understand why some people have trouble distinguishing the border between Canada and the United States.

What I have just heard gives me the impression that they could live anywhere on this planet, that being Canadian or American is the same thing. And I realize why they are so afraid we will leave. They think that after we have left, the Canadian identity will cease to exist.

Before the advent of the printed media and the electronic media, culture was transmitted orally. A people was distinctive in terms of its artistic endeavours, its inventions, its scientific progress and its trading traditions. These are the elements that together represent the culture of a people.

Media like the CBC, both the French and the English networks, use images to show us the country we live in and the people who live there with us. Wanting these media to survive and produce quality programs does not mean our culture is fragile. It proves the importance of communicating that the culture.

That is why, for instance, we have networks like TV5 that group francophone television channels from all over the world. The English networks do the same. I think it is important to realize that in the global village of the future, in the world of tomorrow, networks like the CBC are the tools of the future. Wanting to maintain the CBC does not mean our culture is fragile. It means ensuring that it has a future and that it can take its rightful place, in Quebec or in Canada, depending on what Quebecers decide.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

I am sorry, I got confused in my presentation.

I will now go back to the motion presented by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. It reads as follows:

That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decision concerning funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for the next three years, thus causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.

This motion got my attention and my support right from the start for various reasons. First of all, it clearly identifies the Minister of Canadian Heritage as being responsible for the very ambiguous situation the CBC-SRC is in at the present time, which affects both its listeners and employees. There is great uncertainty regarding the future role of the corporation and the Minister of Canadian Heritage is to be blamed for it.

The minister's attitude discredits any expertise that might have developed within the Canadian public service and the CBC-SRC. It also discredits the function of the minister since we have repeatedly and systematically been told by the president who resigned, Mr. Manera, and by the vice-president, Mrs. Fortin, that there will be significant and drastic cuts at the CBC-SRC. These statements were not made on the sly. Mrs. Fortin held a two hour televised teleconference which was broadcasted across the country, during which she explained the impact of the cuts to all the services of Radio-Canada. One of her listeners said that Mrs. Fortin had shared her anguish and feelings of powerlessness with her audience. She said she did not know what the future holds for the French network of the CBC.

Therefore, following this evaluation by an employee which reflects the feelings of people following this presentation, the official opposition asked the minister to tell us what the impact of the cuts would be. The only answer we got was that no cuts were planned when, in fact, documents available from the CBC show that a program of cuts is in the works. They mention cuts of $44 million for 1995-96, more than $96 million for 1996-97 and $165 million for 1997-98.

Such cuts are already part of the CBC's future and it must plan its actions accordingly. When dealing with television or radio production, decisions must be made months in advance to determine which serials will be shown in the years ahead and what will be the direction followed by the corporation. The vagueness of the minister and the lingering uncertainty he is fostering are doing tremendous damage to the future of the corporation.

Why did the official opposition consider important to draw the attention of the House on this subject on a designated day? It is because we realized that, after all is said and done-and there is a lesson to be drawn here for both networks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-because of the quality of programming, because of the way Radio-Canada has managed to identify with Quebec, there is during prime time about 87 per cent of Canadian programming and only 13 per cent of foreign programming. Its impact was that TVA, a private network, followed suit and used a mix of 73 per cent Canadian and 27 per cent foreign programming. TQS made sure it had 65 per cent Canadian content. We realize that Radio-Canada really has the power to promote Canada's and Quebec's culture because of the content of the programs it airs and makes known.

The English network is much less able to do this because it does not capture as much of its potential audience and, for example, networks like Global carry 80 per cent foreign content during the same time slot, from 7 to 11 nightly. Pay television carries 94 per cent foreign content. The CTV network, which is

in some ways an overblown take-off from TVA, carries 75 per cent foreign content. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the audiences' perceptions, which Radio-Canada has been able to use to develop a complicity with its audience and to ensure the propagation of the country's culture in a way that the English network has not necessarily been able to do.

Some may believe that higher budgets made it possible to obtain these results. The opposite is true. If we look at the spread in production costs, the average amount allocated per hour of programming at the Société Radio-Canada is $18,390; at the CBC, the amount is $37,496. The average cost of one hour of news on Radio-Canada is $7,000; on CBC, the same thing costs $18,000. The average cost of one hour of French variety shows is $30,000; in English, it is $141,000. Therefore, we cannot attribute Radio-Canada's success in capturing a bigger audience and in propagating Canadian culture to its budget. There are other reasons.

If we stubbornly continue to cut the CBC's French-language network, this will eventually have a direct impact on the quantity and quality of production. We are no longer cutting fat and looking for surpluses. This will have a direct impact on production and, among other things, on the ways we collaborate with the cultural community.

In the past, the French network often contributed to the dissemination of all art forms by giving contracts for concerts, dance performances and other cultural activities. In the future however-as was announced at Mrs. Fortin's press conferences-spending cuts will have a negative effect on cultural production and the potential for adequate cultural dissemination. The CBC's French-language network is being unfairly penalized, since cutting 25 cents out of every dollar does not have the same effect as cutting 35 or 50 cents from $4 or $5. The cuts will have a much more detrimental impact on the French-language network. In this regard, I think it is important for the House, which is preoccupied with sound budget management, to ensure that the cuts are fair.

The cuts currently planned at the CBC do not reflect a commitment to the fair distribution of public funds. The first person responsible for this misinformation is the minister himself because, by refusing to give us the real figures, he is adding to the insecurity of CBC employees and of all those who want this network to continue providing in the future the type of collaboration for cultural dissemination that it used to offer in the past.

Mrs. Fortin also said during the closed circuit TV program in which she explained the impact of the cuts that national television would never be the same, because there will indeed be major consequences for francophones in all Canadian provinces. CBC's French-language network is somewhat like an umbilical cord linking all French-speaking Canadians to the national production made in Quebec, while also allowing the broadcast of regional productions.

During consultations on the social program review, I travelled across the country last year and I can tell you that, in several regions, the French network only has the bare minimum to survive. The decisions to be made regarding CBC's French-language network could have the effect of depriving, in a significant way, access to information in French for part of Canada, and that could go two ways, in the sense that, for example, French-speaking people in Vancouver, Edmonton or Charlottetown would neither have access to information from Quebec, nor be able to familiarize the rest of Canada with their reality.

The cuts will result in a less varied and more limited programming for these people, given the drastically reduced budget of the corporation. Choices will have to be made and the whole French-speaking community outside Quebec may end up paying the price, possibly even more so than the majority in Quebec.

Mr. Manera resigned from CBC because the commitments made to him when he joined the corporation were not adhered to. After the public announcement of cuts by the vice-president of CBC's French-language network, and after the minister's claims that he is not sure whether cuts will be made, the employees of these networks are even more disheartened.

I much prefer the attitude of Mrs. Fortin, who says they will sit down together and see if they can still make interesting things in spite of the cuts to be made, to that of the minister, who refuses to provide the exact numbers. Indeed, Mrs. Fortin seems much more aware of the needs of the corporation's employees, that is those who ensure the daily production.

What can we do to ensure that, in the future, CBC's French-language network can continue to fulfill its mandate without being adversely affected to the point where it would no longer be able to provide the same quality programming for the Canadian public? I think the minister should provide the accurate figures regarding the cuts to be made and then ask employees of the corporation, those who work there, to tell him where these cuts could be made and what their impact will be.

For example, I was told that, each year, or on a regular basis, CBC must spend $15 million to get CRTC's approval for its programming. Considering the anticipated cuts-we are talking $45 million for the first year, 1995-1996-$15 million could significantly help reduce the impact of such cuts.

People might be willing to make cuts at corporate headquarters because, as is the case with other organizations, it is obvious that in the different branches, different service points of the CBC, staff is already at the minimum required to ensure adequate production and adequate coverage of information, whether it be in the cultural or other sectors.

Would it not be possible for the corporation to make a special effort at headquarters? Could we not, as a result, possibly delay the effect the cuts might have on production in the short term? I think that these are avenues that could be studied in the future. Maybe we could ask the minister to consider these suggestions. And let us remember that this is happening in a context where the federal government is saying that francophone minorities in Canada are important to it. They want to make sure that they receive quality services. They want the French fact to be alive and well everywhere in Canada. On the other side of the House, and on this point I concur with the hon. member for Richelieu who spoke before me, they sing two different tunes. There is one for the election campaign, the election platform, and another, which is the reality that the Liberal Party is promoting as a government.

If we take away from the French communities of Canada the possibility of expressing who they are, we are going to widen the gap between elements to a point which will not leave the French fact in Canada enough vigour to survive. By taking even more from them we would be like depriving them of oxygen. I think that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is in a way responsible for culture in Canada, should ask himself very serious questions before taking such action.

We have the feeling that, after telling us during the first weeks following the election that he was a good friend of the CBC and would ensure that the corporation had all the resources needed to develop, the minister became a lackey to the finance minister whose job is to cut expenditures.

His inability to properly defend culture in Canada and his narrow vision which encompasses only one Canadian culture are enough to convince him that we do not necessarily need two healthy television networks and that we could cut the oxygen supply to one of them so that we would only have one Canadian identity. We could come back to the bilingual television network we had in the beginning, but that would not reflect the reality in our country.

I think it is important for this House to consider the motion before us today and to ensure, first of all, that the minister clearly indicates where the cuts will be made-what seems to me like a responsible thing to do-and second, that no cuts will be made in areas that could hurt production and the delivery of adequate services to Quebecers and Canadians alike.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member preceding me commented on identity saying that our identity in Quebec was simply a matter of geography. I think other factors have to be taken into consideration. It must be remembered that we are the people who arrived from Europe first bringing a French culture to America, with Quebec as its focus.

There was also a French America in North America as a whole. The first French to arrive in Quebec, the ones who settled in Canada, followed the Mississippi, reaching as far as Louisiana and the Rockies.

If, today, the number of francophones in Canada is less than what is was 125 or 130 years ago, it is perhaps more because they were denied the right to be educated in their own language and to grow in their own language. This happened in Manitoba and Alberta, among other places, at the end of the 19th century. Had they enjoyed this right, Canada could have become a truly bilingual country. We could have avoided the present situation in which we discover two completely different realities. We could live as neighbours in harmony. The only way, in our opinion, is for us to opt for sovereignty and for Canada to find a way to deal with its American neighbours.

Did the hon. member in her presentation not limit our identity by making it a matter of geography, in a very restrictive and rather embarrassing way for Quebecers, when we are in fact as much a part of Canada's history as the anglophones and the aboriginal peoples? Is this not limiting us to very little and admitting that the Liberal Party's knowledge of Canada is limited to the image handed to it, particularly by the picture the Prime Minister can paint of it?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in my short experience as a member of Parliament, one of the things that struck me most is how women's groups, in my own riding and other regions, manage to do so much with so little. On very limited budgets, they find innovative ways to help women and their families, and they get concrete results despite their limited resources.

I suggest that we start by listening to these organizations and by giving them the resources to do their jobs without being in a constant state of crisis. There should be a three-year or five-year plan that would make it possible for organizations, that represent women and help to develop women's goals, to continue their work.

In the course of the hearings held by the human resources development committee, we heard testimony from dozens of women across Canada who talked about their experiences and who wanted to provide a better future for their daughters who today are 5, 10 or 15 years old. They want to ensure that 15 or 20 years from now, special programs will no longer be necessary, because every woman will have a chance to develop her potential and equal opportunity will have become a way of life in our society.

The most important thing is to have confidence in women.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to see there is some agreement on the relevance of the motion presented by the hon. member for Québec. I am not saying that members will agree on every single word or that the government or the other opposition party will be in complete agreement, but there seems to be a common concern about the way women will be treated in the future, considering the changes that are taking place.

I will read the motion again:

That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of women in federal areas of jurisdiction.

I think the operative words in this motion are "the adoption of concrete measures", because policies on the status of women have been discussed for many years. However, I think governments should be judged on what they have actually done in this respect.

Perhaps I may take an example from every day life. Take, for instance, Marie-Hélène, a young student who intends to go to university next September. How does she see her future as a woman? What kind of future can she expect?

Well, as a result of social programs reform, she can expect to be in debt to a far greater extent during the next few years. If she decides to go for a university degree, she will end up with twice or three times the debt she would have if she were completing her schooling now. Which means that a young woman who wants a career and considers what her future will be is going to say: Well, maybe it is not such a good idea to go all out to develop my potential because of the increased debt load I can expect.

It is very surprising that she should think so under a Liberal government that, in the sixties and seventies, tried to do some interesting things to promote equal opportunity. Today, the government makes it very difficult for people to take advantage of such opportunities by telling them that when they go to university, they will have to carry a much heavier debt load. As a result, only wealthy families will be able to send their children to university, and we are thus reverting to a model we had 25 or 30 years ago, which no one wanted and where equal opportunity for education did not really exist.

So that is an example of a lack of concrete measures from this government, a negative action that will turn the clock back 20 or 30 years and give many women cause for concern.

Let us get back to our student. She has finished her education and would like to start a business. She decides that she wants to get into new technologies. Unfortunately, she is not covered by unemployment insurance because she has never worked a sufficient number of weeks to be eligible, and she cannot apply for

welfare if her spouse has a job. In other words, she is not eligible for any government program.

I took this particular example because women are more likely to find themselves in this kind of situation. As a result of what I would call systemic measures that are counterproductive, a situation has been created where women who want to start a business will be less likely than men to have access to various types of assistance. This is unfortunate, because the government could have included a number of measures in the current budget to deal with this, but it did not.

I will continue with my example of a young woman looking at her future, making plans and trying to decide how she will go about it.

When she read the red book of the Liberal Party, during the electoral campaign, she might have felt that, whenever she decided to enter a new career, she would be able to take advantage of adequate day care services for her children, allowing her enough time to pursue a career while ensuring that her children receive a proper education and adequate support during their formative years. Now I am not saying that men do not have any responsibilities regarding the education of their children, clearly we have the same responsibilities as women, but the truth is that in the real world we very often ask women to be what we call superwomen, that is to say women able to juggle family, professional and social lives, and more often that not, without much help.

The government could have taken a number of concrete measures, since the Liberal Party had promised during the election campaign that if the gross domestic product was to increase by 3 per cent it would create 60,000 new spaces in day care centers. Recently, we have seen an increase in the gross domestic product, but no increase in the number of day care spaces which would benefit women, except for native people. Thus the commitment which has been made regularly to Quebec and Canada has now been rejected.

The previous Conservative government did not live up to this commitment. The Liberals, who were elected on the promise to bring about changes, in this area as well as others, are following in their predecessors' footsteps. We can see why there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction and why the lack of concrete measures on the part of the government can be denounced.

As a result, a young female student graduating with a heavier debt load and the knowledge that adequate day care services will not be available sees no hope of improvement in her situation. When she learns, at the same time, that the bodies acting as watchdogs for the status of women are going to be axed, she has every right to wonder what is in store for her. This young woman is full of vitality, very enterprising, and wants to go places.

I will now give you the example of another woman also full of vitality, but maybe not as lucky. For the sake of this exercice, let us call her Helen. Helen, a single parent with two children, stays at home. Housing consumes 40, 50, 60 per cent of her income. When she is told that the government is committed to reducing poverty, the first thing she expects is to spend a more reasonable proportion of her income on housing, somewhere around 25 to 30 per cent.

But nowadays, people often spend 50 to 60 per cent of their income on housing. This means that, with a welfare cheque, when you spend between 50 and 60 per cent of it on rent, you have to be a miracle worker in order to feed two children properly and, in the end, prevent them from becoming trapped themselves in the vicious circle of being poor children. Could the Liberal government not have set aside additional money for direct assistance to public housing, following the tour by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on the reform of social programs?

Oh, no. On the contrary. A press release by the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on February 28, 1995 made a very simple announcement-no fanfare. Nowhere else was this casual approach taken, except with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, yesterday. Its demise was announced quite simply, without any fuss, during debate. The effect of this approach is just as hidden as in a press release. The press release in question announced a cut in the overall public housing budget of $270 million over three years. What does this say to Helen, the woman I was just talking about, who has a housing unit to pay for and must perform miracles just to survive? What does she understand when she is told the public housing budget is going to be cut by $270 million? So much for the light at the end of the tunnel.

This is a criticism that may be made of the present government. It fails to take solid measures designed not so much as acts of charity but rather to put people in a position to be able to get out of their present situations. The same example applies with respect to the government's continual attempt to use the American model in assisting poor families. The current approach of the government is to say what the Americans have done, basically. The government says it will help poor families, but with the money it currently gives the middle class.

Do you know what the effect of this is? More and more middle class families will become poor families. Then the government can crow over the fact that it sends them a cheque as a poor family. However, the approach in the past in Canada, and the one that worked, was to fight poverty by allowing the people just above the poverty line to continue to hope that their situation will improve and by giving poor families the means to improve

their situation as well. But it will not come about by running in the opposite direction, by helping those in greatest need in order to bolster the government's image, while withdrawing assistance from those in the middle class and driving them into the ranks of the poor.

I think that we have here another example of the present government's failure to act that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. To accompany all these examples I am going to read you an extract from a speech given by the Minister of Human Resources Development before the World Summit on Social Development, just to show you what little connection there is between the speech and reality.

The Minister of Human Resources Development said: "Our programs must increasingly be backed up by concrete measures to get people back to work, rather than focussing uniquely on income support". What are there in the way of measures to allow female entrepreneurs to assume their roles in the market place? There is nothing which corresponds to what was said in Copenhagen.

Second, he also says that affordable day care must be available so that heads of single parent families, especially women, can work outside the home. How can a minister give such a speech in Copenhagen, and on the other hand be a minister in a government that has tabled the budget we have just seen? I think that this proves that the motion by the member for Québec is very relevant and we hope that the government will devote the necessary attention to correcting these major shortcomings in the present budget.