Lynne Yelich

[Employment Insurance, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this pilot project was more focused than the former one. The regions that have seen significant improvement in their labour market situations since the launch of the previous one are the regions that have been included in this new pilot project.

[Employment Insurance, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the government intends to introduce the extended EI benefits pilot project which will run until December 8, 2007. It will continue to provide up to the five additional weeks of EI benefits in regions included in the original pilot project.

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is right, it was addressed in the throne speech, but more important, it was addressed in the budget as a feasibility study, which is the prudent thing to do.

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the member remembers, I had such a loud applause yesterday that I had no time to finish what I was going to say. I would like to say that we are committed to exploring solutions to address the unique needs of the seasonal workers.

We will continue to provide up to five additional weeks of EI benefits in regions included in the original pilot where the unemployment rate continues to be relatively high. This is an interim measure.

The government's priority continues to be to help Canadians participate in the labour market.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There is no translation right now.

[Employment Insurance, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked me to inform the House that EI pilot project No. 6 will expire June 4 and will be replaced by an increased week of employment insurance benefits pilot project for a period of 18 months. This is good news for seasonal workers and--

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I take offence to the member's comments. I happen to do a lot of things in Saskatchewan with the Francophonie communities and I believe strongly in those communities. My daughter is enrolled in a five week class at a university this summer in Quebec. I have a lot of things going on this summer and so does she, but she is taking five weeks out of her time to learn French.

It is not the Conservative government that has been blowing it in Saskatchewan. There is another government in power that has not made sure we have good teachers in French, so that French is universally taught in our province. It is because our province has cut back on teachers and we do not have teachers accessible.

I take real offence to the member's comments and I hope I never hear those again.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what I meant by stagnation. We cannot be protectionist with borders surrounding our cultural artists and creators. If we begin closing doors, we will not allow them to be free with their artistic and cultural work. We must recognize the realities of the new world and the new technologies that were mentioned earlier, new technologies and new delivery platforms.

We must believe that the Canadian cultural content requirements, as written in this motion, would limit the ability to ensure that the cultural content requirements could be adjusted to meet the changing realities of many sectors. These sectors are changing and they will have to meet the new realities.

I heard members speak earlier about the CBC and I thought that it, too, did have a place in our culture. Then in Saskatchewan in particular, when it did not broadcast the brier properly, it lost that respect. We thought nobody should take the brier away from our Saskatchewan viewers. Who did it? This CBC that we are trying to protect. We might as well have given it to CTV and let CTV show us how to broadcast a brier for the viewers.

So I do not really think that by having this motion to restrict it is the way to go. We have to show some innovative and new ideas. That is what we are all about. We have a vision and that is to cut loose.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier has placed a very interesting motion before the House today.

While today's motion touches on a complex issue, it does so in a somewhat imperfect manner. It assumes that the previous government's cultural policy was without fault and there is no need for changes. However, I would suggest something different of the previous government's policies and so would the voters of Canada, who just recently passed judgment on them.

The motion also shows an inability to grasp the magnitude of the changes facing Canada's cultural industries. The government will not be bound to outdated policies. We must have flexibility to address the new demands of changing technology and world realities. While some would disregard these changes and new realities, this government will not be irresponsible. We will be vigilant and creative in protecting our culture. That is why the government backs the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

As the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier accurately infers in his motion, the UNESCO convention is fundamentally important to the sustainability of our cultural policies, but missing is one of the key points about the convention, that it gives Canada the flexibility to protect our distinct cultural voice. It was never intended to bind us to a set of specific policies.

Yes, we will create policies which protect Canadian culture in Canada and which will see that culture takes its rightful place on the world stage. Let me give the House an example of the kind of flexible policies this government supports.

Not long ago the government signed an accord with the government of Quebec on UNESCO. The accord gives Quebec a voice in UNESCO. It recognizes that Quebec has unique cultural interests. It is an example of the federalism of openness this government will practise. We realize that Canada's cultural identity will be best protected by many voices rather than by a single policy enforced from the centre.

But the hon. member might find these ideas somewhat foreign, since the party opposite, when in government, was more often in conflict with the provinces than willing to work cooperatively with them. That is hardly open federalism.

Let me now turn to some other details of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Many members I suspect will not know the central role Canada is taking in bringing the convention into force. It is important for all members to recall that the pursuit of the convention was supported by all sides of the House.

Canada was the first nation to ratify the UNESCO convention. I have spoken about the tools the convention gives the government to defend Canadian culture. I have said that the key to the convention is that it gives the government the flexibility to address new concerns as they arise.

The convention itself is based on two principles. First is the recognition in international law that cultural goods and services have both a social and an economic benefit. Second is that the governments have the right to put in place measures aimed at securing a diversity of cultural expressions. I do not see anything in those positions that suggests, as the motion as it is written does, that the policies Canada has in place are the only ones to be considered.

Let me say again to the House and to the hon. member that the UNESCO convention is about options and tools. Let me mention another of the tools the convention gives to governments. It recognizes in article 6 that governments have a legitimate role in supporting creativity, through measures aimed at facilitating the creation, production, distribution, promotion and conservation of cultural expressions.

It is important for cultural industries and creators because it offers them an international environment that fosters a dynamic exchange of their works.

This will protect the many programs that the government has in place to support our artists and creators. These programs include the Canada Council for the Arts which, I am pleased to remind the House, received $15 million in additional funding in the budget. This is a concrete contribution. This is not an empty promise aimed at little more than for political gain.

As I look at the hon. member's motion, I am somewhat taken aback by how timid it is, how little it thinks of Canadian artistic abilities. The motion seems always to call for restrictions and protection, but nowhere does it rise to a vision of the future, nowhere does it see a place for Canadian cultural to expand in the world.

One of the major principles in the UNESCO convention is that we should share our culture, the conviction that the world's culture will only benefit from diversity. The government will act to strengthen our cultural position in the world. It will not simply bolt the doors and live in darkness.

This motion carries with it a vision of stagnation. The hon. member wants to freeze our cultural policies in the past. By doing that, he will freeze our artists, and one thing that we do know about art is it cannot stand stagnation.

That is why I urge all members to oppose this motion and not deny the government the freedom guaranteed by the UNESCO convention on the protection and promotion of diversity of cultural expressions.

The government has proven its commitment to the arts. The government will continue to act to defend and strengthen Canada's arts community, to do what we need to create new policies where this motion ties us down to the same tired, old ideas of the party opposite.

It is a sad irony that the hon. member should present this backward-looking motion under cover of the UNESCO convention which does so much to free government to act.

Let me say again as I finish, that the motion, as written by the hon. member, would do nothing to protect Canada's culture and would probably do great damage to it in the future.

[Human Resources and Social Development, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member has asked the question again. The National Literacy Secretariat has acted and continues to act as the focal point for adult literacy with Human Resources and Social Development.

In 2006-07 we will be allocating $38.8 million for adult learning and literacy.