Pablo Rodriguez

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the government's view is rather peculiar. When it is not making cuts to culture, it thinks that it is increasing funding. Talking about yearly increases is incorrect. There have been no increases in the government's budget, but rather a scheduled 1.5% per year increase from Treasury Board. So, let us stick to the facts.

Let me read another very important quote, which states, “Reform [their party] policy would place the government sponsored loser [the CBC] in a situation where subsidies are weaned away and the future of the company is based on consumer satisfaction.” That is a quote from the Prime Minister, and I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary agrees with his leader on that.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we must never give up and we must debate the future of the CBC, as we are doing today. The reason for the motion is quite simple: we have to ensure the future of our public broadcaster.

How can we change the government's mind? By having this debate today. By stating loud and clear that we want a public broadcaster and that it should have the money to fulfill its mandate. It must have a presence in every region of the country—including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Colombia—in both official languages and it must provide Canadian content.

That is the CBC, our public broadcaster. It is presently experiencing a serious crisis and rather than helping, not only has the government thrown its hands in the air but it has decided to take advantage of the situation to knock down the CBC. That is unacceptable and we will not take it.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

I was a proud Liberal then and I am a proud Liberal today, Madam Speaker.

We could always go back 10 or 20 years. The member, in answer to a question on the CBC, talked about child care and the GST. He will talk about almost anything to smother debate and try to shift the attention to other things. Simply stated, in the current situation, the Liberal Party of Canada would never have abandoned our public broadcaster as the Government of Canada is doing.

I read the comments made by the Prime Minister as a member of this House. At the time he thought, and even today he thinks, that they would cut, cut and cut some more and end up making the CBC disappear.That is the government's position.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

moved:

That this House recognizes the indispensable role of CBC–Radio Canada in providing national, regional, and local programming including news coverage and services to linguistic minorities throughout Canada, and therefore regrets the financial hardship and substantial lay-offs that CBC–Radio Canada currently faces; and urges the government to provide CBC–Radio Canada with the bridge financing it requires to maintain 2008 staffing and service levels.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

It is unfortunate that we are obliged to move such a motion here today, in another attempt to draw the attention of the government to the issue of funding for our public broadcaster. If the government had done its homework, and if it had listened and understood to some degree, it would have already grasped the importance of the role played by CBC/Radio-Canada and it would have acted accordingly.

As we all know, the corporation is being forced to cut 800 jobs and sell nearly $125 million in assets just to balance next year's budget.

The Conservative government has known for a very long time that the public broadcaster has had a budget shortfall of $171 million and has done nothing to prevent the lay-offs, program cuts and selling of shares. The corporation got no help whatsoever from the government. In fact, it was as if the government were pleased with the way things were going.

The CBC has never —and it is important to point this out—asked for more money from the government, as it has pointed out. What it did ask for was greater financial flexibility in order to get through this advertising revenue crisis, which affects all of this country's broadcasters, we should add.

So far the federal government has refused a loan or an advance on next year's envelope. This inaction has forced CBC/Radio Canada to make heart-wrenching choices that will have absolutely disastrous consequences on its work as a national public broadcaster and imperil its very future.

According to CBC President and CEO Hubert Lacroix, the corporation will have to manage to sell $125 million worth of assets if this downsizing plan is to work, or else it will be back to square one. If it is unable to sell assets worth $125 million, and to keep that money, there will end up being more cuts at the CBC.

Mr. Lacroix also indicated that the sale of assets was necessitated by the Conservative government's refusal to help the CBC though the current economic upheaval. As well, according to him, this loan would have meant a considerable reduction in the number of people laid off and would also have avoided having to sell assets. He commented on how sad it was that CBC-Radio Canada had been left with no other choice but to mortgage its own future in order to balance its books.

I can state that the Liberal Party would never have turned its back on the fate of CBC-Radio Canada. We would have backed it up in order to allow it to obtain the necessary leeway to get though this crisis. As a result, the layoffs and reductions in service and programming could have been avoided.

But because of the government's inaction, jobs are going to disappear, not only in major centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, but also in many Canadian cities and regions. I am thinking of such places as Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Quebec City, Moncton, Sydney, Saint John Nova Scotia, Corner Brook, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and many others. The list is getting longer because of this inaction.

The cuts that have been announced mean specifically—to give clear examples—the transformation of the Windsor station to a production centre, and the elimination of programs: the noonday Téléjournal Acadie and L'Ontario aujourd'hui.

I do not think that francophones in minority communities are impressed by the government's work on this issue. I do not think that there is one single francophone who is impressed by its work on this issue. If the government sincerely believed in linguistic duality and in promoting and respecting our two official languages, it would invest the necessary funds. Without that investment, the government is all talk and no action.

Our public broadcaster is very important to all regions of the country, and I am extremely disappointed and angry that the government has chosen to get rid of television, radio and new media journalists, producers and artists. Despite its claim that it wants to create new jobs, it has put the CBC in the position of having to cut 800 jobs.

The government needs to make up its mind: is it going to invest to get us out of this crisis, or is it going to do nothing, as it has done for the CBC?

The fact that the government's inaction has resulted in cuts that affect French-language services to francophone minority communities is unacceptable. We know that these communities count on the CBC to disseminate and promote their culture across the country. The government has a major responsibility toward both of our official languages, and it must shoulder that responsibility instead of trying to duck out.

Let us consider the CBC's mandate. First, its programming must reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions. Second, the CBC must actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression. Third, its programming must 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. Fourth, its programming must strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French. Fifth, the CBC must contribute to shared national consciousness and identity. Sixth, its programming must be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose. Last, the CBC must also reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.

How can CBC/Radio-Canada carry out that important mandate when it faces a $171 million shortfall? How can it maintain a presence in the regions, in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba or British Columbia if it is not provided with the tools to do so? That is what this motion is about. In view of the Conservative government's inaction and insensitivity, this House must act.

It is clear that the government has wanted to do away with CBC/Radio-Canada for a long time. The current Prime Minister had this to say on March 28, 1995, when he was a member of this House:

If we look at the Canadian television industry we see two private national broadcasters that both manage to make a profit most years. Then we have the CBC which is mortgaged to the hilt and costs over $1 billion a year. The major reason two are winners and one is a loser is based on incentives or lack of them.

Reform policy would place the government sponsored loser [the CBC] in a situation where subsidies are weaned away and the future of the company is based on consumer satisfaction.

In short, he is talking about abolishing CBC/Radio-Canada. It is clear that this government, which is very firmly led by this Prime Minister, who controls everything, wants to do as much damage as possible to the public broadcaster by using the current economic crisis for its own purposes. The government wants to use the current economic crisis to slash funding for the CBC and get rid of the corporation. We know what the Prime Minister thinks of the CBC, but it is interesting that some of his own members recently voiced quite a different opinion.

In February 2008, in its report to the government, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommended stable, long-term funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. These two recommendations were supported by the Conservative members. Obviously, the government did not act on the report's findings. In fact, it did not lift a finger to help our public broadcaster. Now, the situation is critical and action is urgently needed.

That is why I said and will keep on saying that in view of the government's inaction and insensitivity, this House must act. That is the reason for the motion and the debate today. I ask all my colleagues to support this motion.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government refused to loan money to the CBC, and now 800 people are losing their jobs. That number could increase significantly if the CBC does not sell $125 million worth of assets. However, selling assets requires government authorization.

Will the government say yes, or will it just close that door and say, “to hell with Canadian content, to hell with the regions, to hell with francophones, and to hell with the CBC“?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since 2001 the CBC has received a $60 million fund dedicated to Canadian programming. As of today, we still do not know if the CBC will get this funding for the next fiscal year. There is no confirmation from the government, so we should be worried.

If the answer is no, more people will lose their jobs. Will the government tell the CBC today, right now, if it will get that funding, or will it just say, “We don't care. Let more Canadians lose their jobs”?

[Arts and Culture, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, the Vancouver East Cultural Centre, Dancing on the Edge, New Dance Horizons and the Brian Webb Dance Company all submitted their applications for 2009-10 funding. Right now their applications are still gathering dust on the desk of the minister, a week from deadline. This is forcing many dance troupes to cancel their events.

Is the minister proud that he has once again succeeded in preventing Canadian culture from taking the stage?

[Arts and Culture, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not know who the founder of Cirque du Soleil, Guy Laliberté, is. He knows almost no one in Canada's artistic community, although that community is getting to know him.

We have learned that a pile of funding applications submitted by dance groups last April—almost a year ago—are still sitting on his desk gathering dust.

Now that those groups have been forced to cancel their programming, is he proud of his actions?

[Supreme Court Act, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important bill put forward by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Last year, my colleague from Bourassa brought forward an identical bill. Unfortunately, it died on the order paper, following the Conservative government's decision to stop the business of the House by calling an early election which, I must say, was unwarranted.

I am pleased to see the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst repeat this initiative, and I salute his work—let us move beyond partisanship for a moment—regarding the promotion and respect for our two official languages

I have been sitting with the member for Acadie—Bathurst for five years on the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I must admit that, when it comes to the issue of bilingualism and respect for our communities, we generally agree with each other. I also want to salute the extraordinary work done by my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche to promote bilingualism and respect for francophone communities outside Quebec. We on this side of the House share a sensitivity which, unfortunately, is not found on the government side.

As for the bill as such, it amends the Supreme Court Act and introduces a new requirement for judges appointed to that court. It essentially provides that judges should understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter. In other words, we are talking about having bilingual judges.

It seems to me that this only makes sense. It goes to the core of our commitment to official language communities. We are talking here about giving a meaning to all those nice principles to which we keep referring.

We are always hearing that it is important to promote both languages, that we must promote French and English, that we must support communities, but all this is mere rhetoric. We need concrete action. Today, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is taking concrete action.

As we mentioned, this is a very simple bill asking that the justices appointed to the country's highest court understand both official languages. The idea is that when a case, any case, is before the court, it should be heard and understood without the need for an interpreter, whenever one of our country's two official languages is used.

As I said earlier, I have sat on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for several years. We have seen in our work that a great deal needs to be done to promote bilingualism and respect for both official languages.

For example, there is work to be done if we want the languages of our two founding peoples to be well represented in the federal public service. Efforts are being made to that end, but more needs to be done. We need to do more together.

For example, bilingualism must be a value that the whole government espouses. Canadians in all regions need to perceive that. They need to perceive the importance of bilingualism and see that it is not a cost or a constraint, but an extraordinary opportunity for everyone across the country. Everyone needs to understand that bilingualism is part of our identity, that it is fundamental to what Canada is and that it is part of our collective wealth as Canadians.

In light of this, I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada be bilingual, given the level of responsibility they have as magistrates of the highest court in the land.

If we believe in bilingualism, if we believe in linguistic duality, we cannot allow such an exception. We cannot allow unilingualism in the Supreme Court, even though bilingualism may represent a constraint for some people.

I am convinced that in the long run, everyone will embrace the spirit of this bill, which is rooted in the will of those who came before us, the will to live in a society where the two official languages have the same legal status and are treated with the same respect and importance.

Bill C-232, which my colleague introduced, clearly states that:

—any person referred to in subsection (1) may be appointed a judge who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter.

As has already been said, the bill is straightforward and easy to support. The opposition parties will support it, and they will not be alone. Other stakeholders such as the French-language jurists' associations, the Canadian Bar Association, the National Assembly of Quebec and the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, have all come out in favour of bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. In addition, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada has for many years been asking that bilingualism be a criterion for selecting judges.

Because I am feeling generous, I will point out that the appointment of Nova Scotian Thomas Cromwell to the Supreme Court of Canada is good news in terms of bilingualism. As we all know, Justice Cromwell took over the seat vacated by retired Justice Michel Bastarache. Justice Cromwell is bilingual, and that is a step in the right direction, but we need more. We need to take many steps in that direction, but sadly, the Conservative government cannot be counted on to make that happen. Let us not forget that it was this same government that eliminated the court challenges program and has put off investing in linguistic duality and respect for official languages.

Recently, Radio-Canada said that Justice Marshall Rothstein, the Prime Minister's first Supreme Court appointee two years ago and a unilingual anglophone, has hindered the work of the highest court in the land:

This forces francophone justices to write their drafts in English so that translation does not slow down the process. Unilingualism can also be a problem when a case is to be heard in French.

This cannot happen every time a judge is appointed. We must have some guidelines. We must be able to guide the government's selection of the judges appointed to this country's highest court, which, we might add, is often called upon to rule on cases dealing directly with linguistic duality and respect for Canada's two official languages.

We must send a clear message to Canada's official language minority communities. They struggle every day to preserve their language and culture, and all too often, those communities have been forced to stand up to Conservative governments that are unsympathetic to their situation and their needs.

Examples of this include the near closure of Montfort Hospital in Ontario and the elimination of the court challenges program, which in fact allowed Franco-Ontarians to fight and eventually win their battle, thereby keeping Montfort Hospital open.

Having bilingual Supreme Court judges is not an end in itself, but it would send a clear message that we are serious about the importance of respecting linguistic duality. As I said, it is not an end in itself. We must do more, much more.

For instance, there must be long-term, recurring and predictable investments, so that our organizations can plan for the years to come. Investments must be made in early childhood programs in order to allow our young people to begin the learning process in their first language. We must build capacity within our communities and invest in local culture.

In other words, we must support our official language minority communities. We must be there for them, listen to, hear and understand them, and work with them so they may develop and thrive. All of Canada and all Canadians will come out stronger.

[Supreme Court Act, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his bill. I would just like to know whether the bill requires that judges be perfectly bilingual when they are appointed or whether it allows a grace period so that appointees can improve their knowledge of the other language.