Mauril Bélanger

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage presented on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, be concurred in.

I thank my colleague from Davenport for seconding the motion for concurrence in this first report of the committee, which was presented in the House on May 17, 2006.

The first report of the committee essentially states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, before committing herself to the review of the mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Société Radio-Canada, CBC-SRC, should comply with the motion that she herself adopted during the 38th Parliament, part of which reads:

“That the government, when establishing this independent task force, do so under the advisement of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage“. Furthermore, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be offered the opportunity to review and offer modifications to the terms of reference of the CBC-SRC mandate review prior to the commencement of the review.

That in essence is the substance of the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Before the minister undertakes, on behalf of the government, a review of the mandate of CBC Radio-Canada, the heritage committee should be offered an opportunity to comment and offer modifications to the terms of reference to whatever structure the minister intends to use for the review of CBC Radio-Canada.

Everyone will recognize that CBC Radio-Canada is one of Canada's significant cultural institutions. It is an invaluable instrument in bringing Canadians together and in communicating Canadian values to Canadians across the globe and in Canada.

CBC Radio-Canada unites Canadians by offering high quality programming that reflects this country, its regions, and all of its creative talent to both regional and national audiences. It is also a powerful mechanism for showcasing Canadian values, artists and culture, both at home and on the world stage.

In 2003, after an exhaustive review of the Canadian broadcasting environment, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reaffirmed the importance of public broadcasting in Canada in its report entitled “Our Cultural Sovereignty”, otherwise referred to by many as the Lincoln report.

In its follow-up response to the recommendations of the heritage committee, the Liberal government reaffirmed CBC Radio-Canada's role within Canadian society as envisioned by the 1991 Broadcasting Act.

The Broadcasting Act states that:

--(l) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

(m) The programming provided by the Corporation should

(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,

(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,

(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,

(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,

(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,

(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and

(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada--

CBC Radio-Canada delivers on its mandate by offering a comprehensive range of programs and services on 18 different platforms that reflect the interests and aspirations of diverse Canadian communities. It is the only broadcaster delivering high quality radio, television and Internet based services in English and French across the country.

CBC Radio-Canada uses every broadcasting platform available to it, so that it can provide Canadians with information and entertainment in the format and via the medium that is most effective and convenient for them.

In CBC Radio-Canada's latest annual survey monitoring corporate performance, 97% of Canadians said they considered CBC Radio-Canada to be essential.

In the same survey, 82% of anglophone viewers of CBC television stated that they were satisfied with the quality of the programming it offered and 88% of listeners said they were satisfied as well with CBC Radio.

CBC Radio-Canada Télévision also experienced high satisfaction ratings, as would be expected, given its ability to attract over one-fifth of all prime time viewing by francophones and not just francophones in Quebec, incidentally.

Similarly, la Première Chaîne has experienced a tremendous growth in its listener base over the past several years, achieving a share of 12.5% in the spring of 2004.

The corporation's website, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary, is among the most popular online media sites in Canada, attracting more than 3.7 million visitors a month.

In an increasingly culturally diverse nation, it is especially gratifying to see that CBC television ranked first among English Canadian broadcasters in reflecting Canada's ethnic and cultural make-up

All is not well, however. There are some difficulties at CBC Radio-Canada and the heritage committee mentioned some of its concerns about the situation of public broadcasting in the 2003 Lincoln report, which I mentioned earlier. I would like to quote some passages of that report:

The CBC’s audiences have plummeted over the last decade and the public broadcaster spends much of its talent and energy searching for the right formula, the right approach, to ensure its place in Canadian life. The search has been painful and frustrating and the goal distant and elusive.

There is also cause for serious concern about the production and exhibition of English-language drama. Except in Quebec where audiences are entertained and invigorated by original, home-grown dramatic productions, American programming dominates the airwaves to an extent that is largely unknown and unimaginable in any other country outside of the United States itself.

Many critics also argue that its current mandate is simply too broad and unfocused for the resources that successive governments and Parliaments have provided. The federal government must better define the CBC's role and together with the CBC's managers place less emphasis on audience ratings and commercial revenues.

Just last week the public policy forum issued a report on CBC Radio-Canada and its mandate. It was heavily critical of the necessity of the CBC to search out commercial revenue advertising, identifying almost $200 million of the roughly $500 million English television receives as coming from advertising and therefore putting into question the notion of the public aspect of the CBC.

Canadians are now engaged in a debate. The Conservative government intends to look at the CBC's mandate. Committee members recognize that it is the government's prerogative to initiate a review of the CBC's mandate, but before it can be concluded, it will have to come back to Parliament to be addressed because CBC Radio-Canada's mandate is embedded in law.

This is not the issue at all. We recognize the government's authority to initiate such a mandate review in a fashion that it wishes. The committee has asked to have a go at the terms of reference that will be given to whatever structure is chosen and whoever is asked to conduct the CBC Radio-Canada mandate review. This is consistent with what the committee asked for before the change of government and what the present minister asked for when she was in opposition. That is the essence of what the committee recommended, which I believe was approved unanimously.

When the minister appeared a couple of weeks ago before the committee, this matter came up. I asked her if she could tell us when she intended to do this. I want to thank my colleague across the way from Abbotsford because on my first round of questions I did not get an answer from the minister and my colleague acknowledged that I had not received an answer. He also acknowledged that my question was rather straightforward and he asked it again on my behalf.

The minister responded that she was willing to do this, but also indicated that she was caught in a process of the government's making in that she had to first go to cabinet. Rumours are going around that she did indeed go to cabinet but did not get the green light that she had been looking for. In the absence of confirmation of this, I am moving this motion today.

On the second round of questioning I again asked the minister if she would commit herself to allowing the committee to have a look at the terms of reference before the summer break knowing full well, and according to the minister's own statements, that the government intended to proceed with the review of the mandate of CBC Radio-Canada. I will quote a few of the minister's statements further on in my comments.

Recognizing at that time that we had maybe three weeks left before the summer break in the session, I asked if the minister would commit herself to having the terms of reference presented to the committee so it could comment on them before the summer. She answered that she could not.

It is extremely important that this occur in order to give credibility to the process. This is a longstanding issue. The Lincoln report recommended a mandate review of CBC Radio-Canada and the government indicated it would do so. The new minister of heritage has said she intends to review the CBC Radio-Canada mandate and said that she wants to initiate this.

We agree with a review in whatever structure and format the minister wishes to use, assuming it is somewhat reasonable. The committee unanimously told the minister that before she proceeds with the review it have a chance to comment and make suggestions as far as the terms of reference of the mandate review are concerned. The committee reported this to the House and hopefully its report will be adopted today.

I for one have some grave concerns in terms of what the mandate may or may not include. Some of these concerns were as a result of some comments by members opposite and, in particular, the dissenting opinion that was attached to the Lincoln report. Anyone who has followed this issue will be aware of what I am talking about. I am not castigating the minister's parliamentary secretary. He is entitled to his opinion. Members of the Conservative Party are entitled to their opinion but so are Canadians and so is Parliament.

Parliament has always insisted that it be involved, if only in setting the terms of reference, in the review of the mandate of the CBC Radio-Canada. That is the purpose of the meeting.

It also speaks to democracy and respect of Parliament. I am not suggesting that is not the intent of the minister. However, the adoption of the heritage committee's first report by the House would reinforce the notion that Parliament and its instruments, standing committees, are not to be taken lightly.

The heritage committee, in particular, has over the past years done extremely important work in a very cooperative and collaborative manner. There is every indication that the committee intends to keep addressing issues on a non-partisan basis and in an objective way, such as the way in which we have addressed broadcasting in particular.

Now that the minister has launched, via the CRTC, a quick look into technology, the evolution of technology and its impact on broadcasting at large, not just the CBC, that is one thing. However, another shoe will be dropped at some point and we are asking that the heritage committee, which has looked at this year in and year out, be afforded the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on the terms of reference that will be guiding the review of CBC Radio-Canada's mandate.

The intent and purpose of the debate this morning is that the House reaffirm its will that its standing committee, to which it delegates all these matters, be involved and consulted in the setting of the terms of reference.

I do not sense from the government side that there is much opposition for that. The government indicated that it would support it. What I do sense, however, is that the minister may be caught in a situation where she may run out of time before the end of the session and be pushed or pressured into initiating this without the committee having had a chance.

Depending on the chairman of the committee and other members and depending on whether the minister can consult with the committee on the terms of reference before the end of the session, I would be agreeable to having the committee recalled sometime during the summer to do that. I understand my colleague, the parliamentary secretary who is from western Canada, may think that is a very facile commitment for me because I live here and would not have to travel very far but I would be prepared to meet them in the west to show that there is goodwill in the committee and in the House.

I think, by and large, most parliamentarians in Canada accept that the CBC Radio-Canada is an important institution and one that needs to be supported and protected. If its mandate does need to be adjusted that could be done after consultation with the committee on the terms of reference. However, if I had my way, the terms of reference would provide an opportunity for all Canadians to comment in terms of where they think the CBC Radio-Canada should be headed.

The purpose of moving concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is to help the minister and the government understand how serious the committee is in asking that it be consulted in setting the terms of reference of whatever mandate review structure will be chosen by the government to review the mandate of CBC Radio-Canada before the mandate is initiated. The key words of that motion are, “before the mandate is initiated”.

All the committee is asking is that the government respect the will of the committee and, hopefully, the will of the House when we vote on this matter, and that the consultation will occur, hopefully, before the session ends, but if not, certainly before the mandate of the review process is launched, whenever and whatever format it takes.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I did not exactly grasp the question in the remarks by the member for Western Arctic.

I said at the beginning of my speech that I intended to support the motion before us. That is essentially what I will do.

As for that pitiful attempt to justify the New Democrats' actions last fall, one consequence of those actions is that many programs that addressed the issue of greenhouse gas emissions have disappeared. The Canadian people will judge in the end.

I can tell him, for my part, that whether I am in government or in opposition, I will continue to work as I have always done and do my best to improve the bills on which I am asked to pass judgment and to monitor the government, because it must be held accountable.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak today, but after hearing two speeches, particularly from members on this side of the House, I feel that certain things need to be clarified and I would like to set the record straight.

I will not take all of the time allotted, but I would like to make a few comments. With respect to the speech given by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton and Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, I felt he was true to himself and consistent with his usual style, namely, that of petty politics.

I find it very disappointing that someone who speaks on the government's behalf cannot resist making constant allegations and insinuations. This is tantamount to an abuse of privilege. In this House, we all have the privilege to speak freely. Our comments are protected precisely so that we may enjoy this freedom of speech.

However, excessive use of this privilege, which is typical of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, as he splatters everyone and accuses all Liberals of corruption, which he does better than anyone and with no subtlety, this really is petty politics. I have already asked him to stop lowering the level of debate in this House. This has proven useless and he continues to do so. He continues to show off like a petty politician and I find his behaviour most distressing.

With regard to the often very creative flights of fancy by the member for Winnipeg Centre, there is one that must be addressed. I believe that in a question to the member for Rivière-du-Nord, he basically stated that all public servants cannot be trusted and have only one objective—that is to hide and camouflage all information and to prevent access to it. The member for Winnipeg Centre is grossly exaggerating in his stereotyping of Canada's public service.

In this country, we have an exemplary public service that, over the years, has helped the executive and Parliament to build a country that is the envy of others, with freedom of expression and action, peace and a kind of social justice that are also the envy of the world. To say that the public servants of this country, whether at a senior or any other level, are part of some conspiracy and plotting to hide information and cover things up is a shameless exaggeration. It was my duty to rise and to set the record straight.

From top to bottom and vice versa, we have an exemplary public service that carries out its work in accordance with the laws of the country. It is unacceptable to insult people in this way.

With regard to the motion, I will support it anyway because it is customary that we do so. Just now, it was said that this was the last day. It may be the last, but I believe that it is also the first. The rules state that it is today, 10 days beforehand, that the government must table its motion. The government has done this as required. We have two hours to debate and then we will decide. I am under the impression that we will decide before the deadline. However, we all have the right to speak about it and I am exercising that right.

The focus seems to be on the consideration of Bill C-2. It is also important to stress that this was the first bill of importance introduced by this government.

Personally, I do not sit on the committee that is working on it. I am sitting on a different committee. I must make sure that those involved have enough time to do their job properly.

For example, with respect to access to information, I have seen a special report that the information commissioner tabled for all members of this House. It does not exactly praise Bill C-2. I do not know if the committee considered or plans to consider the amendments, or what the government's position is. I am going to rely on the teamwork of the members representing all parties on committee to do that and to report. Once the committee has completed its work and reported, we will have an opportunity to debate in the House. I will decide then how I should be voting.

There are, however, other problems with that bill.

This is quite an ambitious bill, which came about pretty quickly.

I have concerns regarding elections, about the Elections Act. For example, the bill would limit personal political contributions to $1,000, while allowing a third party to continue spending more than that amount in each riding. There should not be any contradictions in this bill.

The committee that is asked to work on it has to have enough time to do a good job. In his question to the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board asked that she make sure, or give him the assurance, that the bill will be passed, even in the other place, before the summer recess. That goes to show that he does not understand the bicameral nature of this Parliament.

I wanted to make these few comments to correct to some extent those made by the members for Nepean—Carleton and Winnipeg Centre.

[Points of Order, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your ruling. I took note of it and I will certainly consult the sources to which you referred.

I have a question. How is the issue of security assessed? The government cites security as the reason why it is refusing to table the document quoted by the Prime Minister. How can one quote a document in the House—meaning that it is being read publicly—while claiming that it is an issue of national security?

Is this not contradictory? Would it not be necessary to establish a mechanism that would independently determine whether a document or part of a document—at least the part that was quoted—could be tabled without putting anyone in danger?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, that comment is not true. The Liberals did support that and the Conservative government essentially officiated what we had started.

In response to the question from my colleague from Yukon, he recognized that CBC does not need less money. The sense of this motion is that in terms of public broadcasting in this country, we are recommending to the House that we do not offer less funding but that it is at least stable.

Since the member has recognized that the CBC does not need less, would he agree that at least that portion of the motion he supports?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Joliette a question. However, prior to doing so, I would like to say that we should be careful about drawing inspiration from Mr. Lepage's work. Mr. Lepage has recently made certain comments. We should not forget the role played by the National Arts Centre in furthering his career.

The member alluded to, among other things, an item in the motion we are debating calling on us to maintain or even increase financing for public broadcasting in both official languages. I would like to know if the member is prepared to confirm that when alluding to this possibility he is speaking primarily of Radio-Canada and CBC. There are other entities that are equally important. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me on this matter.

For example, the Canadian government's financial support of TV-5 is quite important because TV-5 provides a window onto the francophone world.

Would my colleague accept a proposal that broadcasting entities other than the CBC and Radio-Canada should be included?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do consider the amendment to be friendly and I consent to it being moved.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions but I will limit myself to two.

The member from Abbotsford referred to Canadian content restrictions on foreign ownership in public broadcasting as a set of platitudes. I presume that was a slip of the tongue and he may want to correct that statement.

He also said “that he and his government are committed to stable long term funding for public broadcasting”, and yet those members do not want to vote in favour of the motion. Is it because they are only prepared to commit to reduced stable long term funding? That is the concern out there.

When the minister promised during the campaign to respect the commitment to fund the Canada Council it was not for $50 million. It was to double its budget over three years. What the council received instead was less than one-third of what was committed to.

If the member reads the dissenting report of the Lincoln report he will know what I am talking about. The current parliamentary secretary to the minister favours the privatization of the CBC.

Are those members only in favour of reduced stable long term funding? If that is the case I can understand why they do not want to vote for the motion. We have no problems with reviewing the mandate of CBC in a universe where its level of funding is stable and predictable but not reduced.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member repeatedly referred in his comments to broadcasters, yet I do not believe I heard him once mention producers of shows. For broadcasters to stay in business, they need a whole production industry and that comes from requirements of Canadian content, from financial support and so forth. I did not hear him mention any concerns regarding producers.

He did mention that the broadcasting industry is doing very well financially, and that is true, but the producers in the country, independent ones and others, are not doing very well. Their margins have been reduced to almost non-existence.

Would the member acknowledge that if we do not have constant funding and requirements, that producers will be in jeopardy and therefore the whole edifice could crumble if we do not have the content for broadcasters? We would then be relying strictly on foreign content which is already quite pervasive on our airwaves.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the conflict is between the private interests, which would wish to control what is broadcast to every Canadian, versus the public interest of having a variety and multiplicity of voices.

I fall in the second category. I believe that in a democracy such as this, the government, through the voices of its elected representatives, has a right to determine that there will be policies to encourage a multitude of voices on our airways and not just, if left to itself, a diminishing number of voices, as we have seen.

In the private sector, time and time again, decade after decade, there is a tendency to reduce the competition by acquiring it. That is likely the phenomena we would see in cultural industries, in broadcasting in particular. That would be a crime if we allowed that to happen.

A country that does not control its own airwaves through publicly governed institutions such as Parliament, and in this case the CRTC, is a country that has given up. That means its airwaves and whatever Canadians get to consume on their television sets or radios would be dictated by foreign interests, and likely private foreign interests.

I surmise and I put to the House that the airwaves are a public good and that they should be controlled by public entities, such as the Parliament of Canada. By and large, we have demonstrated a willingness to intervene and to say that there shall be restrictions in foreign ownerships and that there shall be requirements for Canadian content. In doing that, we have created a cultural space that is much more amenable to a variety of voices and to a diversity. The convention is all about that. It gives the state the authority to protect cultural diversity. Maybe it goes beyond that and gives the state the duty to protect cultural diversity, and it is about that.