Maria Minna

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the motion says “maintain or expand”. He should read the motion. It is not talking about maintaining the status quo. It is talking about moving forward and expanding our commitment to Canadian culture.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do in fact support public broadcasting.

In my riding alone, when there was talk of possible cuts to CBC, I was receiving close to 1,000 letters constantly. Some of my colleagues were telling me that they were getting mountains of communications, for instance, around that same time with respect to the gun registry. I was getting letters regarding the CBC. To me, it says something about its importance.

I was on the picket line a couple of times during the lockout because I felt strongly that there needed to be proper negotiations. I felt strongly that the CBC had to get back to work because Canadians relied on it for their information and for their cultural input.

We need to have radio and television programming that is able to reflect back to us what our nation is about, whether it is in the small regions of Ontario that private entities do not go to. That is why I support the regional programming that is being put forward by the CBC.

There are fantastic regions within this country with a tremendous amount of capability to produce a tremendous amount of music, arts, dance, song, theatre and authors. It is absolutely phenomenal, but they need to be nurtured. If we do not nurture our own artists and our own cultural entities, and then expose them to Canadians across the country so that we can share and support them, then we have lost. We actually have no way of giving ourselves some identity and really express who we are to each other and to the world around us. Quite frankly, without that, we do not really have a face to our nation.

I thank the hon. member for the question because I believe that Canadians do support public broadcasting and, in particular, the CBC, and this is why I continue to fight for it and continue to support it.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Canada has both the right and the duty to protect its cultural identity. Last October, we had the pleasure of seeing a Canadian-led initiative on cultural sovereignty come to fruition as a binding international treaty, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. This treaty recognizes the dual nature of cultural goods and services which have both an economic and a social value. It emphasizes the right of states to take measures in support of diverse cultural expressions.

I represent the riding of Beaches—East York, with a vibrant, diverse and growing arts community. I can say that this international agreement was a very important development for many of my constituents. Under the terms of this convention, cultural products will not be subordinated to commercial agreements, such as those of the WTO. This means that governments will be able to continue to support the cultural and artistic communities without fear of commercial reprisals.

Our representatives at UNESCO, led by the Liberal minister of heritage, Liza Frulla, worked long and hard to build international support for this treaty. It was a great day for Canada when this Canadian idea became an international reality. On November 23 of last year, the former Liberal government approved the treaty, making Canada the first country in the world to ratify it.

Canada must now build on this leadership, not only by working hard on the international stage to persuade other countries to join the convention so that it can come into force as soon as possible, but also by moving to protect and promote our own cultural industries here at home.

In addition to their enormous contribution to our quality of life and our sense of national identity, the cultural industries in Canada employ thousands of people. The Canadian cultural sector generates more than $40 billion per year in economic activity and provides jobs to nearly 600,000 Canadians.

In order to help protect these jobs, we need to make sure that Canadian broadcast media remain in Canadian hands. The previous Liberal government was firmly committed to maintaining existing limits on foreign ownership in the cultural sector. In light of conflicting reports from two House of Commons committees, we firmly reiterated that we had no intention to modify foreign limits on broadcasting or general content.

Our work on the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions has made it possible to keep this promise without fear of commercial reprisal. I hope that the current government will follow suit and maintain the current limits on foreign ownership.

It is not enough to protect our cultural identity or to set rules for a minimum level of Canadian content. Without the right incentives and investments, these rules will not have their desired effect of fostering the development of high quality Canadian programming. Canada's writers, directors, producers, actors, musicians and other artists are second to none, but the resources have to be there to allow them to practice their trades.

The approach of the previous Liberal government was to provide incentives to private broadcasters to invest in high quality Canadian content and to invest as a government in the development of Canadian programming. We need to continue as a country to pursue both of these strategies and to reinforce them as we learn more about how to make them effective.

Canadians are best served by a broadcasting system that offers an ample supply of high quality, distinctively Canadian content that enlightens, entertains and informs its citizens. We need to make sure that we are creating a climate that enables our best creative minds to flourish and to produce high quality, made in Canada television content.

A recent report prepared for the Canadian Film and Television Production Association showed that while broadcasters in Canada have increased their profit margins in recent years, these gains have not translated into equivalent increases in the amount these broadcasters invest in made in Canada television content. The study also showed that the profit margins of those who produce Canadian film and television content have decreased substantially.

This leads me to think that it is time to think about some changes to the policy framework for Canadian television content. Some ideas have been put on the table by stakeholders and they deserve careful consideration. They include: reinforcing compulsory expenditure thresholds, which would require conventional broadcasters to invest a certain amount in Canadian programming; raising the tax credit rate to 30% of producers' eligible expenditures; increasing the government's contribution to the Canadian Television Fund; and changes to the fund's eligibility criteria that would increase broadcasters' level of investment. These are all initiatives that I would be happy to support.

Any strategy to protect and promote our cultural industries in Canada must include strong and adequate support for public broadcasting. I am a strong believer in the value of a national publicly funded broadcasting network. Canada needs a strong CBC and I have consistently pushed for increased CBC funding.

Among other things, the CBC plays a unique and central role in developing and promoting Canadian dramatic programming. In budget 2005 the Liberal government committed an additional $60 million in 2005-06 to help ensure that Canada's stories reflect the ever increasing diversity of Canadian society and find their way into Canadian homes in the form of high quality programming.

The CBC needs stable and predictable funding, so that it can continue to operate at the highest level and continue to uphold the principles of Canadian content legislation.

I also support the CBC's proposed local and regional programming strategy. It is my understanding that the strategy as proposed would be implemented over three years with estimated costs rising to approximately $83 million annually. This is not too high a price to pay for high quality public broadcasting coverage of local and regional news, culture and current events.

Closely related to the issue of CBC funding is the issue of funding for the Canadian Television Fund. The CBC and the CTF work closely together and can feed off each other's success. The CTF needs stable, long term, predictable funding and there should be an envelope of funds set aside within the CTF to support CBC projects as the Liberal Party proposed during the recent election campaign.

The previous Liberal government also announced in November 2005 that we would double federal funding to the Canada Council for the Arts to $300 million by 2008. The Canada Council for the Arts provides the most efficient and fair way of ensuring that public funds get to where they can do the most good for artists and arts organizations across the country.

I was saddened to see that in the recent budget the new Conservative government has committed only $50 million over two years to the Canada Council. This is only one-third of the increase we promised and without any indication of sustained funding at that level.

The development of the next generation of Canadian artists depends upon the level of support we offer to the Canada Council for the Arts. I urge the government to do better in this area because it is through arts and culture that Canadians reflect each other back to themselves. Without that a country has no soul.

I truly believe that without a strong cultural policy a country does not have a soul and that is how a country tells its stories, how it reflects itself, and how it communicates itself abroad and to each other. Without that it is woefully sad that this government has not decided to commit to culture in this country.

The CBC, as the House knows, is a public entity which I have supported for many years. I visited a few years ago a major arts promotion event in Acadia, in Atlantic Canada. I must say that as a Canadian I had never seen the kinds of things as the beautiful songs, culture and music that were presented to me entirely by Acadians. Actually, they were all New Brunswick performers. This was La Francophonie and it was absolutely fantastic. I had never seen such talent and energy. They could have been on any stage anywhere in the world and would have done just as well or outperformed anyone.

Canadians do not see this. We have to see this on CBC. We have to see this more in each other's houses across the country. The different parts of Canada must be reflected as well as the different cultural entities in order to see the different ethnocultures that we have in this country, whether they be Italian Canadian, Portuguese Canadian and so on.

There are distinct cultures in the arts that are being developed in this country by these communities which are very distinct in themselves. Again, they have to be reflected and public broadcasting is the only way to carry these messages from one corner of the country to the other.

Therefore, it is fundamentally important for us to maintain strong Canadian content and strong Canadian public broadcasting in this country.

[Points of Order, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct an unintentional error in my question to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in the House yesterday. It was my intention to say that the previous Liberal government committed to invest $1 billion over five years to develop a national caregiver agenda. Inadvertently, I said that the commitment was to invest $5 billion over five years. In no way did I intend to mislead members of the House and I apologize for the resulting confusion.

[Human Resources and Social Development, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians make invaluable contributions to our society every day by helping to care for their elderly, ill or disabled friends or relatives. The previous Liberal government created an EI compassionate care benefit, a caregiver tax credit, and committed to invest $5 billion over five years to develop a national caregiver agenda.

The current government has been completely silent on this issue. Would the human resources minister tell this House why the government is abandoning unpaid caregivers?

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, May 17th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would require the Minister of the Environment to add perfluorooctane sulfonate to the virtual elimination list compiled under subsection 65(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act within nine months of the bill becoming law.

The bill would also require the minister to make regulations prescribing the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment, either alone or in combination with any other substance in order to achieve the virtual elimination of the substance.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Pay Equity, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, women who work full time in Canada earn only 71% of what men earn. The previous Liberal government committed to table new pay equity legislation by the end of 2006.

By contrast, in 1998 the current Prime Minister said that pay equity was “a rip-off” for taxpayers and that the federal government should “scrap its ridiculous pay equity law”. Is this still the view of the Prime Minister and, if not, will he table new pay equity legislation before the end of this year?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we did start in the year 2000 with $2.2 billion on the table. At that time the provinces would not agree to any solution except to allow them to cherry-pick and choose which programs for children they would use. In my province of Ontario there is a program called the early years program.

I agree that we should never have backed off. We should have insisted that the $2.2 billion stay as child care money. We did try in 2000. We tried again in 2004 and did get an agreement. If it was not for the NDP bringing down the government, instead of allowing that program to take root, it would not have happened. The election could have waited a couple of months. We did have an agreement with the provinces. A national program was in place, but the Conservative government chose to cancel it.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question. The deficit we had to deal with of $42 billion was left by the Conservatives. It was a huge debt. Unemployment was nearly 12%. Interest rates were in double digits. Canada was a financial basket case in the world in terms of its credit rating. We were in a horrible mess.

At the time, as a member of Parliament, I objected to the depth of the cuts, but nonetheless they had to be done. Since then we reinvested more money in students, universities, research, hospitals, seniors and housing. None of that has been mentioned. I am adding things on because in my 10 minutes I could not put in all of the things that the Conservative government has dropped, things that were on the table and agreed upon with the provinces.

The present Minister of Finance left the province of Ontario in a deficit. That is why we are talking about fiscal imbalance. The present minister not only left a deficit in the province of Ontario but he will do the same to this country that the previous Conservative government did when we took over 13 years ago.

I am sorry, but I do not think the member has a point there.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my remarks by focusing on one of the most egregious parts of the budget, the notion of the $1,200 child care allowance, which I do not consider to be a child care allowance at all.

The government keeps calling the $1,200 allowance universal child care and that it is giving choices to parents, but we should look at the facts and make a proper distinction between income support and child care. The reality is that the $1,200 is a family allowance, not a child care plan. As a family allowance it is fine, but it is not a child care plan.

The most effective weapon to fight child poverty in this country is the child tax benefit. Experts believe that the benefit has reduced child poverty by approximately 26%. If we were to apply the $1,200 to the base of the child tax credit, families would receive the full $1,200 on a net income of up to and including $112,000, after which there would be a clawback up to and including a net income of $172,000. This is what the allowance should be, income support through the child tax credit. It would address the incomes of modest families as well as middle income families and even higher.

Instead, the Conservative government is cutting the young child supplement portion of the child tax benefit. This means that most families with low or modest incomes will lose $249 right off the top, reducing the child care benefit to $951. Taxes are increased at the same time by .5% at this level, which of course means that families will lose even more.

Further, the child care allowance treats some families better than others, even though they have the same net income and the same number of children of the same age. Because the benefit is taxable in the hands of the lowest income earner, single parents and two earner families are going to lose out. Two earner couples will lose a significant portion of the benefit to income taxes, but still not as much as single parents will lose.

Single parents in the $30,000 to $40,000 income range will lose on average close to $400 of the benefit in taxes. If this is added to the $249 that they will lose because of the elimination of the young child supplement, these families will be left with only about $550 of the $1,200 benefit, less than half the benefit that some of the other families will be receiving, and they will have a tax increase on top of that. This is not a plan for all families. This is punitive to some families and chooses others. Nor is it an early learning and child care plan, so it does neither.

This is unacceptable because the government is basically choosing which types of families it prefers and which types of families it does not. Not giving the same choice to all families and penalizing choices that families actually make about themselves is dastardly. I have never seen anything like it. This plan is neither an income support plan nor an early child care plan. It does neither and helps no one.

In addition to the national child care plan and the child tax credit which the Liberals started in this country, the early years program, or the best start program, was started in 2000. In my riding of Beaches—East York stay at home parents have told me many times that this is a wonderful program for their children, that they are quite happy with it and use it often.

Again I go back to choice. I keep hearing from the government side that the $1,200 gives choice. If there are no spaces to choose from, there is no choice whatsoever and the money parents receive is not enough to pay for the full amount of child care. There are really no choices. as there is nothing there to buy.

The government says that businesses will create spaces. Again, this has been tried in Ontario. The Minister of Finance knows it, as does the Minister of Health and the President of the Treasury Board, all of whom were in the Ontario government. They know it does not work. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said its membership is not interested. Again, it is a vague plan and there is no child care plan in this country.

The finance minister was part of the Ontario cabinet that cut funding to schools. It cut sports programs, music programs, all kinds of programs in schools and many other services and ended up with a huge deficit, which is why Ontario now has an income problem, which is really where it is at. Now that same minister is the Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada. Guess what he is going to do to Canada. Exactly the same thing that he did to Ontario, nothing more, nothing less.

The city of Toronto alone will lose 6,000 child care spaces this year. This means the families in my riding of Beaches—East York will be suffering badly. This is not acceptable.

I want to move on to the issue of post-secondary education. The previous Liberal government had proposed $550 million over five years for grants for post-secondary education to an additional 55,000 students over four years of study; $2.2 billion over five years to improve the student financial assistance system; $210 million over five years for graduate scholarships; $150 million over five years for scholarships to study abroad; and $1 billion in 2005-06 for the provinces to invest in post-secondary infrastructure. That is all gone. It has been cancelled, except for the commitment in the budget to spend $1 billion for provinces to invest in post-secondary infrastructure, but that is it.

The Conservatives offer tax credits and not improved access. The $125 million per year tax credit for the cost of textbooks does not do it, nor does the $50 million per year for the elimination of taxation on scholarships. This budget cancelled funding worth $3.11 billion over five years. This is a huge chunk. This is 50% of the first and last year of tuition as well as grants for all low income students and other supports.

All of those funds were going directly to improve access to post-secondary education. This funding has since been replaced with $175 million in tax incentives which do little for access considering that students who struggle most for access pay little tax in the first place.

The budget does spend on apprentices. The budget offers three tax incentives for apprentices totalling about $380 million per year. The government is very proud of all of these itsy-bitsy amounts, but this pales in comparison to $3.5 billion over five years in the November update for the workplace skills strategy with the provinces. The strategy was cancelled in the budget and is now included in the fiscal imbalance discussions. That was settled. That was a lot of money in a partnership with the provinces to address that issue.

The budget cancels more than $2.1 billion over five years to increase support for the granting councils, the indirect costs of research program of the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research and again $200 million over five years for up to 3,500 R and D internships in the natural and health sciences and for engineering graduates as well as up to 100 scholarships each year to engineering and natural and health sciences graduate students seeking a masters in business administration.

This is not a plan for prosperity. This is a disaster. Everyone talked for such a long time about brain drain in this country. We now have a brain gain because of the investment that we have made in innovation and research. We have been attracting people from other countries to come to this country. The Conservative government has turned it around. It has dropped it all. It is gone. For what, I ask. There is nothing in its place.

Education, prosperity, innovation, research, students, universities, partnerships with provinces are all gone. It means nothing. An agreement is signed but it is absolutely meaningless.

On the environment, again it is a very sad situation. The government has cut all the programs, the EnerGuide program for families, the high efficiency home system. Most of the investment is gone.

The only one that the government really hangs its hat on is the public transit credit, which by the way, as other members have said, costs $2,000 per tonne, 10 times more than our plan. Environment Canada had advised the current government that this action would not increase the number of public transit users, would not effectively lower greenhouse gas emissions and would not help reduce pollution.

The government seems to have decided to hitch its hat to the United States and China and has dropped Kyoto completely. The minister now chairs the Kyoto process, but basically is a chair only in name because in essence it is really a shame for Canada. We are no longer leaders working with our partners.

There is lots more that I could say, but I see that I have run out of time.