Jim Abbott

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, on May 26, 2003, the 37th Parliament gave direction to the government to express its support for the admission of Taiwan as an observer to the World Health Organization and called upon the government to actively engage other member states and non-governmental organizations to support this goal. That was an explicit direction from the House with a vote of 163 to 67. The majority of Liberal members present at that vote supported the motion, yet when the government dealt with this issue at the WHA a year later, it did not follow Parliament's instruction. Why?

The United Nations established the World Health Organization in 1948. The WHO's stated goal is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. The 1999 Taiwan earthquake initially energized the Taiwan WHO campaign. More than 2,400 people perished in the disaster and roughly 10,000 people were injured. The earthquakes also left some 100,000 of the island's inhabitants homeless.

The outbreak of SARS in Taiwan in March 2003 re-energized the WHO drive because authorities in Beijing, who had allowed the virus to fester while they covered up the extent of the infection for months, initially blocked all efforts by Taiwan to secure assistance from the WHO.

As had happened after the 1999 earthquake, the PRC insisted that all aid must be filtered through the Chinese bureaucracy and suggested that Taipei, in turn, turn to its government, its central government they call it, for assistance. Two months after the initial outbreak, Beijing finally relented and grudgingly agreed to permit the WHO to send a team to Taiwan to investigate the island's deteriorating SARS situation.

We should note that Taiwan seeks only to join the WHO as an observer. The Holy See, Palestine, Sovereign Military Order for Malta, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies all enjoy observer status. Taipei is willing to sidestep the thorny statehood issue by applying as a health entity.

Clearly the approved motions of Canada's Parliament do not interfere with Canada's one-China policy but the House has already dealt with this information and passed judgment with 70% of the members voting to instruct the government to urge other WHO member states and non-governmental organizations to admit Taiwan as an observer to the World Health Organization. Canada's Senate also voted in favour of an identical motion. I restate that both chambers of Canada's Parliament spoke unequivocally and the government wilfully ignored explicit direction by Canadian parliamentarians.

In response to my question on October 12, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered:

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Parliament express itself. The government has to take its responsibilities and govern the country. This is exactly the kind of democracy we have.

Really? Well what kind of democracy do we have? What is the point of parliamentarians speaking wilfully to a deaf cabinet?

We know PRC officials argue that Taiwan cannot join the WHO because it is not a state, which of course is a specious argument because Taiwan is not seeking to join the WHO as a state. It seeks only to participate as a health entity. Consequently, Beijing's opposition on these grounds makes no sense.

What is it going to take for the Canadian government to reject the bullying by Beijing and reflect the will of Canadian parliamentarians?

[Canada Border Services Agency, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, at the same remote border crossing in my constituency where a customs officer died alone on duty, another officer was left alone this week.

An alarm system was broken and the communications network was inoperative. Her supervisor, who was supposed to be backing up the officer, was not answering the phone and, unknown to her while she was on duty, a violent felon was rumoured to be approaching the border.

Why is the government imperilling the lives of our border officers and Canadian security by not giving them the tools to do the job?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, referring back to “Our Cultural Sovereignty”, which I started with, recommendations 19.1 and 19.2, which the minister co-authored, recommended the creation of “a department of communications, responsible for broadcasting, telecommunications and the cultural industries”, yet we do not see it anywhere on the horizon. The point is that Bill C-18 is a warm-up of 20 year old legislation for Telefilm Canada. Why do we not see this on the horizon? What are we waiting for? What is the minister waiting for? Is she in charge of this department or not?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, through the Tomorrow Starts Today initiative, the government created incentives to the private sector to donate to the endowments of arts organizations. It is part of the arts and heritage sustainability program. Raising capital and creating endowments give these organizations a greater capacity for their mandates by supporting their long term stability. It also invites active involvement from the private sector in the cultural affairs of the community, which is exactly what is needed for the museum sector.

However, Canadian museums, that are working hard to attract both public and private sector support, are not included in the program. Could the minister comment on why museums should be ineligible for this program?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I did not quite understand the minister's answer. I asked, why is she so willing to talk about cuts to museums? I understand she has many things in her envelope, but why is she so willing to talk about cuts to museums? They are our heritage.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, on November 10, 2004, the minister is quoted in Le Devoir as saying that cutting public support to museums across Canada is easier than cutting funds to broadcasters. I wonder why she says we must act now because our cultural heritage is disappearing, and yet she seems to have given up according to that report that we have. Given the Auditor General's call for immediate action, how could the minister be so willing to cut support to museums?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the minister would know, at least she should know, that there were some sections of the report that I objected to. This was not one of them. We want the CBC to be accountable.

Recommendation 8.5 referred to part II licensing fees being eliminated or reduced. It is noteworthy that in February 2004 the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations had all party support that the part II fees should be eliminated. Why has the department not done something about part II fees since February 2004?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, in recommendation 6.3 the committee recommended that the CBC deliver a strategic plan with an estimated resource requirement to Parliament within one year of tabling of this report on how this would fulfill its public mandate. The report was tabled in June 2003. This is November 2004. Where is the report?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre-North and the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I will only be asking questions. The minister of course would recognize this document that we worked on together. Does she still agree with the recommendations that were made in this document that she co-authored?

[Telefilm Canada Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. This being my first occasion to speak in the House, I would like to thank the electors of Kootenay—Columbia for expressing their confidence in me and returning me for the fourth time. The people of Kootenay—Columbia obviously have great taste.

In the last couple of Parliaments I have had the privilege of serving in the capacity of the heritage critic for the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance and now, of course, we are the Conservative Party. Many of our policies and attitudes have rolled forward. We have stayed true to where we are coming from on questions like this, particularly as it relates to Telefilm Canada.

The question that has been raised by my colleague from Edmonton about the fact that this is an overdue bill is very clear. The point that this is in fact 20 years overdue should be underlined. As was written in our dissenting opinion on the review of Canadian broadcasting, it states:

New technological developments have created an environment giving Canadians access to more radio and television choices than ever before. More options mean audiences for any one channel are smaller than 10 years ago.

Broadcasting companies have responded to the challenge of audience fragmentation with a number of strategies. Some are attempting to become media conglomerates. Others are attempting to assemble a broad base of customers through cross media ownership. No one knows how successful either of these initiatives will be.

The Conservative Party is convinced that the next 10 years will offer incredible opportunities.

Clearly, what we are dealing with here, as has been described, is a housekeeping bill that is absolutely essential.

However, unlike my friend from Toronto who spoke earlier, I have perhaps a little bit more pragmatic approach to what we can actually do in terms of Canadian content. I look at Telefilm Canada as being an opportunity to move forward the whole issue of Canadian content and to respect Canadian content, but then I first have to ask whether we have ever actually sat down and defined what Canadian content is.

The second question I have, after we go through the exercise of determining what Canadian content is, is how practical are the ways that we are trying to direct Canadian content by Telefilm Canada by the other funding agencies and the funding directions that we have within our system?

The current system designed to promote Canadian content is cumbersome and inefficient. The witnesses' testimony in the review that we did about the problems with the existing structure for defining and supporting Canadian content were well described in chapter 5 of our cultural sovereignty. Obviously the creation of original Canadian programming is important but the impossible question consistently eluding an answer is, who judges what is Canadian. This has led to unaccountable bureaucracies enforcing vague definitions of Canadian content. This results in an unproductive dampening of creative innovation.

I notice that the bill is good in terms of its technical support for Telefilm Canada and it is a very direct and very sincere effort to bring Telefilm Canada into the realm of what is doable and what is workable, but at the same time, and I know I will be circling back and circling back, how do we define exactly what Canadian content is? Is Canadian content, for example, a tractor pull? Is Canadian content taking apart scallops on the east coast? Is Canadian content singing about taking apart the scallops on the east coast? Exactly what is Canadian content?

Until we take an actual, factual hard look at defining what Canadian content is, I do not think we will ever be able to come forward with things that will culturally work within Canada.

Current Canadian content definition determines access to various public support programs, and that is the clue to it, such as Telefilm Canada, feature film fund, Canadian television fund, tax credits, and it measures television broadcasters' conformity with CRTC regulations. What can we say about the CRTC?

As it should, Bill C-18 would update and upgrade the Telefilm laws, but the government seems to have an aversion to getting away from the reality. I recognize that my examples of a tractor pull or a demolition derby are extreme in the minds of some members in the House, but they are not. Canadian content is what we do. Canadian content is who we are. Canadian content is how we choose to express ourselves. Canadian content is how we relate to each other within the confines or the boundaries of our great nation.

Far too often the members on the other side of the House are given to these expressions of how valuable and important the participation by the Canadian taxpayer through funding and grants and all of this overview. I do not question the sincerity of these comments but it seems to me that they have a tendency to kind of underplay or undervalue the whole of who we are as Canadians.

The Conservative Party supports Canadians producing content for film and television but we would create a simpler system. We would remove content definition regulations. Subsidy and tax credit benefits to the Canadian entertainment industry would be based on substantial involvement by Canadians as opposed to specifically what it is that they are producing.

The Conservative Party has faith in Canada's creative community. Our primary objective is to exhibit Canadian productions to a larger audience. We believe Canadian content is an issue of cultural development. We intend to enable Canadian creators to reach an expanded international audience in broadcasting.

If we were to take a broader view of what Canadian content is and what we can do with the resources that the Canadian taxpayer gives to us, if we were to allow the creative community a broader sense of ownership of the product that it is putting out, and if we were to have more faith in Canada's creative community, I believe at the end of the day we would have a far greater and broader reflection of Canada within our creative community.