Albina Guarnieri

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me if I have had discussions with my constituents about the CBC in recent days. If that is the benchmark the hon. member uses simply to gauge the importance of the CBC, then there is a serious omission, if he will forgive me, in the hon. member's education.

Yes, I have had numerous discussions with my constituents about the CBC. It has been a topic of conversation recently and it has certainly been highlighted in the press. The Reform Party's view of the CBC is really the same view the Spanish trawler has of the last turbot. The Reform fantasy budget would fish the CBC into extinction. The Liberal approach offers the opportunity for the CBC to grow and thrive in a new age of broadcasting.

One reason the Liberal budget has been so well received by so many people throughout the country is that they understand our cuts are not based on some ideological vendetta against cultural communities. They are based on necessity and not on the type of philistine intolerance shown by the Reform Party of our cultural programs. Our budget is driven by a genuine necessity of concern for the programs that Liberals have built and Liberals will continue to build in the next century.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and speak on a motion from the opposition concerning significant and continuous support of the CBC by this government.

Discussions about the CBC cannot be but emotional, undoubtedly because the CBC is so dear to Canadians.

Each night Canadians tune in to CBC news to keep up to date with the new challenges facing the country and the government. As Canada's first source of public information and as a source of national pride, the CBC is acutely aware of the challenges that must be met for Canada to achieve a sustainable level of prosperity.

The CBC is Canada's largest cultural institution. It is the guardian of the Canadian experience. The voices of Canadians echo through its history and its archives. For most of this century Canadians have sought their reflection, which they found in the CBC.

Since it was founded in 1937 by the then Liberal government,the CBC has been the main instrument of the Canadian broadcasting policy. As a true reflection of our country's growth, the CBC has adjusted to the new realities with the passing decades.

Reflecting the Canadian situation at the time, the 1968 Broadcasting Act conferred a far-reaching mandate to the CBC: to broadcast everything, in fact, so as to please everybody. This

mandate was quite appropriate in 1968, since the CBC, particularly the CBC television network, was the only service many Canadians had access to in a world where broadcasting was still made through waves.

Nowadays, the conditions are drastically different. Apart from technological progress, among them the multichannel broadcasting, Canada can now rely on dynamic and innovative private producers. This means that the CBC does not have to produce all its own programs, particularly its entertainment programs. Thus, the CBC now buys about 46 per cent of its English-speaking and French-speaking programs from independent Canadian producers. These programs complete its in-house programming.

In recent years the CBC has been focusing increasingly on bringing Canadian programming to Canadians. To counter the dominance of U.S. mass culture, the CBC's primary concern has been to attract large audiences to Canadian programming. That is just what the CBC has been doing.

Witness the success of CBC productions like "Road to Avonlea", "La Petite Vie", "North of 60" and "Scoop", to name only a few. CBC programming, especially in drama, has achieved excellence over and over again.

The problems and challenges of the French language network are not those of the English-language network. Indeed, the French-language market is more limited and concentrated than the English-speaking market. This creates conditions and an industrial structure that are quite different than in English Canada. This government recognizes that these two different situations call for different policies.

The French network of the CBC has done an excellent job in Quebec, where it is very important to French-speaking viewers. The province has its own star system and many artists from Quebec are well known in all French-speaking households. The network has been a useful springboard for French-speaking artists and has contributed to the creation of a strong Franco-Canadian identity.

Not since the advent of television has the CBC been asked to accelerate its evolution to the extent that technology and finances are demanding today.

However the public must never be the missing link in the CBC's evolution. Last fall the public joined the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in its journey toward a new future for the CBC that will be more than brave new words. It will be a future that will ensure the survival of the fittest source of Canadian content, the CBC.

The road to CBC's success was paved with new definitions, new ideas and new ways of dealing with the realities of the time. The most recent exercise of this kind dates back to 1991 when one of the elements of the CBC's mandate was reaffirmed: "to contribute to a shared national consciousness and identity".

The funding provided to the CBC accounts for more than 60 per cent of the total federal funding provided to cultural organizations under the Department of Canadian Heritage. The CBC could be compared to an orchestra that provides a showcase for all the cultural instruments.

The CBC has allowed the community of Canadians to develop regionally and nationally while always being in tune with each other's concerns. The CBC can legitimately take credit for being the link that allowed the far flung communities of the second largest territory on earth to define themselves as Canadians. The CBC is the lenscrafter of Canada's vision of itself and the world. It magnifies our cultural sovereignty and helps us see our way clearly through many challenges ahead.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage thinks that the present context, characterized by all these challenges and changes, gives us an opportunity to re-evaluate the role that public broadcasting plays and must continue to play, given the increasing globalization and the existing social and economic situation.

The epicentre of the first tremor of challenge can be found in the realm of technology. Consider the multiplication of television channels which is already considerable and which satellite and digital compression are about to render astronomical.

One may ask what purpose public broadcasting serves when services and choice proliferate and the line between public and private television, once clearly defined, seems to be blurring. The response to that challenge is that the role of the public broadcaster has never been greater, nor the need for it more urgent.

These multiple choices, coming for the most part from outside Canada, will be dictated essentially by the logic of commercial television, which is different from that of public broadcasting.

If public television is to survive it is in its best interest to flaunt the characteristics that distinguish it from commercial television. It is by firming its difference that public television justifies its social values.

Public broadcasting cannot be guided solely by commercial considerations in so far as it has quite a different mission to bear witness to society's progress to affirm our national identity. The true mission and values of the CBC form the source of its appeal to many Canadians.

Public broadcasting is an instrument designed to democratize culture and information and showcase the Canadian contribution on the world stage. That is the public service in public broadcasting and one important reason why it should not be sacrificed entirely to the demands of commercial advertising.

We understand that as a public corporation facing low tide fiscally, the CBC needs to launch itself as a cultural vessel custom built for these leaner times. We are confident that CBC management will be able to navigate through uncharted waters ahead.

In the 1995 budget funding for the CBC was set at 4 per cent below previously scheduled levels. This will amount to a savings of $44 million for the coming year.

As the opposition speculates about the contents of the 1996 budget, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been hard at work laying the foundations for a stronger CBC.

We already know that important changes are taking place within the broadcasting industry. Fundamental changes beyond budget reductions and advances in technology leading toward greater diversity are expected to translate into more competition, fragmented audiences, a major investment in technology and potentially higher costs for Canadian programming.

In television the advent of digital video compression will make direct broadcast satellite distribution possible and increased capacity for cable undertakings will make the 500-channel universe a reality.

The government must ensure that the private and public Canadian broadcasting system is ready to compete at the national and international level, on the information highway and in all the mega-networks of the future.

The review by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the role of the CBC combined with the other supporting initiatives of the government, the information highway advisory council, the examination of the direct home satellite issue, the mandate review of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board and Téléfilm represent the comprehensive integrated approach that will result in sound government policy which will take Canada and Canadian cultural products successfully into the information age. The approach will allow Canadian broadcasting and Canadian culture both English and French to thrive.

As the opposition speculates about the contents of the 1996 budget the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been hard at work laying the foundation for a stronger CBC.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, it is a threat that can only be eliminated by the publication of speculative projections for the next two years.

The hon. member's motion refers to some ominous threat looming over the CBC's French language network. The motion wrongly attributes this threat to a decision of the government to publish only the precise funding level of the CBC for the coming fiscal year.

By speculating on the possible number of people that will have to be laid off by the CBC, the opposition does nothing to help the cause of our public broadcasting system and adds to the climate of uncertainty felt by employees affected by the cuts.

I would like to end on a curious note. It seems strange to me that the entire basis of the motion is the hon. member's concern over the contents of the 1996-97 federal budget which should only matter to her after the separatists lose the referendum. Her heated comments are evidence of a referendum campaign gone stone cold.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes to speculate, and they do not make very good gamblers.

Currently it is up to the CBC to determine the best way to administer its limited resources within the financial realities that exist.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Radio-Canada's management will be well able to meet this challenge. No one here underestimates the challenges facing the CBC. In the end, Canadians will continue to enjoy the high quality broadcasting the CBC is famous for.

[Education, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question under advisement.

[Cultural Sovereignty, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the question under advisement.

The hon. member will receive a reply as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oakville-Milton.

On behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage I am pleased to have the occasion to speak on the third reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Our debate has underscored the importance that the legislation be swiftly passed to establish in law the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are marrying programs that have been living together for more than a year. The departmental programs

are working well. The job of Parliament is to formalize its name and its existence, enabling the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the department staff to carry out, in a single ministry, related mandates previously held by a number of separate government departments.

In reference to why the Department of Canadian Heritage is so vital, we like to use the term synergy. We believe the combined impact of the whole of the department exceeds that of its individual parts. We believe the formation of the new department has enhanced and strengthened the effectiveness of many of its programs.

The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together important common elements of the federal government, those elements which define Canada as a multifaceted dynamic nation with a rich cultural and natural heritage.

The department is responsible for everything relating to Canadian identity and values, cultural development, heritage preservation, and areas of natural or historical significance to Canada and to Canadians, values that we share and that unite and define us.

While the discussions concerning Bill C-53 have been interesting, many of the arguments put forward against the formation of the department are fundamentally flawed.

Opposition members have tried to erect roadblocks in what should have been a routine legislative exercise. Those roadblocks were reduced to speed bumps as the necessity for the legislation became clear. It is an important and vital tool for the effective and efficient government Canadians want.

The leader of the Reform Party of Canada has argued against Bill C-53. On December 7 he spoke before the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage. He expressed the view that multiculturalism, one of the components of the new department, is the responsibility of individual private associations and, interestingly enough, where necessary lower levels of government: not the role of the federal government.

Conversely, he also stated or asserted his belief that the federal government should confine itself to combating racial, linguistic and cultural discrimination. While as usual condemning the whole program, he supports most of our multicultural activities. He is the master of contradictions.

Assisting all Canadians to participate in Canadian life and access the same rights helps them to contribute to and ultimately change society so that it reflects the lived experience of all Canadians. Yet there are always going to be individuals who will blame one identifiable group for whatever social or economic ills that disturb them.

As the government and as individual Canadians, we must recognize that understanding and respect between peoples is central to combating racism and other forms of discrimination. We have to build that awareness into our social structure at all levels of society.

At the federal level there is an important and essential leadership role to play. In its 1992 report the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated that "economic hard times and human rights make uneasy bedfellows".

Tolerance for diversity and human difference becomes diminished during times of fiscal difficulty. In times like these the temptation is to make choices: economic over equality issues. If our mandate is to create opportunity then it must be for all and not just for the privileged, well positioned and fortunate.

The criticisms of Bill C-53 voiced by the leader of the Reform Party clearly shows that his party's policies are not rooted in the life and the future of all Canadians.

The minister's multiculturalism programs support a wide variety of activities which promote the integration of first generation Canadians, irrespective of their origin, into the social, cultural, economic and political life of Canada. We all benefit from the contribution of each Canadian to the growth and development of our country.

The contribution of all Canadians is an integral part of the strength and diversity of Canadian culture. Culture is the very basis of Canadian identity and sovereignty. As a whole, the arts and our cultural industries contribute over $24 billion to the gross domestic product, and this is about 4 per cent of the GDP and 660,000 jobs. This is no accident; it is the result of the commitment and determination of successive governments, and of the enormous pool of talent in Canada. The Department of Canadian Heritage will be at the centre of government action in the area of arts and culture.

To help artists and creators even more, the heritage minister announced an amendment to Bill C-53, which would give the department significant responsibilities in matters of copyright. Copyright legislation, which determines the ownership of works of art, is vitally important to artists and the income they derive from their work. This is a most timely measure for artists and creative artists, some among whom earn the lowest wages in the Canadian economy. This is a positive, effective and efficient change.

Change is also part of the life experience of Canada's First Nations. Native culture is part of our history and our heritage, and it enriches the Canadian identity significantly. At the present time, more than a million aboriginal Canadian citizens, members of our First Nations, are at a crossroad. In 1986, Bill Erasmus, then Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said that native people would have a lot to contribute in the next century. "It is our turn", he said.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is a proud partner in this process, administering a number of important programs to support aboriginal citizens in defining and participating in addressing the social, cultural, political and economic issues affecting their lives in Canadian society.

Aboriginal peoples launch and manage the programs which are community based and include such initiatives as the aboriginal friendship centre program, the northern native broadcast access program and the aboriginal women's program, aboriginal representative organization programs.

During the whole debate on this bill, Reform Party members have also expressed their opposition to the official and legislated recognition of both official languages in Canada. Canadians support the notion of two official languages for the very simple reason that these are the languages they speak and they are attached to them. For instance, in spite of the ever present threat of assimilation, minority francophone communities have gone from barely surviving to having their vested rights recognized. There is no way back.

On the contrary, the government recently embarked on a process which is the logical and unavoidable consequence of its vision of linguistic duality and of its action in this area. This process is aimed at involving all federal institutions in the development of minority official language communities, in accordance with section 42 of the Official Languages Act.

Obviously, the Department of Canadian Heritage is not the only institution able to play a critical role in the full development of official language communities. Interdepartmental consultation will help the machinery of government to promote the development of both official language communities, in every field of activity.

Canadians are open to the reality of the country with two official languages. The Reform Party opposition is a view that a majority of Canadians do not share. Sixty-four per cent of Canadians expressed support for the policy in an April 1994 Angus Reid survey. Provincially, support ranges from 88 per cent in Quebec to 73 per cent in the Atlantic region and a solid 59 per cent in Alberta. Over all, the last 10 years have witnessed stable and solid national support which continues both in principle and practice.

In addition, if one considers on the one hand the progress of official language communities in minority situations, thanks to their determination and the commitment of government, and on the other hand the overall support of Canadians for the policy of official languages, it remains imperative to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage in law.

Under its official language promotion programs, the department encourages not only the development of official language communities throughout the country, but also the recognition and use of both official languages in Canadian society as a whole. The strenghthening of our country's linguistic duality promises to improve opportunities for all. The Reform Party members would do well to recognize and accept this reality and join Canadians in the benefits accrued by it.

I commend the member for Calgary Southwest who went to St. Jean last summer to learn French. But the question remains how the member can oppose official language funding but does not mind using official language funding.

We all know that the 1993 reorganization of government was carried out with a view to streamlining the business of government and adapting the structure of government to improve the services it provides to the public. The aim of reorganization was to establish better, more efficient and more effective government. The Department of Canadian Heritage epitomizes that type of government.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the role the Department of Canadian Heritage plays in promoting Canadian values and support the efforts of the public service.

[Forum 94, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, November 25, I had the privilege to participate in Forum 94 in Charlottetown, P.E.I.

This conference was an affirmation of the important place official language communities should have within Canada. Forum 94 has demonstrated that provincial governments can play a vital role in promoting official languages in Canada.

The Acadian community and the Government of Prince Edward Island have shown leadership at a time when the birthplace of Confederation is contributing more than ever to our sense of national identity.

Participants were able to prove that the vision of a united Canada that respects regional, linguistic and cultural differences is still firmly rooted in the birthplace of our nation.

[Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the statement made yesterday by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake regarding the potential funding scenarios to the aboriginal friendship centre program.

On behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, last Friday I met personally with the National Association of Friendship Centres and had an opportunity to listen to NAFC concerns about the program review exercise and the impact on their centres, several of which I have visited in recent months.

The federal government recognizes that the aboriginal friendship centres movement is essential to the cultural survival of native people who leave their reserves to settle, whether on a permanent or a temporary basis, in the city.

The program review exercise is a government wide initiative. The Department of Canadian Heritage as well as other federal departments will have to make decisions that will be consistent with government policies and priorities.

The Liberal government has made it one of its priorities to help communities-

[National Child Day, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, November 20, Canadians all over the country celebrated National Child Day. The Government of Canada designated this special day to pay tribute to children and everything they offer us today and in the future.

November 20 also marks the adoption, by the UN General Assembly, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention is important because it deals with every aspect of the life of children and youth. It recognizes that, to reach his full potential, a child needs to grow in a climate of happiness, love and understanding. In short, the convention provides a framework to value and respect children and youth as full-fledged human beings.

I call on members of this House to join in the celebration of children and to think about some of the more pressing issues still facing children and youth in Canada. By working together we will realize the full potential of the convention on the rights of the child.