Jim Abbott

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member would want us to seek input and ask questions to find out where we should be going in the minds of the people in Canada and the people in the industry.

Surely the member would recognize that it was January 23 that the government took over after 13 years of Liberal government. I believe that he is referring to the failed policies of the Liberal government and certainly not to ours because we are still in the process of developing what is going to be best for Canadians, Canadian content and the Canadian industry.

I do not think we are diametrically opposed to where the member is, but he must recognize the fact that the Conservative government is going to put its stamp in a very progressive way on this aspect of Canadian culture. We are in the process of developing that and I think he will be quite pleased when he sees the final result which will be in a matter of a very short period of time in the future.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is very well aware of the so-called industrial production. This would be production for American producers in particular coming into Canada where we are looking at $10 million, $50 million or $100 million projects. That keeps the production facilities. That keeps the technicians at a very high rate of employment. There are dips and there are excesses, but that side of the industry is healthy.

I am inclined to agree with the member with respect to the question of ensuring that we have a place for Canadians in the Canadian industry. We have to be flexible. If the member were to take a look at our budget, he would not see the doom and gloom that had been forecast by some people, perhaps not by him but some people in his party, as to what we would be doing.

We are very much aware of the fact that Canadians have a place in Canadian production and certainly in Canadian broadcasting.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I rise today to address the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. Before I do that, I reflect on the fact that this is the fifth time I have had the privilege of being the member for Kootenay—Columbia. I thank the people in my constituency for their continued confidence and commit to everybody, whether they voted for me or not, that I am their member of Parliament and I will reflect their views and their wishes in this chamber.

As I have also suggested on another occasion, Mr. Speaker, I think you look just fine in that chair. It is a job well overdue.

I cannot support the motion for a number of reasons, but since I only have 10 minutes to speak, let me concentrate on its potential effect on one of Canada's most important cultural industries, broadcasting.

The member's motion fails to consider the pace of technological change faced by broadcasting. The pace of change is bewildering, everything from TV on our cellphones to digital satellite radio. I suggest that the challenges and the changes are probably only restricted by the size of our imagination.

The government is committed to addressing those changes, but to do so, we need to develop a new policy framework. I cannot say exactly what the framework would look like and neither could the member opposite. The government is committed to work with the industry, the producers of television, radio and the people of Canada to develop those solutions.

There are many good ideas on these new challenges and the motion would slam the door on most of them. Just because something may have worked in the past, there is no guarantee that it will continue to work in the future.

Make no mistake, the government will not abandon Canadian content requirements, restriction on foreign ownership or financial support for the public broadcaster. We will keep those tools ready, but we will use them when appropriate. None of them are a complete solution to the challenges we face in the broadcasting sector. This is the essence of good public policy: consider the issues and adopt focused measures, a lesson the former government could have learned.

The motion seeks to deny the government the freedom to adapt those new policies or to modify old ones. I consider it an irresponsible motion. While I am prepared to accept he is an honourable gentleman, as I want to be, he probably did not have any intent for it to be irresponsible. The fact is, it ends up trying to paint the government as somehow being un-Canadian.

He protested a couple of minutes ago that the debate should be above politics. The motion basically attempts to create the impression that somehow the Conservative Party is un-Canadian and that it is not committed to cultural options. I will not take any lessons from the member on how to protect Canadian culture.

The motion talks about ensuring or expanding funding for the CBC. Where was the member when the government, led by his party, slashed the funding for the CBC in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998? Where was he when his party presided over a government that denied the CBC stability in the years since then?

It is truly sad that the member tries to pose as a friend of the CBC when his own party failed to deliver stable funding to the CBC, even when the stable funding was supposedly part of his election platform. Again, we are faced with the meaning of Liberal promises: much committed; little delivered.

The government will not be bound to fund the CBC at any level, especially in light of the fact we are about to undertake a review of the CBC`s mandate. The kind of commitment contained in the motion will not allow the CBC to develop a strategic plan. The government will ensure that the CBC breaks out of the cycle of short term plans that it has been locked into for the past decade by the former Liberal government. Based on a mandate review, we will ensure the corporation plans ahead and then we would deliver the appropriate support.

The government is committed to provide the needed funding for the CBC. In the last days I think we have shown we keep our commitments.

We will go further than simply promising cash to the CBC. We want to ensure it is truly working as a public broadcaster. We intend to ensure that not only does the CBC continue to exist. We want to ensure that it is genuinely relevant to Canadians. A public broadcaster that does not have the support of the public cannot be called a success.

With respect to commercial radio, there is no doubt that Canada's broadcasting sector is healthy. We know the numbers. There are more than 750 radio and television stations delivering news, entertainment and information to Canadians. Those stations use conventional signals, cable and satellites to get their programming into Canadian homes and as stated earlier, there are many more new, technological advances and challenges that are facing that industry.

In that respect the distribution networks are changing and changing dramatically. TV over the Internet is not with us yet, but I would be prepared to guess that it is only just very likely around the corner. If this motion were to pass, it would deny the government the tools needed to face that challenge. New solutions will be needed to solve these new problems and this motion denies the government the freedom. It puts us in handcuffs.

Much more is at stake than simply Canadian government policy. The industry employs thousands of Canadians and generates some $11.5 billion in economic activity each year. The opposition motion would jeopardize all that just to make a political point in the House.

The hundreds of broadcasters who make the industry vital know that we have to develop new business plans and strategies to ensure future success. I would advise the hon. members opposite to take the example of the broadcasters and to withdraw this backward motion.

The best way to ensure that there is Canadian content on the airwaves is not solely through regulation, though regulation has its part. It is through ensuring there is a vital broadcasting system. The government believes in finding a place for Canadian voices on the airwaves and we believe those voices must be heard.

However, there is also a place for healthy competition on the airwaves. We do not believe in monopolies. We believe in necessary government regulation, but we do not believe that all regulation is a good thing. We want to encourage Canadian talent so that it wins a place on the world's airwaves.

We will invest in artists to ensure that they can reach a level of excellence that sees the world coming to their doors. Canadians will have more choices in the future. Technological change makes that almost certain. We cannot simply pass a motion today that would ensure a significant number of those choices would be Canadian.

The government is committed to a strong Canadian broadcasting system which is why I cannot support this motion. It sounds like a proposal that will help Canadian broadcasters and cultures, but in reality it denies the government the tools it needs to develop the policies that will take our broadcasters to new levels of success.

Canadians always rise to the challenge. Canadians always succeed when they are challenged, and we want to maintain an open door for Canadians to succeed, not be tied down and handcuffed with a motion such as the member has proposed.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments about UNESCO. When we were on opposite sides of the House and as members of the heritage committee, he may recall that I was very supportive of the work Sheila Copps did with respect to the instrument, which was ultimately negotiated.

He also will know that the Conservative Party supports the convention on protection and promotion of diversity in cultural expression. Our Prime Minister has worked very hard to ensure that Quebec has a particular place in the world with respect to UNESCO.

I have a comment and I would like his input on this. The Liberals believe that the thought of having Quebec play a role at UNESCO is a threat to Canada's very existence. Would he challenge that or does he agree with it? We know the Bloc believes that unless Quebec can veto Canada's position at UNESCO, then it is not effective. Those seem to be the two polar opposites, the two extremes.

I recognize the Liberals are currently without a leader so I do not know what their policy might be on this. Therefore, it will likely be that member's opinion on this. What is his attitude toward the statement that the Liberals believe that having Quebec play a role at UNESCO is a threat to Canada's very existence? Does the member agree with that statement?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act states that CBC Radio-Canada should only act with the highest standards and integrity and, from the Broadcasting Act, to contribute to a shared national consciousness and identity.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are aware of some of the comments that have been made by Mr. Fournier but CBC is a crown corporation. It acts at arm's length from the government. The government does not interfere with its internal operations.

[Mine Disaster, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, I would like to express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the four people who died on May 17 at the Sullivan mine: Doug Erickson, Bob Newcombe, Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier.

Today, as emergency responders from across Canada gather together in Kimberley for a memorial service, I would like to pay special tribute to the contributions and sacrifices made by both professional and volunteer emergency responders who fulfill an essential need in our community. There are over 3,000 paramedics serving in British Columbia, including the 15 who service the people of our region.

I would like to express my gratitude and that of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, and of all Canadians, for the sacrifices made by paramedics and all other responders who provide emergency services. Their devotion to the good of their communities is deeply appreciated.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must say to my friend across the aisle that I have a very high regard for her and therefore I know she says these things with sincerity, but I still have to ask this question.

When she says that we raised the taxes for lower and middle income Canadians, I wonder if she would not agree that although in fact where the Liberals had promised a particular rate, that rate had not hit that point, and that we are at a difference of one-half of one per cent on the lowest rate. I wonder if she would not take into account the $1,000 employment allowance. I wonder if she would not take into account the trades benefits that are in our plan.

I wonder if she would not take into account the $1,200 that is payable to a parent of children under six years of age, which is payable entirely without tax if that person is earning no income. In other words, taking a look at that plus the GST rollback for people who are in the lowest possible range of income, who are just barely getting by to a point of not even being able to pay tax, can she not understand that in fact they are significantly better off as a result of the Conservative budget?

My second question is with respect to Kelowna. I wonder how she feels about the fact that on the Kelowna agreement there was absolutely no discussion and no part in that agreement for 50% of the aboriginal Canadians, that 50% of aboriginal Canadians who are not on reserve, those urban people who are in an urban situation. There was absolutely no place for that. It was a very wonderfully crafted show, but it did not really have the substance. We are going to be working on the substance.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the member might take up the issue of the 36 hours and the debate with the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP, who all agreed, in consultation with the Prime Minister, that this debate take place. That is where the problem with the 36 hours before the debate lies, if he wants to know where.

Second, he talks about the fact that this is a unilateral decision. May I remind the member that it was only through this new Prime Minister, who said that he was going to bring these issues before this House so that the House could express an opinion, that we are here to give advice? The right to make this decision continues to belong to the Prime Minister of Canada. He has come to this House to take advice from this House.

I must say that I am unbelievably disappointed in this member, who was a part of the cabinet that made the unilateral decision in the first place to send our soldiers and our humanitarian workers into Afghanistan, into harm's way. How can he possibly stand and talk about a principled decision when in the first place he was part of the decision that was done behind closed doors?

At least our current Prime Minister is prepared to come before the people of Canada and show up the kind of hypocrisy that there is on that side of the House.

[May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this probably underlines the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. From a Liberal's perspective, if it is not taxpayers' dollars that are going out to fund particular organizations, then what in the world are we going to do.

The attitude of myself and my Conservative fellows is very simply that we have to engage more people in the support of arts, artists and art organizations. We can get them more involved by getting them more involved financially and building a pool of up to $300 million. By building that pool, we not only have the cash resources, but we also have the involvement of the people who are actually making those contributions.

This means that the arts community and cultural industries will thrive as a result of the further engagement of the individuals rather than always going back to the tax trough where the Liberals consistently want to derive their money.