Simon de Jong

[Immigration, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, many of the refugees come from the poorer third world countries and do not have the means to pay the $975 tax.

Would the government not consider removing the landing fee for refugees?

[Immigration, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the parliamentary secretary to minister of immigration. The minister of immigration has stated that the new $975 right of landing fee will not discriminate against poorer immigrants and refugees because loans will be made available to them. Now we learn there is a means test and that the ability to repay the loan will be assessed before a loan is granted.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what will happen to refugees? I remind the government that refugees do not choose to abandon their homes, they are forced to. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what plans the government has to assist refugees who do not meet the loan criteria?

[Immigration, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, among the many Canadian traditions lost by the wayside in the Liberal budget was the tradition of fairness.

The new $975 fee imposed on every new immigrant and refugee plus the existing fees will mean that a family of four will need to pay $3,150 just to get into the country. This new form of head tax will be a particular burden to immigrants and refugees from poorer countries with low average incomes.

Canada needs new immigrants if it is to maintain its population and economic base. Studies show that immigrants put more money into the Canadian treasury in taxes than they take out in services.

The government with this new discriminatory tax has created a major obstacle for the newly arrived. Where is the fairness? Where is the humanity?

No one denies the need to deal with the debt that former Liberal and Conservative governments have created, but surely we can have a leaner government without it becoming a meaner government.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate. While I agree with much of what the motion before us states, I must also hasten to add that I agree with the amendment introduced by the Reform Party that would strike out the words after the phrase "for the next three years".

I must chide the Bloc members. As the official opposition they must also concern themselves with the whole country. The government has done a disservice to the CBC not just in Quebec but to the CBC and public broadcasting across this country. Therefore, I hope the amendment introduced by the Reform Party will be accepted by the House so we can vote in favour of the whole opposition motion.

The need for public broadcasting like that of the CBC is greater today than ever before. Both government members and Bloc members have mentioned this. Reform Party members have basically spoken against the CBC suggesting that it should be privatized and sold. I find them to be a bit sinister or really naive.

Historically, every political party in Canada, whether from the left or the right have agreed there is a need for the state to intervene and to play an activist role in order to maintain a sense of national identity and a sense of cultural identity. The reality of a small, populated country like Canada living next to a very large, dynamic country like the United States means that if we are going to maintain a sense of who we are, we are going to have to do something in a collective way.

As I have mentioned before, all the political parties, whether it was the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party or the old Social Credit Party, whether they were parties to the left or the right, have agreed on this basic premise, except of course for the Reform Party. That is why I wonder whether the Reform Party really understands the national interest in this sense or whether it is naivety or sinister intent.

If we did not have institutions such as the CBC, if we did not have a more interventionist government policy when it came to cultural issues, imagine what Canada would be like. Imagine what Canada would be like if we did not have the CBC. We would be totally Americanized. We would not have the jobs. We would not have the ability of Canadians to hear and see each other.

It is in the national interest to maintain a strong Canadian cultural policy and a cultural identity so that we as citizens can hear and see each other. To let the market decide in the way the Reform Party advocates is doing a disservice to the country because we will not be able to hear and see each other.

Market forces will operate and market forces are such that it is cheaper to have an American program on television during prime time than it is to have a Canadian program. The economics are such that it does not make any sense in terms of profit to have and produce Canadian programs. I would think that Reform members would understand that.

Let us turn to the record of this government. It has not been a good one when it comes to cultural matters. It started off with Ginn publishing. It has the inability or lack of desire to stand up for Canadian publishing companies to ensure they remain in the hands of Canadians so that Canadian writers will have their works published.

Then we come to the budget. The minister of heritage had given public assurance to the CBC that its funding would not be cut, that it would have stable funding for the next three years. Despite that fact, lo and behold on budget night we realized, it realized and the country realized the dimension of the cuts.

It is now obvious from the budget that the CBC cannot carry out its legislated mandate. The government and the minister particularly have done a disservice by giving a false sense of security to public broadcasting and the CBC by stating that its funding would be assured for the next three years. It gave public broadcasting in this country that assurance. It was a false assurance and the government and the minister have done a disservice.

Instead of the government thinking through what type of new public broadcasting should be initiated before it announces cuts, it instead has done the whole thing backward. It has announced cuts and who knows, maybe more will be coming. Rumour has it that we might see a budget this coming fall with more cuts.

Rather than having a vision as to what a new form of public broadcasting should mean in Canada and how we can get the resources together to fulfil that, the government starts from the opposite direction. It decides how much it is going to cut and then lets the pieces fall where and how they may. That is not careful planning. It is not smart management. It is mismanagement. It is running the terrible danger of public broadcasting destroying itself in this country.

The reform and changes government members talk about occurring out of blind cuts and slashes rather than something that is being done in an intelligent manner are now occurring within the CBC. The debate within the CBC now is whether it can adjust to the cuts other than just by cutting and cutting or by starting first to rethink what public broadcasting can and should be and then working from the ground up.

In other words, the government is starting in the wrong direction and in the wrong way. Rather than rethinking things through and starting from the bottom and working up, it is jumping in with cuts and cuts. It is not thinking through what those cuts will mean and how they will be implemented. There is no blueprint, no vision about what public broadcasting should be.

I do not have much time in this debate but I would like to put on record some of my suggestions and my vision of what public broadcasting should be.

It should start from the ground up. The regions and regional broadcasting should be the heart and core of public broadcasting. I would be furious if all the cuts were done at the regional

level and the head office was not touched at all. I am critical of past CBC cuts for not attacking the head office and instead attacking the regions as was done in the 1980s.

I think we all agree and I think the people within the CBC also agree that the head office remains bloated. It does not need the hundreds and hundreds of people in the financial section. I believe there are 200 people dealing with the relationship of the CBC, the CRTC and the government. It can be much meaner and leaner on that level.

The CBC has to be based on the regions, the alliances and the networking in which producers, creators and reporters can work at the regional and local community level. The national system should be an alliance, a bringing together of the different regions forming a national system.

The internal relations between management and employees have to change. They are changing. It is already happening. It has to be accelerated. Sitting in on the committee, I heard some very positive things of what the CBC is doing.

For example in Windsor, a station that was shut down, the CBC and the employees got together and said: "Okay, let us reopen this". It is operated in an entirely different way. Producers, technicians, reporters and performers are all working together in a non-adversarial, non-hierarchical way. Lo and behold, even the reporter or the producer will carry the camera, or plug in the lights. There is not a strict code that differentiates the jobs that the different unions and the different technicians and people do. It is a whole different way of operating a station.

I understand this is working well and it is exciting. It is a way the new creative juices can flow. That is exciting. As I see a reformed public broadcasting and a reformed CBC, I would like to see the winds of experiment done all across the country.

In the same vein, another point I would like to bring forward is a more syndicalist approach as a solution to the problems of the CBC. I know in the first round of cuts in the 1980s the CBC shut down the Saskatoon station. I understand that the employees in Saskatoon wanted to run the station. They tried to buy the equipment to run the CBC station in Saskatoon themselves.

This should be highly encouraged. The workers within the CBC should have the ultimate control, not some hierarchy in head office in Ottawa or Toronto. It is the local actors, the local producers, the local reporters, the local technicians working together in a co-operative way operating our television and radio stations. A more syndicalist approach is what I would advocate as a model for the CBC to seriously consider.

In closing, I must mention my disappointment with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I am an associate member and not a full time member on the committee. This committee has been meeting since last fall and it still has not tackled the fundamental issues. It keeps going around in circles. Part of the problem is that this government has no sense of leadership and no vision to present to the committee.

If anything, I would tend to think that the government members on that committee are more divided among themselves as to what direction public broadcasting should be going in. There is no understanding that the degree of cuts the CBC is facing will necessitate a total change in the mandates. We have not had a discussion in terms of seriously looking at the mandates. I would tend to think that much of the work the committee has done has now been made obsolete by the speech the Minister of Finance delivered on budget day. We have to go back to square one and look at what the legislated mandate of the CBC is and start from there.

The government's lack of vision and lack of direction when it comes to public broadcasting is doing a disservice to the CBC. This government is being driven by the finance department, not that we do not have a serious problem when it comes to debt and deficits. Politics in Canada will be defined in terms of how different political parties propose to deal with the debt and deficit.

This government's reaction to public broadcasting is not a wise one. It is not an intelligent one. It is not one that has been thought through. It is being driven by the finance department. In the end, it might cost Canada even more money or loss of the resources we have built up over the years in our public broadcasting system.

Hopefully, the House will accept the amendment of the Reform Party and that we will be able therefore to support the motion as presented to us by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to other government members talk about the importance of the CBC and what great friends they are of the CBC. With the government and its members having

introduced a budget that severely cuts the CBC, one could say that with friends like that who needs enemies.

I listened particularly to the member talk about the need to reform, the need for a new CBC and how the reform should take place in a co-operative way. I agree that there are new realities, modern realities and a need for change, but I would like to ask the member: Is the government not going at this a little backward?

Before introducing cuts and changes to the budget, it has to first think through where it wants to see the CBC end up. Everybody agrees that with the cuts the CBC cannot fulfil its legislative mandate.

Why has the government not first thought through what type of public broadcasting it wants before it introduced the cuts? Could government members explain what the CBC should be like with these cuts? What is the vision of the member and the government of a new "reformed CBC"?

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I also wish to speak on Bill C-57. I wish to point out that as New Democrats we are not against free trade per se. We are in favour of a genuinely free trade on a level

playing field. NAFTA, the free trade agreement and Bill C-57 do not lend themselves to a level playing field.

The example the Europeans have with the European community is more to our liking as an example of where there is genuine free trade. The Europeans not only recognize that to bring down the customs barriers and allow the freer trade it is not just economics that are involved but also the social, environmental and labour standards.

They have made certain that countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece that have traditionally low social, environmental and labour programs have implemented policies to raise them up so that there is a level playing field. All the industries from Holland, France and Germany do not go down into cheap labour countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece. In other words, care and attention was given to implementing their free trade agreements. That is basically what we seek as well, a genuine playing field, to raise the bottom up rather than to bring the top down to the bottom.

Canadian workers will suffer and government revenues will suffer. What we are entering into is a global trading pattern in which industries will find and locate where labour is cheapest. They will be able to get the resources at the cheapest possible price and locate their head offices where they pay the least amount of tax. It is smart business. If you were in business that is how you would set up your business arrangements. You would make certain that your natural resources were going to cost the least, that your labour would cost the least and that you would pay the least amount of tax. That is logical.

These agreements are allowing them to escape any social responsibility, any economic responsibility to nation states.

Here we are living in a period in the evolution of the human race when through technological changes we can produce an abundance such as the human race has never seen before. Yet countries like Canada and the United States are declining further and further into poverty, into nations where there are fewer resources and less wealth to share and for their citizens to enjoy.

We are seeing decreases in our standard of living in the midst of plenty. Is it not because of the way our economy is structured? The wealth that is produced is not being distributed. Large corporations are escaping their social responsibilities by locating their head offices offshore, which is allowed under these agreements, and so government revenues are declining. The nation states and the sovereignty and the sovereign power of the nation state are slowly eroding.

That is why I am amazed to see the Bloc supporting this. By supporting this, even if Quebec-I hope it will not, and I suspect it will not-succeeds in establishing itself as a nation, by the time it gets there it will find that the nation will not have any power left at all. It will all have been given away through these trade agreements.

We are talking about, this little corner of this House, the only voice of opposition to this massive change, is how we as a country and how our economy operates and how we regulate ourselves in the sources of revenue and jobs and wealth. What we are objecting to is the unfairness of it, how these trade agreements will benefit the few at the expense of the many, how as a country and as a sovereign nation we will suffer and we will decline.

I implore the government, which paid lip service when it was in opposition and opposed NAFTA and the free trade agreement, which now seems to embrace these agreements, to maintain some social conscience, to demand that this government moves to implement into these free trade agreements social, environmental and labour components; to make certain that there is a genuine level playing field, to make certain that the progressive and historic gains that we have made in this country in our economy, in our wealth, are maintained and protected rather than being drawn down to the lowest common denominator.

I appeal to the genuine Liberals to exert the influence in their caucus and on their government to make certain that the Government of Canada stands up for the workers and the ordinary people of Canada, not to sell them down the river like the previous Tory governments have done.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to press reports the government is seriously considering selling off CBC television stations.

Despite the promises made in the Liberal red book to support the CBC and the fact that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is presently examining CBC financing, cabinet is debating a plan to radically change public broadcasting in Canada.

The CBC has been and is an essential instrument that allows Canadians to see and hear each other and to develop their own cultural identity. Is what the cabinet is debating the first step to privatize the CBC and to kill public broadcasting? By selling off the CBC TV stations what channel will Canadians be able to tune into to see Canadian programs?

In this age of the 500 channel universe and other rapid technological innovations, there might come the time to deliver public broadcasting through new methods like the telephone companies. However, that time is not now.

I concur with the chairman of the CRTC who stated before the Canadian heritage committee: "Give-

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister.

In this age of government cutbacks and free trade agreements and rapid technological change Canada needs a strong minister to protect and promote our cultural heritage.

This latest mistake, as the Prime Minister described the actions of the minister of heritage, is further proof of an alarming incompetence by the minister and his office.

Will the Prime Minister ask the minister of heritage to do the honourable thing and resign?

[Petitions, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by over 400 people from Balgonie, Saskatchewan in my constituency.

The petitioners point out that the present Prime Minister in a letter dated August 1993 to Rural Dignity of Canada stated that the Liberal party had "vigorously spoken out against Canada Post's plans to close or convert existing post offices and that the Liberal Party viewed the closure and the conversion as a deterioration of services to the public resulting in poorer service, lower wages for employees and greater difficulty in guaranteeing the security of the mail".

The petitioners ask that a full corporate post office be reinstated in the town of Balgonie which is a growing and progressive community, and they want a full time postmaster.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join the debate today. Bill C-53 is an important bill because it establishes a very important department, the Department of Canadian Heritage. Yet I am afraid I will have to vote against the motion and the bill in front of us.

May I hasten to add for entirely different reasons than the reasons I have heard from both opposition parties today that I cannot accept the arguments put forward by members of the Bloc. There is a need in Quebec and in other parts of Canada for a cultural presence by the federal government. I think the first people to recognize that would be the artists in Quebec.

The artists in Quebec would abhor just having to depend upon the Quebec government. Just having to depend upon one source of support and assistance in the arts is not in the interests of the artists. All too often they have found in terms of past governments, and I suspect the present government as well, that the political agenda of the provincial government is at variance with the artistic interests of the artists.

Artists in Quebec also want to have the federal government, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, the SRC, all the federal cultural institutions. They also want them. I am not surprised by the objections raised by the Reform Party though I am saddened by them. Surely they also must recognize that cultural institutions are really what define the people in a nation.

Our cultural institutions help define what Canada is. They allow us to be able to see and hear and listen to other Canadians without the intervention of the government. Surely the Reform members are not so naive to assume that if you just leave it to market forces Canadian culture would be totally swamped by American culture. The economics would dictate that. Surely it is a naive belief in saying the federal government should get out of this area. They will do as much damage as what the Bloc is doing to the well-being and the maintenance of this country. Once you destroy the cultural identity you have destroyed this country. In this way the Bloc and the Reform are indeed in cahoots and working well together in that.

May I quote quite an excellent article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on May 8, 1994, by Michael Valpy. Why, indeed, maintain a multibillion dollar military establishment-when what is under attack in Canada is largely militarily indefensible; the alien control of our commerce, our resources, our jobs, our entertainment, publishing and other forms of communications''. Mr. Valpy was discussing a paper that was written by University of Toronto political scientist Franklyn Griffiths. He quotes Mr. Griffiths and this is the quote I wish to put on the record:The state of our cultural life'', he writes, ``is now of greater importance than the state of our armed forces in determining our ability to make choices for ourselves in a world where military challenges to our country have diminished relative to non-military or civil dangers''.

Again, I wish to agree with Valpy's thesis which is that the attack on Canada as a nation is really more in terms of non-military areas like our cultural sense of identity and sense of who we are.

I oppose this bill because this government's record in this area has been dismal. We have a weak minister and a weak department. It was referred to by members of the Bloc when they expressed their concern about issues like copyright and as well questions concerning the information highway, whether it is the ministry of industry or the ministry of heritage that is really in control.

I suspect it is the ministry of industry rather than the ministry of Canadian heritage. We have a weak department and a weak minister. The Canadian cultural institutions and values are not being well protected.

The other reason why I would have to oppose this bill is that the government as well as the previous government when it signed the FTA and the NAFTA continued to refuse to release the documents both on the FTA and the NAFTA on cultural discussions. We really do not know yet what is allowed and what is not allowed under the free trade agreement and under the NAFTA. How can we operate in terms of defining, strengthening and protecting Canadian cultural institutions when the public and as well those cultural institutions do not know what has been given away? How can we continue?

Historically in this House all political parties have supported the notion that the federal government has a role to play in our cultural institutions. That is why Conservatives started the CBC as well as Liberals, generally supported by New Democrats or the CCF, even the Social Credit Party when it had members in this House.

There was a recognition by those who are part of the English culture part of Canada, standing so close to the American border with its dynamic and very powerful cultural industries, that

unless we had an interventionist government, unless we followed something other than just market forces, our cultural identity as a country would be swamped.

There is a belief that all political parties in this House have traditionally agreed to, that as Canadians we have some identity, some values as Canadians that are unique, that are important and that are worth preserving. This is our contribution to the civilization of the human race.

It is worth the money we invest there. Without that investment, the Canadian cultural identity would disappear and then one has to once again ask oneself: "What do we have as a country?" We might as well then join the United States.

There is another important reason that I wish to mention in my remarks in terms of the importance of Canadian cultural industry. It creates jobs, many jobs. There are more jobs in the cultural sector than in fishery or in forestry. It is also a source of foreign earnings.

I hear members of the Reform Party talk about our taxpayers. Yes, indeed, taxpayers' dollars are involved but artists also create tax revenue. There was a study that was done in Toronto in the spring of 1993 which showed that the cutbacks in the Canada Council in fact decreased government revenues greater than the cutbacks.

They went through numerous performing companies after the cutbacks of their support by the Canada Council. They determined how many musicians were laid off, how many productions did not occur. Those performers, musicians, artists, actors and actresses were no longer working, were taking UI or welfare and were no longer paying taxes.

There was the loss of tax revenues from the loss of admission tickets. They found in this study that the government lost more money through revenue loss than had it continued to support the arts the way they it had formerly done.

I am also concerned, very much so, with our deficit. There is a need as well for wise spending and for trimming government expenditures. Let us do it with intelligence because in some areas when one cuts one will create more harm and there will be a greater loss of revenue than the money one will save from the cuts in those areas.

In conclusion I wish to restate that it is with sadness that I cannot support Bill C-53 because of the reasons that I have stated in my speech.