Denis Blanchette

[Intergovernmental Relations, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about the Quebec Bridge and why it must be maintained.

A bridge that links two public roads is an infrastructure used by the public. It is used every day. More than 35,000 vehicles cross this bridge each day. Some people walk across the bridge, others take the train.

In the beginning, this bridge was built to allow trains to cross from the south shore to the north shore and vice versa. It was the last transcontinental link to be built. The federal government retained ownership of the Quebec Bridge for 75 years, from 1918 to 1993.

As for CN, which was a crown corporation at the time, it has been responsible for maintaining the bridge since 1923. The relationship between CN and the Quebec Bridge has lasted for more than 90 years. It is extraordinary and rare to see that in our country.

The Quebec Bridge is more than just a bridge. It is a postcard image for the Quebec City region. I do not know whether members are aware of this, but the bridge will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary in the very same year that Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary. This infrastructure has a long history.

Moreover, it was built using a technique that is no longer in use. It is a cantilever bridge. It is and it will forever remain the world's longest cantilever bridge. That is certain. On May 23, 1987, the bridge was declared an international historic civil engineering monument by Canadian and American engineers. That is quite something.

However, since the 1980s, we have only seen cuts to the bridge's budget and maintenance. The structure had been carefully maintained from the 1920s to the 1980s, but that is no longer the case. Rust is beginning to appear. If we stop maintaining the bridge, or if we begin to slack off, we lose control, and that is exactly what is happening. On November 22, 2005, the former auditor general was already saying that something should be done.

Who would buy a car with no paint on it, even if we were told that it is nice, well built, and safe? Would anyone buy that car?

Here is my question for the government: is paint strictly a cosmetic and heritage issue?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which gets to the heart of this debate: do we still want to share something as a people? When we talk about culture, we are talking about sharing something. Do we still want to share something? Is that what we want, or do we want everyone locked up in their own homes, in their own little world, thinking that nothing is possible, that we cannot communicate with each other, can no longer express ourselves or create?

I prefer to look at things more positively. I absolutely think we need to have spaces to communicate with each other, to express ourselves, to show our creativity and abilities and, with the help of new technologies, to share them with the whole world. That is why I am proud of an institution like the CBC.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I wonder if she is embarrassed or if she does not understand the consequences of her actions. What I am saying is very serious. I sincerely hope that what my colleague has suggested is correct. However, if she really is convinced that cutting more than $100 million from an organization, whether a public or private entity, will not have consequences or ones that do not concern her, I wonder what she is doing there.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her question.

There are two things that I think are very important. I said during my speech that this is a period of transformation and that media companies have to adapt quickly to new realities. Dwelling on ratios, as the minister suggests, is unrealistic at this time. However, the right thing to do is to work together on defining what we want from the public broadcaster and provide support for that change.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there are days when I would rather not speak in the House, and today is one of them. Why? The reason is that a Canadian institution is under attack, and those who are trying to destroy it are claiming that it is not their fault.

I would like to read part of a letter that someone sent to Radio-Canada Québec this week:

We are hoping that Radio-Canada will keep the Saturday morning radio show La musique parle hosted by Ms. Martin. We also hope that the quality of regional programming will be maintained. Here is a modest contribution to help ensure that that is the case.

The person sent a cheque to Radio-Canada. Have we gotten to that point? Have we honestly fallen that low in a country as rich as ours?

I ask that because in a country as big and diverse as ours, we need something to unite us. When I say “unite”, I mean it in the sense of communicating and hearing others talk about sports, economics, politics, current events and so on. We need to know what is happening and we need to know that people in more remote areas are not paying just because of where they live. People who speak a minority language in one part of the country should not be penalized for speaking that language. People who want to know what is happening outside our borders and who want to hear about international news must be able to get that information. That is part of CBC's mandate. There needs to be an institution that fills that role. That mandate is currently under attack.

I am always surprised to hear the government say that it loves CBC and then turn around and make cuts to the corporation. Over the course of 25 years, under both the Liberals and the Conservatives, more than 42% of CBC's budget has been slashed. It is time to be honest.

When the constituent whose letter I read to you gave an interview to the local media, he simply said that what he wants is to listen to news from his community on his public broadcaster. If cuts continue to be made, that will not be possible.

Earlier, my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry spoke about the hosts who came together to take a stand. One of them said that, for several years, Radio-Canada's budget for French-language information had been chopped by 20%. Of course that has repercussions. Do we still want a quality service? Do we still need news of each other, meaning do we still want to know what other people are doing, and vice versa? I feel that it is important. Actually, it is essential.

Of course, we have some private broadcasters who do a number of things. However, we can agree that, if a mandate is not profitable, they will not fulfill it. That is normal; they are private companies. They have to make money first and foremost, we understand that. However, for ourselves, we can provide a service that is not all that expensive.

Just now, someone from the government said that $1 billion is a lot of money. Let us forget the number, and let us look at some comparisons. A few years ago, the average contribution in western countries was $87 per person. I am including countries like Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, France, the United States and Japan. In Canada, we are down to $29 per person, one third of the average contribution. That is happening in a country that, by the way, is way bigger than a lot of others, and in which all those other countries would probably fit.

Moreover, not only do we have remote areas, we also have two cultures and two languages, among other things.

In the United Kingdom, the contribution to the BBC is $111 per capita, even under a Conservative government. Here, we are going from $34 to $29 per capita. Yes, $1 billion is a lot of money, but we have to ask ourselves, “what price our identity?” That is why we are having this debate today. It is urgent.

It is absurd to hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage say that the cuts and the firings are someone else's fault. The Conservative government has appointed the last 12 CBC directors, nine of whom are contributors to the party. I would really prefer appointments to boards of directors to be people who have nothing to do with political parties. We should have independent board members. It is essential for the management of this crown corporation to be able to meet the challenges facing it, because challenges there are.

We know that the 21st century is a century of adaptation and that new technologies are ubiquitous. We know that conventional television will have a tougher time. The government has been talking about the decline in ad revenue at the CBC, but what is it doing to help? It cuts the corporation's budget even more. There have been two budget cuts. That is not right. Does the government even want the public broadcaster? What does it want, actually? That is why I thank my colleague for moving this motion because we must discuss what we want from our public broadcaster. What service do we want it to provide?

The budget cuts are so deep that the very mission of the broadcaster is in jeopardy. That is my personal opinion. It may not be the opinion across the way. Is that what we want? Do parliamentarians from both sides of the House want CBC to stop fulfilling its mandate? I would really like to know because it is important. If that is what the Conservative government wants, then it should say so.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage says it is not her fault that hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts resulted in positions being cut. As the minister, she knows that the organization has to adapt to the cuts and that there will be consequences. This is a blatant and pathetic illustration of the fact that the Conservatives are not fit to govern. They do not know what they are doing. They do not know that their actions have consequences. They think that the CBC operates in a bubble. That is not true. It is not immune to inflation, salary increases for its employees and its other obligations.

Do we want to keep this institution? My message is clear: we must keep it.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I think there was an underlying message in his speech. There is a debate between the strong desire to control everything that happens and the desire to make it easy to vote. I think that as elected members of Parliament, it is our duty to make voting more accessible.

What does my colleague think about this dichotomy between exercising absolute control over what is done and making it easier to vote? What does he prefer?

[Petitions, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from people in Quebec City who are concerned about the practices of mining companies. They feel that the checks and balances currently in place are insufficient. They are calling for the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining.

[Quebec Bridge, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way just said that he wants to protect taxpayers' interests. The best way to do that is to start maintaining the bridge right now.

It is inevitable. The longer we wait, the more work will need to be done and the more it will cost, regardless of who is paying the bill. The responsible thing to do is not to wait until the trial ends. The responsible thing to do is to maintain the bridge and then send the bill to whoever loses the case. If the responsibility is shared, the bill should be shared.

There is a popular television series called Game of Thrones in which houses are battling for the iron throne. With the way the government is behaving in Canada today, that throne is looking pretty rusty. That is exactly what is happening.

Since the 1980s, the bridge has been left to deteriorate. It is a disaster. The bridge is part of Canadian heritage, something everyone is proud of, an image on a postcard. It must be maintained now.

[Quebec Bridge, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to point out that today is World Ovarian Cancer Day and that this week is Hunger Awareness Week.

Monday on TVA, in Quebec City, they asked the following question: Do you think that the Quebec Bridge will ever be completely repainted? Do you know the answer, Mr. Speaker? Over 2,148 people answered the question, and only 31% of them thought the bridge would be repainted someday.

The attitudes of the various parties involved in the Quebec Bridge file show a degree of cynicism on the part of the population, which those results reflect. Is the bridge destined never to be repainted, and will the matter have to go to court? I do not think so. It is always about money, about the budget. In a rich country, it all comes down to choices and priorities.

The Quebec Bridge will be celebrating its 100th anniversary just as Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary. This bridge, which will soon be 100 years old, is and will always be the world's longest cantilever bridge. Quebec should be and is proud of the bridge, and so should all Canadians. However, its sorry state has greatly tarnished its reputation. Not even the Eiffel Tower has received the accolades that have been bestowed on this bridge. It needs to be said.

For example, on May 23, 1987, Canadian and American engineers declared that it was an international historic civil engineering landmark. That is quite something. On January 24, 1996, the federal government designated it a national historic site. You would hope that with such designations, its maintenance would be routine. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The federal government owned the bridge for 75 years, from 1918 to 1993. In 1993, it was sold to CN and two years later it was privatized. I would like to remind members that CN was a crown corporation at the time and was responsible for maintenance of the bridge, as it had been since 1923. We can see that CN and the Quebec Bridge have had a 91-year relationship, as of today. That is a long time.

Unfortunately, the bridge has been systematically neglected in recent years. For example, on November 22, 2005, auditor general Sheila Fraser said that Transport Canada needed to act to ensure the long-term viability of the Quebec Bridge. In 2009, the Delcan company said that repairs, which were planned for 1994 and 1995 and were not completed, should be started in the short term, otherwise the bridge could deteriorate. This was in 2009. Nothing was done. Some important parts have become corroded, and urgent and immediate action is necessary if we want to extend the lifespan of this historic bridge. That is what people were saying in 2009, and obviously nothing was done. Another report and nothing changes.

The government has a responsibility when it comes to public safety, heritage and tourism. It needs to accept its share of the responsibility.

[Quebec Bridge, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today is the opening day of the trial that pits the federal government against Canadian National in the matter of painting the Quebec Bridge. In 2005, before he was even elected, the Prime Minister laughed at the previous Liberal government for not being able to get the bridge painted.

Nine years later, the bridge is rustier than ever and the Conservative government still has not done anything. Why does the government not get the bridge painted now instead of waiting for this interminable legal saga to end?