OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 087 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 15, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 15, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 087 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 087 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 087 (Version officielle) 147 087 15 05 2014 2014/05/15 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Justice Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, a document entitled “Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect”. I understand that this document is deemed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for study.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) Bill C-598. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-598,

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (notification of victims) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill for consideration. It will protect victims whose perpetrators of crime now find themselves in the immigration and refugee system versus the criminal system. If we deport people who then come back into this country and we detain them under an immigration warrant, the victims are not notified that the perpetrators are back in the country.

If the perpetrators of crimes are Canadian citizens the victims would be notified as to where they are. However, if they happen to be foreign nationals who were deported and have entered the country illegally, the system does not afford the victims the right to know that their perpetrators are back in the country.

This bill would correct that injustice so that regardless of where the perpetrators are, whether they are foreign nationals or nationals, whether they are in this country illegally or legally, whether they are detained in either system, the victims have the absolute right to know. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Cadets Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Ontario, mostly in the town of Aurora, regarding a group of Valcartier cadets who in 1974 were part of a cadet camp in Valcartier where there was an explosion killing six cadets, wounding some 60 others, and a number of survivors who are concerned they have needs that are not being met.

The ombudsman has determined that it is in the national and public interest to have a full investigation and make recommendations to the government to help these former cadets and that it requires the consent of the Minister of National Defence . Therefore, this is a petition to the Minister of National Defence , calling upon the minister to grant the Canadian Forces' ombudsman the authority to investigate this case and make recommendations to the government to help these former cadets. This is an important and serious matter. I hope we will get a positive answer on this question soon.

These cadets have been waiting eight months for an answer.

Border Crossing Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting 32 petitions today on behalf of the citizens of Medicine Hat, with hundreds of signatures, to make the Wild Horse border crossing to the United States a 24-hour port of entry for commercial business. The petitioners are asking Parliament to legislate the opening of this port to the United States so that Alberta, which has huge commercial value trade north to south, will then have two 24-hour ports of entry.

[ Translation ] Labour-Sponsored Funds Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by thousands of Quebeckers. This is not the first time I have presented this kind of petition. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reverse its 2013 decision to abolish the 15% tax credit for savings invested in labour-sponsored funds. They are saying that the middle class often uses these funds as a primary tool for saving for retirement. The funds create jobs and spur economic development. The petitioners are saying that this decision is jeopardizing the savings of thousands of Canadian workers.

[ English ] Mining Industry Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three separate petitions today. The first is to create an extractive sector ombudsman mechanism in Canada.

(1010) Cluster Munitions Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition refers to the use of cluster munitions. A number of my constituents are concerned about that practice.

Sex Selection Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a number of signatures from my constituents, who would like the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Canada Post Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many residents of Cape Breton, calling upon the government to reverse the recent cuts to Canada Post services and instead explore other options for modernizing Canada Post's business.

International Trade Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first is from residents from Saanich—Gulf Islands, Victoria, Sydney, and Pender Island , calling on the government to refuse to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty. It is a significant threat to Canadian sovereignty and should be rejected.

41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the government to open an investigation into the 2011 efforts in election fraud and the so-called robocall scandal. Despite a decision made recently by the commissioner of elections to close the books on this, many significant questions remain, such as those identified by Mr. Justice Mosley of the Federal Court when he looked into the matter. The call for an inquiry remains.

Canada Post Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to table yet another petition regarding Canada Post. In fact, yesterday, we had hundreds of people show up in The Maples, looking for petitions to sign. Today, I table one, asking the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to reverse the decision that has been made by Canada Post that will limit door-to-door delivery and bring drastic increases to our postage stamp costs. The petitioners are looking to the government and calling upon it to reverse these decisions.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 444, 459, and 460. [ Text ]

Question No. 444--

Mr. Scott Andrews :

With regard to Finance Canada: during the period from fiscal year 2005-2006 to fiscal year 2012-2013 inclusively, what was the average interest rate paid each year on total government borrowing, including but not limited to the issuance of bonds and treasury bills, and any borrowing from financial institutions?

Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, The government publishes annually, in the Public Accounts of Canada, the average interest rate for each major category of outstanding market debt, including marketable bonds, treasury bills, retail debt, Canada bills, and foreign currency notes, along with the average rate on total market debt. This information is available in PDF format from Library and Archives Canada through the following links: For 2005-06, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2006/v1pa06-e.pdf, table 6.10, page 6.10.

For 2006-07, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2007/P51-1-2007-1E.pdf, table 6.10, page 6.10. For 2007-08, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2008/49-eng.pdf, table 6.10, page 6.9. For 2008-09, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2009/49-eng.pdf, table 6.10, page 6.9. For 2009-10, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2010/v1pa2010e_revised.pdf, table 6.9, page 6.9. For 2010-11, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2011/Vol1pa2011e_revised.pdf, table 6.8, page 6.9.

For 2011-12, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2012/49-eng.pdf, table 6.8, page 6.9. And for 2012-13, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/pdf/2013/2013-vol1-eng.pdf, table 6.8, page 6.9.

Question No. 459--

Mr. Ryan Cleary :

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: (

a) how many foreign and domestic fishing trawlers were boarded outside the 200-mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, as well as the Flemish Cap, in 2013; (

b) how many warnings, if any, were issued to the fishing vessels; and (

c) how many official citations, if any, were issued to the fishing vessels?

Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, in 2013 Canadian fishery officers, acting in their capacity as Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, inspectors, conducted a total of 145 at-sea inspections, three domestic and 142 foreign, outside the 200-mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks as well as the Flemish Cap NAFO regulatory area. During this time period there were 13 citations issued and no warnings.

Question No. 460--

Mr. Ryan Cleary :

With regard to the Department of National Defence: (

a) how many foreign and domestic fishing trawlers were boarded outside the 200-mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, as well as the Flemish Cap, in 2013; (

b) how many warnings, if any, were issued to the fishing vessels; and (

c) how many official citations, if any, were issued to the fishing vessels?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, in 2013 the Department of National Defence did not board any foreign or domestic fishing trawlers outside the 200-mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap, did not issue any warnings, and did not issue any citations to fishing vessels.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 433, 434, 441, 447, 452, and 458 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 433--

Hon. Ralph Goodale :

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 434--

Hon. Carolyn Bennett :

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Shared Services Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 441--

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia :

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Environment Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (

a) vendors' names; (

b) contracts' reference numbers; (

c) dates of the contracts; (

d) descriptions of the services provided; (

e) delivery dates; (

f) original contracts' values; and (

g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 447--

Ms. Kirsty Duncan :

— With regard to diagnosis, treatment, awareness and prevention, and research of eating disorders: (

a) do the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Health Canada (HC) have any statistics about how many Canadians suffer from each of the following conditions, (

i) anorexia nervosa, (ii) bulimia nervosa, (iii) binge eating disorder; (

b) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about the average costs of each of (

i) anorexia nervosa, (ii) bulimia nervosa, (iii) binge eating disorder to the health system; (

c) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about how many Canadians (

i) recover, (ii) relapse, (iii) die each year as a result of eating disorders; (

d) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what treatment is available for eating disorders, broken down by province and territory, from (

i) daily care to long-term residential care, (ii) how many publicly funded beds are available; (

e) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about how many Canadian psychiatrists specialize in eating disorders, and any statistics or information about what succession planning is in place to replace those who specialize in these disorders, broken down by province and territory; (

f) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what eating disorders training programs are available for health professionals, and any statistics or information on what succession planning is in place to replace those who serve Canadians with eating disorders, broken down by province and territory; (

g) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what long-term, publicly-funded residential care facilities are available, (

i) the average wait time for treatment by such a facility, (ii) how many Canadians are forced to leave the country for treatment, (iii) the average cost to the family for out-of-country treatment, (iv) the cost to the health care system if the province or territory reimburses families for out-of-country treatment; (

h) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about Canadians who are forced to go abroad for private treatment, and any statistics or information on what follow-up care, is available, if any, broken down by province and territory; (

i) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about the average economic costs for eating disorders to families including, but not limited to, (

i) weekly uninsured costs of appointments to psychologists, (ii) nutritionists, (iii) being unable to work or house oneself; (

j) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what specific eating disorder diagnostic data the Hospital Mental Health Database captures, as well as information about this data; (

k) do the CIHR and HC have any statistics about what percentage of deaths related to eating disorders are not being captured by the Hospital Morbidity Database (HMD); (

l) what discussion, if any, has the government had with its provincial and territorial counterparts about coding eating disorders in hospitalization records; (

m) what discussion, if any, has the government had with its provincial and territorial counterparts about the Discharge Abstract Database covering all jurisdictions of Canada; (

n) what, if any, discussion has the government had with its provincial and territorial counterparts about coding eating disorders in the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System; (

o) why has HC or any other government agency not undertaken a review of funded eating disorder services in Canada; (

p) what are the specific details of each of the “many initiatives” referred to in the government’s response to written question Q-225, that HC supports related to eating disorders; (

q) why does the Public Health Agency of Canada not conduct surveillance activities related to eating disorders, and what government agency does conduct such surveillance activities; (

r) why does HC not include low body mass index as a separate category; (

s) for each of the 57 projects related to eating disorders that Canadian Institutes of Health Research CIHR funded between 2006 and 2013, (

i) what are the details of the project, (ii) what is the funding, (iii) was the principal investigator a member of any of CIHR’s review committees; (

t) of CIHR’s 11 peer review committees, which ones include a member who has expertise in eating disorders, and for each committee listed, identify the individual with eating disorders expertise; (

u) which of CIHR’s peer review committees includes a Canadian living with an eating disorder; and (

v) what consideration, if any, has been given to a (

i) national eating disorders awareness and education campaign, (ii) pan-Canadian strategy to address eating disorders, including early diagnosis and access to the full range of necessary care, (iii) national registry, (iv) robust research program?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 452--

Mr. Matthew Kellway :

With regard to suppliers of garments and textiles that are manufactured outside Canada, in whole or in part, and which have been contracted by any agency or department of the government: (

a) what is the process by which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) may ask suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (

b) on how many occasions has PWGSC asked suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (

c) if PWGSC has ever requested evidence of supplier compliance with local labour laws, (

i) which office within PWGSC initiated these requests and under whose authority, (ii) why were these requests initiated, (iii) when were these requests initiated, (iv) were these requests for evidence limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of the supplier, or did they extend to all inputs in the production process even if these inputs were contracted out or otherwise not directly manufactured by the supplier, (

v) what type of evidence did PWGSC ask suppliers to provide, (vi) did PWGSC request that suppliers provide evidence verified by independent auditors or inspectors, (vii) did PWGSC ever give individuals from the public, organizations, or governments an opportunity to provide evidence about supplier compliance with local labour laws and to whom were these opportunities extended; (

d) if suppliers have ever responded to requests made by the PWGSC for evidence of compliance with local labour laws, (

i) how did suppliers respond to these requests, (ii) what information did suppliers provide as evidence, (iii) where and at which office are records of these responses kept, (iv) what method was used by PWGSC to ensure that evidence provided by these suppliers was accurate, (

v) did PWGSC ever rely on the services of independent auditors or inspectors to verify the evidence provided by suppliers; (

e) what is PWGSC’s policy toward suppliers that are not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (

f) has PWGSC ever determined that suppliers were not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (

g) if PWGSC has ever determined that suppliers were not operating in compliance with local labour laws, what actions did it take; (

h) has PWGSC ever rejected a bid from a potential supplier on the basis that this supplier was not likely to comply, or did not have a record of complying, with local labour laws; (

i) has PWGSC ever withdrawn from a contract with a supplier, attempted to withdraw from a contract with a supplier, or threatened to withdraw from a contract with a supplier on the basis that this supplier was not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (

j) has PWGSC ever made the prospect of future contracts with a supplier dependent on that supplier demonstrating progress or improvement with respect to their compliance with local labour laws; (

k) has PWGSC ever made the fulfilment of its contract with a supplier dependent on that supplier demonstrating progress or improvement with respect to their compliance with local labour laws; (

l) has PWGSC ever determined that, if there are any countries or geographical areas in which labour standards are so unacceptable, it will not accept bids from local suppliers and, if so, (

i) what were these countries or geographical areas, (ii) when were each of these countries or geographical areas deemed unacceptable, (iii) did PWGSC clearly communicate with suppliers in that country or geographical area about the conditions that would have to be met for PWGSC to resume its willingness to contract with local suppliers; and (

m) is the PWGSC provision that requires supplier compliance with local laws limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of contracted suppliers, or does the requirement apply also to any firms sub-contracted by suppliers to provide either inputs or labour and, if it does not apply to any firms sub-contracted by suppliers, (

i) what is PWGSC’s rationale for limiting the requirement in such a way, (ii) is PWGSC concerned that suppliers may avoid having to meet the requirement by simply subcontracting their work, and why or why not?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 458--

Ms. Kirsty Duncan :

With regard to details provided in the government’s response to written question Q-64: (

a) what effort has the government made to reach out to Positive Change, an organization which represents mothers who have lost their sons to violence; (

b) on what dates have officials from Public Safety Canada (PSC) met with mothers who have lost a son to violence, and with how many such mothers have PSC officials met; (

c) why did the government not proactively reach out to the Somali-Canadian community when homicides among young Somali-Canadian men occurred in 2006; (

d) what specific issues has the organization “Canadian Friends of Somalia” (CFS) raised with the government since 2009; (

e) what specific support has the government provided in response to issues raised by the CFS concerning Somali youth in Canada “as they relate to radicalization to violence and terrorism, and to explore avenues of support from the federal government and law enforcement to address these issues”; (

f) for each “ad hoc meeting” between PSC and CFS, (

i) what is the date, (ii) how many people attended and from where, (iii) what is the purpose; (

g) for each “ongoing meeting” between PSC and CFS, (

i) what is the date, (ii) how many people attended and from where, (iii) what is the purpose; (

h) at the initial meeting of PSC officials with CFS on July 15, 2009 in Ottawa, (

i) what specific issues were discussed, (ii) in what riding, (iii) were Members of Parliament present; (

i) at the October 7, 2010 videoconference between PSC officials and CFS, (

i) what specific issues were discussed, (ii) who were the representatives from Ottawa, Toronto and Edmonton; (

j) at the March 12, 2011 meeting, (

i) which specific communities were included, (ii) in what riding were Members of Parliament present, (iii) what specific issues were discussed, (iv) why did PSC provide $1938.12 for one participant; (

k) with which specific imams and from what mosques did PSC officials meet on June 18, 2011, (

i) in what specific riding, (ii) were Members of Parliament present, (iii) what was the agenda for each meeting, (iv) what criteria were used to determine which imams to meet with; (

l) at the June 18, 2011, PSC outreach session in Toronto, (

i) which communities were represented, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (

m) at the June 19, 2011, PSC meeting in Toronto, (

i) which Somali-Canadian youth organizations attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (

n) at the May 29, 2012, PSC meeting in Toronto, (

i) which officials met with what community representatives, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) why did PS provide $700.05 for one participant, (vi) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vii) were Members of Parliament present; (

o) at the June 8, 2012, PSC meeting in Hamilton, (

i) with what community representatives did the former Minister of Public Safety meet, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (iv) why did PS provide $785.42 for one participant, (

v) in which riding did the meeting occur, and were Members of Parliament present; (

p) at the October 3 and 4, 2012, PSC meeting in Toronto, (

i) what community representatives attended, (ii) how was the workshop event on crime prevention and community safety planning advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) why did PS provide $8958.12 in travel expenses for participants, (

v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (

q) at the February 20, 2013, PSC employment information event with law enforcement agencies for Somali-Canadian youth in Ottawa, (

i) who attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) which law enforcement agencies were represented, (vi) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vii) were Members of Parliament present; (

r) at the March 12, 2013, Ottawa PSC outreach session with Somali-Canadian youth, (

i) who attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vi) were Members of Parliament present; (

s) at the ministerial meeting in Toronto on September 20, 2013, (

i) which community representatives attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) how many people attended, (iv) what was the agenda, (

v) why did PSC provide $1031.09 for one participant, (vi) in which riding did the meeting occur, (vii) were Members of Parliament present; (

t) what action is the government considering regarding the more than fifty homicides in the Somali-Canadian community; (

u) what action and investment has the government taken regarding Positive Change’s requests for an investigation into homicides of Somali-Canadians, specifically through (

i) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, (ii) the development of federal-provincial job programs supporting Somali-Canadians, (iii) the development of job opportunities with the RCMP, (iv) an examination of witness protection; (

v) who requested the October 17, 2011 meeting of PSC officials with mothers of victims of violence, (

i) how many mothers attended, (ii) how was the meeting advertised, (iii) what was the agenda, (iv) in what riding did the meeting occur, (

v) were Members of Parliament present; (

w) why did PSC only follow up with mothers and fathers of the Edmonton Police Services; (

x) why was the joint work plan developed in collaboration with CFS, (

i) what other stakeholders had input, (ii) what other stakeholders across the country have seen the work plan and commented on the plan; (

y) what specific action is outlined in the work plan regarding addressing the 50-plus homicides in the Somali-Canadian community, and was Positive Change consulted to comment; (

z) why were participants for the PSC October 2012 workshop invited by “the CFS and the network that the community has built over the years”, (

i) what stakeholders are part of the network, (ii) how did the government ensure that all stakeholder viewpoints were represented, (iii) were stakeholders informed prior to the event that a work plan would follow, (iv) where can members of the Somali-Canadian community view the work plan; ( aa ) were stakeholders informed prior to the October 2012 meeting that a “community’s primary point of contact” would be chosen; and ( bb ) will the government answer subquestions (i), (k), (l), (

m) and (

o) from Q-64?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) Motion moved: That, in the opinion of the House, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a key role in informing, entertaining and uniting Canadians and is today weakened because of the many rounds of cuts over the past 20 years, and calls on the government to: (

a) reverse the $45 million in cuts for 2014-2015 in Budget 2012; and (

b) provide adequate, stable, multi-year funding to the public broadcaster so that it can fulfill its mandate. He said: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons will be devoting today's debate to what is happening at CBC. It is a very serious situation. This is more than just a simple debate. In truth, we are calling for an emergency debate today so that we can acknowledge the crisis at our public broadcaster. Never before has CBC been in such a crisis. We decided that this debate needs to happen because the government has decided to wash its hands of the problem, even though it is responsible for this situation.

This government ignored our calls for accountability. We asked for the government to be accountable for its actions and budget cuts at CBC. I would also like to note that the minister pledged in this House to testify about the CBC situation before a committee. However, her big boss got his members on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to fix it so that she was not invited to come talk about this topic, which is an embarrassment for them. The government is also choosing to disregard the tens of thousands of Canadians who are speaking out and expressing their dismay at the situation at CBC/Radio-Canada.

Every member here in the House must admit that they have constituents who are taking a stand and speaking out—

(1015) The Deputy Speaker : The hon. Chief Government Whip on a point of order. [ English ] Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that we are not to wear props when we are in the House of Commons. The current speaker and some other members of the NDP are currently wearing props sponsoring a political cause, and I would suggest it is inappropriate. The Deputy Speaker : On the same point of order, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions in which Conservatives have worn pins to promote some particular cause.

When we raised the issue, the Speaker at the time said that he felt it was in order. I find somewhat surprising that the idea that wearing a pin that supports Canada's national broadcaster would somehow be offensive to the government. There have been MPs in this place who have worn hockey jerseys. My goodness, we are talking about supporting the national broadcaster. Certainly there have been precedents that the Speaker has passed judgment on, and there has been some leniency in this regard.

I am surprised, again, that the Conservatives have chosen this moment to suddenly raise an issue when other so-called “political paraphernalia” has been worn in a much larger size by Conservative colleagues, for which the member did not have such a problem. Suddenly, someone wears a button supporting the CBC, and the Conservatives have a problem with it. Of course, this is something that all Canadians support, and I am sure Conservatives, upon reflection, would support it too.

There is no need to raise such points and objections at a time when we are discussing the support of our national broadcaster, something Conservatives obviously do not so much believe in. The Deputy Speaker : I think we are all aware of the general policies that we have followed in this House for a long period of time on the use of props and also of wearing pins and other paraphernalia. I will respond to the whip in particular in this regard. The general rule, of course, is that pins and paraphernalia are not to be worn if it causes disruption to the House.

I am a bit concerned about the point of order being raised now because these pins have been worn for at least a week or 10 days, as has been my observation, to this point in time. Therefore, I am having some difficulty accepting any suggestion that it is causing disruption, because if it was, points of order would obviously have been raised earlier in this process. Again, speaking to the members who are wearing the pins, if it is going to cause a problem at some point today, we may very well reverse the position that I am now taking, which is that members can continue to wear the pins.

However, if it is disruptive to the process in the House, there will be a direction from the Chair to have the pins removed. The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher . (1020) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this government is also choosing to ignore the tens of thousands of people who have spoken up and expressed their dismay over the situation at CBC/Radio-Canada. None of us can deny that people in our ridings have taken a stand and spoken up in favour of the CBC. Every day, MPs receive calls and emails similar to the ones I receive.

They know that over 25,000 people have gone to the trouble of signing the petition on our website because they believe that an effective public broadcaster is a vital part of a healthy media and cultural landscape, and a strong CBC is important to them. There is no doubt that the Conservatives are wholly responsible for what is happening to the CBC. It has come to this because the Conservatives wanted it to come to this.

When the Conservatives choose to attack the CBC by slashing its budget even as the corporation is coping with the toughest market conditions in its history and is already struggling, they are just showing how mean-spirited they can be. The Conservatives did not really adopt a hands-off approach with the CBC. What they really did was make drastic cuts to the public broadcaster's budget: $115 million over three years. That will certainly have serious consequences: years of belt-tightening, service elimination, job cuts and talent loss. We have only just begun to see how this will affect the CBC.

We have all heard about the heartfelt appeal of the corporation's leading radio and television journalists: Céline Galipeau, Patrice Roy, Alain Gravel and many others have warned that the cuts will soon have a serious impact on the work of the creative people at CBC and especially the corporation's ability to practice good journalism. We have every reason to believe that they will gut the CBC's sports service, which so many people tune in to, and that they will not spare regional stations either.

When Céline Galipeau decides to publish an open letter in the newspaper, then we should definitely be worried too. [ English ] The two governing parties have developed a long tradition of attacking the CBC. The Conservatives cut another $115 million over three years starting in 2012, and $45 million of that will be cut this year. These cuts are why the CBC is in so much trouble today. Before the Conservatives came to power, the Liberals had cut hundreds of millions of dollars to the CBC and left it more vulnerable than had any other government before it.

Some of the Liberals in the House who nowadays will stand up to bravely defend the CBC were actually part of the government that cut $414 million from our public broadcaster in the first years of being in office, after promising they would protect the CBC. After playing this trick once in 1993, they played it again in 1997. The Liberals are responsible for some of the worst cuts in the history of the CBC and caused thousands of job losses at the CBC.

I speak today from a position of credibility as a New Democrat when I say that what we need for the CBC is adequate, stable, multi-year funding to allow it to live up to its mandate. This needs to be done if we want a strong, independent public broadcaster. Canadians know that we are the only party that can make this happen. There are very serious consequences to cutting back the CBC's funding over so many years the way both the Liberals and the Conservatives have done.

We are starting to notice the effects of this new series of cuts when we hear about some of the CBC's best journalists leaving so that a younger colleague's job will be spared. We are told that the host of the show the fifth estate is leaving so it can keep on working with all its producers. We know that a lot of the effect of these cuts is still to come. [ Translation ] The news programs on the French network and on the English network are the victims of the latest cuts, which are jeopardizing the role that CBC plays in our democracy.

The show Enquête with Alain Gravel on Radio-Canada television is losing journalists and people who work behind the camera. Those same journalists, researchers, technicians and producers are the ones who invest time and resources into stories that other media outlets do not always pick up. It is thanks to those journalistic efforts that the public found out about the many instances of fraud and breach of trust we have seen in recent years. Imagine for a moment that the Charbonneau commission never existed and that the sordid affairs that we are just starting to hear about were still the norm.

Investing in a show like Enquête is very good for our society. Since I am running out of time, I will skip ahead in my speech. When it comes to the cuts to CBC, the other thing some people keep telling us and those concerned about the near future of the corporation is that if CBC needs adequate funding then it should come up with interesting programing. A member of the House said that. Is that not pathetic? That is also what the minister keeps saying when we ask her the question. She says that CBC has to offer programming that appeals to Canadians.

That type of answer illustrates just how far out of touch the Conservatives are with the reality of Quebec and the francophone community. I am sure that it is easy for them to forget, but Quebeckers watch shows from here and like the content produced here. The same goes for the large francophone community outside Quebec. My office is in the Vieux-Longueuil neighbourhood, which is often the backdrop for television productions because the production companies are interested in their community. Providing us with a reflection of our society is precisely the invaluable role that CBC plays.

The public broadcaster is important to people across the country who are hoping to have an independent broadcaster that is provided with adequate, stable, multi-year funding so that it can fulfill its mandate while being sheltered from the uncertainties of the advertising market. Despite the current shortcomings, we want to keep CBC even more than ever. When we think of the cuts in the media, especially when it comes to covering international news, when we think of this culture of scrutiny that could be lost because of a government that would do well to adopt that culture, we realize how important CBC is to us.

We care about CBC. Just think of its excellent, award-winning sports coverage, which is greatly appreciated. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to mention the high-quality coverage Radio-Canada provided of the Olympics in excellent French. We care about CBC. Just think about its educational role, which involves not only entertaining Canadians but also keeping them informed and making them better citizens who are more thoughtful and sometimes even more cultured. It is an unique mandate and no other broadcaster bears such a responsibility. We care about CBC.

Just think about the irreplaceable democratic role it plays in keeping an eye on our society, pointing out its overlooked realities and speaking on behalf of the voices that would otherwise not be heard. Unlike government broadcasters in other parts of the world, the role of our public broadcaster is not to be a spokesperson for those in power. On the contrary, its role is to keep an eye on the successive governments and the world of politics. We could use more of that, not less. Over the past few weeks, 25,000 Canadians have joined the NDP in saying that they care about CBC. I urge another 25,000 to join us. Mr.

Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park . (1025) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, some of the comments are interesting. We have been consistently very supportive of CBC within the Liberal Party. In fact, it was the Liberal Party that was in power when CBC first came into being, and the Liberal Party has consistently supported it through its conception. I am very familiar with NDP behaviour on crown corporations.

For example, when the Manitoba Telephone System was privatized in the province of Manitoba, the New Democrats swore they would bring it back and nationalize it. True to form, they broke that promise the moment they took office and did not do it. The NDP, in opposition, proclaims a great deal of love for a lot of things but that never materializes when it is in power, at least that has been the experience in Manitoba. It is important that we recognize everything CBC has done over the years for our country and be focused on what is happening today.

What is happening today is going to have a profound and negative impact on Canada. The CBC is a vital part of promoting Canada's culture and heritage, and ensuring its longevity is of critical importance. My question for the member is this. Is he not prepared to indicate that we need to focus our attention on the budget that CBC has today and ask the government to reinstate that money as quickly as possible? [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I particularly appreciate the fact that he said that we should forget about what happened in other provinces, because his former government's track record here in Ottawa is much more embarrassing. I agree with him about the cuts. We are calling on the government to reverse the $45 million in cuts to CBC. Clearly, this is an emergency measure that, at the very least, will help the crown corporation get its head above water. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members that, of the 18 countries that have a public broadcaster, Canada ranks 15th when it comes to funding.

Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the United Kingdom, Austria, France, Belgium, Spain, Japan, Australia, Ireland and Italy all rank above us. Then comes Canada with a measly $29 per citizen. The countries higher on the list have funding of $180 or $164 per citizen, and the average is between $70 and $100. Who is below us? The United States. (1030) [ English ] Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is right. It was the Liberal Party that actually cut $400 million in funding to the CBC back in the nineties.

We know that CBC has declining listening and viewing audiences. There is a lack of revenues. It has not been able to get revenues from organizations. In fact, CBC has lost the contract for our National Hockey League. Now it is complaining that it does not have enough money. We are already providing the CBC well over $1.1 billion. It needs to be able to work within its budgets and make sure that whatever programming it is providing meets Canadian needs. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Mr. Speaker, that is really sad.

Honestly, I would like to go and have a beer with my colleague opposite because he obviously understands nothing. Nothing at all. By blaming CBC/Radio-Canada for losing Hockey Night in Canada , my colleague is showing that he does not get it. It is absolute heresy when we know that CBC/Radio-Canada did not cut fat or muscle, but cut to the bone. We have reached that point. CBC/Radio-Canada cannot deal with this situation. It is shocking to hear such comments. [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his strong statement today and for his motion in support of the CBC. For those who are watching this debate, this motion: ....calls on the government to: (

a) reverse the $45 million in cuts for 2014-2015 in Budget 2012; and (

b) provide adequate, stable, multi-year funding to the public broadcaster so that it can fulfill its mandate. Let me just say first of all why we need a CBC. I want to begin with a quote from Canadian producer and director Peter Raymont. What he has said is: I think the arts, arts programming on CBC English Television in particular, could really help revitalize the CBC. There's been very little arts programming on the CBC for quite a few years now.

I think it's a great shame that the artists of Canada, the musicians and poets and writers and filmmakers of Canada haven't had their voices heard and their work seen on CBC television, and it's a vital part of Canadian culture and Canadian identity. It is still very essential that Canadians share their stories. That is what the public broadcaster allows us to do. We need to be able to tell our stories, from every corner of this vast country, not just the big cities. I come from Toronto. My riding is Parkdale—High Park.

However, we need to know the stories of big and small communities right across this country as part of our Canadian identity. The government does not seem to like our Canadian institutions, whether it is Elections Canada, the Supreme Court, Canada Post, or now the CBC. These cuts seem to be part of a broader assault on our public institutions in Canada. Let us face it: our national broadcaster is part of our nation-building. It is an important element of our country. We need to share our stories. There is no private sector replacement for what the CBC does.

These cuts are preventing us from effectively telling our stories across this country. What are the cuts I am talking about? The cuts we are talking about today are a direct result of the 2012 budget from the Conservatives. However, ever since coming to power, the Conservatives have had the CBC and Radio-Canada in their sites. They appointed Conservatives to top management positions and instructed them to literally take an axe to the institution.

As a direct result of the actions by the Conservative government now, but also previous Liberal governments, CBC/Radio-Canada has been weakened at the same time as it is trying to survive in an extremely competitive television market, and struggling to transform and keep up with the 21st century technology. New Democrats question whether the CBC/Radio-Canada can actually fulfill its mandate under the current conditions, particularly in respect to the regions and minority language communities.

We so badly need these voices to knit our country together and not allow us to build on our differences but rather to celebrate our differences. It is disappointing that the new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages seems to be pursuing the Conservative approach of abandoning this important Canadian institution. The NDP believes in the importance of our public broadcaster. CBC/Radio-Canada should have an adequate, stable budget that affords it a measure of predictability.

This would make it less susceptible to the whims of the advertising market and less affected by political influence, I might say, because they would not have to be as concerned about the government of the day. These cuts are having a huge impact on the staff at CBC. We are losing hundreds of young people, good people who are the future of our broadcasting, people who could make a huge difference for this country. I want to just quote Linden MacIntyre, the host of the fifth estate , who is talking about the 657 people who will lose their jobs under these cuts.

(1035) He is someone who stepped down to save one more job of a young person. Mr. MacIntyre has been a Canadian treasure in his role as host of the fifth estate . He said: ...the 657 people are young, bright, talented and they represent the future of the CBC. If we start losing them at this point, we are losing the future. It's a tragedy, it's a human tragedy and it's an institutional tragedy and, I suppose it's not pushing it to say, it's a national tragedy. I agree. I believe that these cuts to CBC are indeed a national tragedy.

However, it is not just the Conservatives, as I said, who have been making these cuts. It should be said that while they were in power in the 1990s, the Liberals imposed cuts on CBC and Radio-Canada to the tune of $400 million, and almost 2,500 people lost their jobs. The Chrétien era is generally accepted as the time when the troubles of the CBC and Radio-Canada began. It is on this terrible history of cuts that we are seeing these further cuts by the Conservatives today. What does this mean to our major broadcaster? As I said, young talent is being lost, but we are also losing voices of Canadians.

We are losing regional programming and diverse programming across this country and we are dropping in our ranking around the world. Among the 18 major western countries, Canada ranks 16th, third from the bottom, in terms of per capita public funding for public broadcasters, just ahead of New Zealand and the United States. That is sad testimony to the lack of support given to our public broadcaster. This is a very important issue right across this country, but in my community and in my riding of Parkdale—High Park , it has been a huge issue.

I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails, calls, and letters from community members who are very concerned about this series of cuts. I want to quote a couple of these letters. One of them, from a constituent named Joe, who is talking about now having advertising on CBC Radio. He writes: I just heard the first ads on CBC Radio. Consider this a howl of outrage. Promise me the NDP will establish stable funding for the national public broadcaster so that we may be spared further erosion of this once-mighty institution. What's next, billboards on the side of the parliament buildings?

Joe can rest assured that the NDP will restore funding to the CBC. I want to quote one other letter from a constituent named Cathy. She has copied me on a letter to the Prime Minister . This was about budget changes in 2012. She wrote to the Prime Minister: Your disrespect for the intelligence of the Canadian people is transparent when you challenge the value of the CBC. At election time you suggested [you] would support continued funding for the CBC, but when handed a majority you've worked to de-construct an internationally respected network on the basis that it threatens your ideology.

To lose the CBC or worse, make it a propaganda machine for any standing government is an offence to our democracy and evidence of your disassociation with the history of this vast nation and the irreplaceable role that the CBC has played in maintaining our ties as a nation. Decades of increasingly depleted funding and the staffing at upper echelons of Executive Officers prepared to dismantle the CBC, managing it as if it were a private company, continues to undermine the CBC's unique mandate to connect Canadians. Shame on you... I thank Cathy for that letter, and I echo those words: Shame on the Prime Minister .

The NDP motion today is calling for stable, predictable, long-term funding for the CBC. Let us not attack our national broadcaster. Let us treasure it, preserve it, improve it, and leave it there for future generations for the benefit of all Canadians.

(1040) Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with respect to this motion, if I am going to support it, I really would like to clearly understand your definition of adequate and stable funding. Can you give me a dollar value in terms of what that is? The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The member for Sault Ste. Marie should be aware that the questions have to be directed to the Chair, to the Speaker, not to the member the question is going to. I am not sure if the member had completed. If not, please continue. Mr. Bryan Hayes : Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if she would please explain what exactly, in terms of a dollar figure, adequate and stable funding is in the mind of the member opposite. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, only the government can actually direct funding from this House. The opposition cannot, in fact, identify a specific amount or dictate what we think the dollar amount should be. As he well knows, the opposition does not have that ability. We are not crafting a budget.

However, if the hon. member just waits until 2015, when the NDP is elected the Government of Canada, we will be happy to give him a dollar amount for the CBC. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the previous question in asking my question. Why do we not bring it back to where the funding was in 2006, when the Conservative government was elected? That is a proposal. I think any election platform will have to be fully costed, and they will have to put a dollar amount to what they want to spend on different things.

I do not think that my hon. colleague's answer was sufficient. One has to say that we have put together an election platform, this is what we intend to spend, here is what it costs, here is where the revenue is going to come from, and here is our plan, with the dollars. I want to give my hon. colleague a chance to respond to that. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member what we will not do. Unlike the Liberals, we will not cut $400 million from the CBC and we will not lay off 2,500 hard-working employees of the CBC.

If he is patient and he waits, when we are in a federal election and have an election platform—and, as he knows, every platform is fully costed—we will lay out exactly what our plans will be for the CBC. I am sure Canadians will prefer the approach to the CBC of the New Democrats over what either the Conservative or Liberal record has been over the last 15 years. (1045) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague for her eloquent speech, which encapsulates the views of people in her riding.

I would also like to point out that, quite clearly, the other parties are not really taking seriously what $45 million means. Canada has a population of roughly 30 million people. That $45 million would add $1.50 per person. The debate is clear. We give $29 per Canadian. Previously, we gave $34. It is not too hard to do the math. I think the Conservatives know how to count. I would like to ask my colleague what she believes is motivating people. In fact, 25,000 people signed the NDP petition. Why are these people so passionate about their public broadcaster? Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr.

Speaker, once again I would like to thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his question and his efforts on behalf of CBC/Radio-Canada. What is motivating the people in my riding is their pride in Canada. It is their passion for communication, the arts, information and the news. They like the information they get from CBC/Radio-Canada, which is impartial—which is not the case in the private sector—reaches every corner of our country and represents all Canadians. I think it is this pride and passion for our country that is really behind the support for CBC/Radio-Canada.

That is why it is so important to adequately fund this public institution. [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion put forth by my colleague from the NDP. It should be highlighted immediately that the relationship between the government and CBC/Radio-Canada is an arm's-length relationship, and there are good reasons for that. I am going to spend a bit of time clarifying exactly what the nature of that relationship is. I will begin with a reminder of the origin of the CBC.

When the corporation was created way back in 1936, Parliament provisioned for a great level of autonomy from government to ensure independence in its program decisions and freedom from the type of political interference the opposition is trying to display today. Since then, and over the years, the Broadcasting Act, the legislation governing the corporation, has been amended a number of times to adapt to the changing broadcasting landscape. These various amendments were made in full respect of the necessary arm's-length relationship between the CBC and the Government of Canada.

It is important to take a few moments to speak about how the board's strategic guidance impacts the CBC. However, first it is important to acknowledge that there is a relationship that is defined by the fundamental freedom of expression that is a cornerstone of our Canadian democracy. The CBC's independence is explicitly underscored in three sections of the Broadcasting Act. It states: The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.

The corporation reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage . It is governed by a board of directors comprising 12 individuals, including the chairperson and the president, who are appointed by the Governor in Council. The board provides overall stewardship of the corporation. It is responsible for the fulfillment of the mandate and for directing the business, activities, and affairs of the corporation. It holds its senior management accountable for its performance. It is also responsible for providing strategic guidance to the CBC.

The public broadcaster's current five-year strategic plan is an example of how the board interprets its public mandate and provides guidance to the CBC in developing media strategies, programming, and other initiatives. The CBC's mandate 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 [our country]; To provide Canadians with a wide range of Canadian cultural programs, the public broadcaster must provide content on multiple media platforms.

Canadians expect to have access to media content at the time and place of their choosing, be it on mobile devices or on their television sets or with video on demand. They also want to contribute content, to participate, and be able to express their own personal opinions. The CBC must strive to meet those needs by focusing on creating and delivering original and innovative high-quality Canadian content, by reflecting and bringing together Canadians with regional and national programming, and by engaging with Canadian audiences through special events such as town halls.

Most importantly, the CBC must strive to be cost-effective, transparent, and accountable, which is something I hope the leader of the NDP is going to be at committee in about 10 minutes. The CBC must offer high-quality national programs that inform, enlighten, and entertain Canadians, just as its mandate requires it to do.

(1050) The CBC carves out spaces, forums, and opportunities for Canadians to connect with one another to share stories, experiences, and opinions. It must maintain and, where applicable, increase its presence in regions, and it must continue to do so in an innovative fashion, using all or some of its various services, depending on specific circumstances. It must seek to reach communities that do not have access to many channels or cultural services. It also offers news programming produced in each particular region.

The CBC has expanded its reach into underserved communities, such as Kelowna, Hamilton, the northern suburbs of Montreal, and Newfoundland. The CBC is also investing in digital programming and is recognized as a leader in digital offerings with its news websites and with innovative applications such as TOU.TV and the CBC Music web portal. The corporation now offers a broad suite of digital programming that can be accessible to Canadians when and as they want it. Digital programming can also mean an increased presence in regions.

The corporation must continue to strive to be present in regions with digital media and offer Canadian content during prime time. Like all broadcasters, the corporation continues to seek to diversify and to increase revenues. The CBC should continue to form partnerships and pursue other avenues to maximize its resources. The corporation is responsible for establishing performance indicators to monitor how well, according to Canadians, its programming and services fulfill the main elements of its mandate.

Our government strongly supports the emphasis the corporation is placing on measuring its performance, as it is imperative that all corporations demonstrate the results they achieve with Canadian taxpayer dollars. In terms of meeting its specific mandate, according to recent surveys commissioned by the corporation, CBC's English- and French-language radio and television services scored an average of 8 out of 10 for being informative, enlightening, entertaining, and available on new platforms.

When Canadians were asked how English and French services fare against the corporation's strategic priorities, it received an average of 8 out of 10 for being of high quality, distinctive, diversified, and reflecting all of Canada's regions. Like all broadcasters, the corporation continues to measure audience share, revenue, subscribers, production costs, and adoption of its new platforms. It is noteworthy that results include the performance of French television, its network radio services, and its progress on digital platforms.

On the other hand, the CBC must find ways of attracting Canadians aged 25 to 54, a demographic that has slipped from the corporation and is continuing to slip. It is a key demographic sought by all television advertisers. It is its decline in viewership and the decline of advertising revenue that is first and foremost causing these challenges at the CBC.

To conclude this example of governance, it is critical to underscore that the corporation is responsible for its day-to-day operations, including its strategic objectives, and it is up to CBC, in terms of those objectives, to ensure that its strategic plans are fulfilled and the needs of Canadians are met. The president, as chief executive officer at the head of the senior executive team, is responsible for the overall management of the corporation.

He at this point is accountable to the board of directors for the efficient operation of the corporation in accordance with the plans and priorities established by the board itself. The board of directors has a proper mix of skills and experience to actually manage the CBC, and it is their responsibility to ensure it fulfills its mandate. Considering the legislative framework and regulations surrounding the broadcasting sector, it is also important to know that the board fulfills its roles and its responsibilities.

The board has the knowledge, skills, and experience required to do a proper job in the legal, media, accounting, community, and business sectors. I would now like to get back to the nature of the arm's-length relationship with the government and what it means in terms of accountability to Parliament and, most importantly, to the Canadian public. The Financial Administration Act governs the administration of public funds. Part of the act provides a broad and accountable framework through which most crown corporations normally engage with the government.

However, in this case, the CBC is exempted from some sections of

part X of the Financial Administration Act.

(1055) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shares this exemption with a very select number of crown corporations. This exemption was put in place to ensure that some cultural activities and decisions are free from political involvement.

While this exemption from portions of the Financial Administration Act give the corporation a high level of autonomy from government, it still must comply with key reporting requirements that apply to all federal corporations as well as comply with the Broadcasting Act, which is its own legislation, or other legislation such as the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and labour laws, among others. Every year the corporation informs government what it intends to do by submitting to the responsible minister, for information only, a corporate plan with a five-year outlook. A

summary of the plan and the annual operating and capital budgets are tabled each and every year before Parliament. Like every other broadcaster in Canada, the CBC has to comply with regulations set by the CRTC. In addition, the CRTC establishes specific licensing conditions for the CBC and Radio-Canada television and radio services in order to encourage the national public broadcaster to deliver on key elements of its mandate and contribute to a strong Canadian broadcasting system.

To give even more strength to the crown corporation's accountability to Canadians, our government in 2007 expanded the scope of the Access to Information Act so that more federal organizations, including the CBC, are required to respond to information requests. It also brought the corporation under proactive disclosure requirements, which means that the travel and hospitality expenses of its executives and members of its board must be published online on a quarterly basis. We expect the CBC to fully comply with the requirements under that act.

We went even further to encourage an exchange between Canadians and the board of crown corporations. To encourage the CBC to engage directly with Canadians and to provide Canadians with an opportunity to speak with the boards, in 2009 our government added requirements to the Financial Administration Act that crown corporations hold annual public meetings. The purpose of these public meetings is to give the public an opportunity to witness, to ask questions, and to express concerns on the programming direction, the fiscal management, and the overall stewardship of the CBC.

As principal stewards of the corporation, the chair, the president and chief executive officer, and the chief financial officer must attend board meetings. They are expected to speak to the plans and spending of the corporation over the previous year and to its future direction. There are also mechanisms for Canadians to pursue complaints about CBC/Radio-Canada's news or public affairs coverage. They can contact the corporation directly through any of its stations or through the head office here in Ottawa.

CBC ombudsmen review complaints regarding all of the areas upon which Canadians seek clarification or register a complaint. They do so regarding journalistic and current affairs material. The ombudsmen determine whether the journalistic process or the radio, television, or Internet content involved in a complaint does in fact violate the corporation's journalistic policies. The ombudsmen are independent of the corporation's program staff and its management. After investigating complaints, the ombudsmen report their findings directly to the president and CEO of the CBC through to its board of directors.

Our government believes it is important that Canadians have direct avenues to hold the CBC to account. The CBC receives a significant amount of funding from taxpayers, over $1 billion each and every year, from the budget that Canadian taxpayers fund to run the Government of Canada and its subsidiary organizations. It receives both direct and indirect funding. It is sufficient, as the president and the chair of the board of directors have acknowledged, to fulfill its public mandate to reach Canadians as described in the Broadcasting Act.

Canadian audiences now have a number of electronic high-tech devices and hundreds of television and radio services that allow greater freedom to choose and access the content that they want. The CBC must continue to invest in programs and platforms that Canadians want to invest their time in watching. It has the independence to decide how best to invest the funds that it receives from taxpayers, through Parliament, to achieve its mandate. The corporation has operated and will continue to operate at arm's length from government.

The corporation's reporting obligations are necessary to ensure the CBC remains accountable to all Canadians and delivers quality programming that Canadians want to enjoy.

(1100) As I conclude, it is imperative that Canadians understand that when we went through an extremely difficult time of a global recession in 2008 and 2009, this government was in a position to be able to respond to what was happening within this country and around the world in a way that put people to work, in a way that created investments in this country, in a way that was able to put us in a position far superior to those of most other countries in the world in terms of working through that recession.

Part of what we asked of every single department, ministry, and corporation was to participate in ensuring that we brought the Canadian government and its subsidiaries back to a balanced position in a responsible and productive way that allowed those corporations, those arm's-length agencies, as well as our ministries and departments in a fashion that was accommodating to them and that would both maintain the delivery of service in this country and enable us to reach a balanced budget. We did not ask any one ministry or corporation to do more than another.

We asked all to join and do the same in a prescribed and determined effort to get this country back in a state of a positive budgetary process and a state of positive management, understanding, and style that are allowing us in the very near future to go back into balanced budgets in a way that no other government has done before under its mission and determination. If we go across the country and ask Canadians on an individual basis, they would say that the delivery of service they are receiving from the federal government has not changed and has in fact improved since 2006.

Under that mandate, the CBC is working, is determined, and is giving every effort that it possibly can to join with the government and Canadians to ensure that its product is top notch, is one that people understand, and is one that they understand has a financial capacity and accountability. I would tell the House today that the CBC is doing its job. There is no doubt that it is struggling. The mandate upon which it was structured, which was based upon how people interpreted broadcasting in 1936, is completely different in 2014.

There is not an entity or corporation that delivers this type of service that is not struggling and is not determined to find a way to work through the issues of viewership and the demand the public is putting forward today onto those who provide those services. The CBC is doing its job. We should continue to let it do its job and understand and fulfill its mandate.

(1105) Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I found myself agreeing with some of the member's points. He was supporting our argument on this side. He talked about the importance of regions and about the need for funding to support regions and about the mandate. Those are very important. Those are good facts that he put forward on the record. Some facts to come back to are that following the 2012 budget, we saw that the cuts to public funding left the budget at $1.025 billion. To give members some context on the record, in 1996 the corporation received $1.07 billion.

Therefore, we have seen the funding cut since 2012 versus 1996, where we saw major cuts from the previous government. Then the 2014 budget cuts were $82 million for English, $42 million for French services, and $4.7 million for corporate services. Those are just some facts on the table. I want to leave the member with this question. Current River councillor Andrew Foulds, who represents a ward in Thunder Bay, is concerned about the regional representation that my colleague put on the record.

He said the city is calling on the CBC to cancel all programming staff cuts in Thunder Bay and he sent a resolution of the council to the government. What does the member say to people like Andrew Foulds, who is representing his community, about the fact that these cuts would hurt the regional representation that the member put on the record as being the mandate of the CBC? Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and certainly I understand that everyone in our country has the ability to formally register a compliment or concern.

If we look back over the corporation's history since 1936, I do not think that the matters he is suggesting are new to the House of Commons or are new among the concerns the CBC faces on a daily and yearly basis. It is the CBC's mandate to implement programming based on its requirements under legislation and regulation. It is the CBC's board, president, and chairman who have the responsibility to respond to the very concerns the member raises.

The government's responsibility is to ensure that the implementation of that legislation and regulation is thoroughly followed, and we get those results back from the CBC on a yearly basis. However, the determination of programming, direction, and what the CBC is going to do in terms of delivery of service is its mandate. [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for St. Catharines and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage , for his speech.

He reiterated and reminded members of the commitment the Canadian government—and particularly our government—has made to providing stable funding to CBC. My colleague also explained that the challenges facing CBC are not related to stable funding from the Canadian government, but to external factors, such as the loss of hockey contracts and declining advertising revenue. My question for him is this: what challenges does CBC face in a competitive environment in which it is up against private companies for advertising revenue and major contracts? [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : The hon. Parliamentary Secretary.

You have one minute. Mr. Rick Dykstra : Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Public Safety for his thoughtful question and also for giving me the opportunity to, very quickly, respond. CBC is facing challenges, just as all other networks in the country are, whether they are delivering radio service, delivering television service, or delivering online. The world is changing. The demographics at CBC are that individuals aged 25 to 52 are decreasing at an alarming rate.

The fact that Hockey Night in Canada , which is something CBC has delivered for years, is now going to be delivered by Rogers Corporation, which has taken that over, will have a huge impact on the revenue and roles and responsibilities of the CBC. Those are two areas that are of huge concern to the CBC. In fact, they are bigger concerns, I would imagine, than whether or not it is receiving whatever revenue it receives from the federal government. The issue that CBC faces is viewership and declining revenues from its advertising, which it needs to address and is attempting to.

(1110) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak about CBC/Radio-Canada, for very important reasons. Our public broadcaster has been a stalwart for this country in building its culture from coast to coast to coast. I have always said that people say CBC is vital for regional programming, where it has served for many years. We have parallel situations, of course. We have the private sector and we have the public sector, meaning the CBC.

When we look at many of the smaller markets where the private sector could not survive on its own, the CBC provided that vital service. I speak specifically of CBC North as a prime example. In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it provided a service in Labrador in places where it was not obtainable through the private sector. As I look back at both Radio-Canada and the CBC, I look at how they provided a national conversation and a national understanding. Before the days when we could talk to each other with a small mobile device, our way of communicating with each other was through a public broadcaster.

I remember as a child growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s watching the CBC. There was no thousand-channel universe at that point, and we did not have a computer or the Internet to use; television and radio were the only ways. Therefore, our conversation took place through the viewing of television and the making of documentaries and information programming, primarily provided by the CBC.

There were no specialty channels back then, so we had our main broadcast channels, such as CTV, Global, and the affiliate, and we had the CBC and its regional station in addition to the American broadcasters, which came over the border and through cable. At the time, I remember watching the traditions of organ-making for churches in Quebec. I had never really known about it. I remember writing about it in high school. I wrote about how Quebec was famous worldwide for developing these large pipe organs in churches. I had not known that.

Here I was, a young child in Newfoundland and Labrador, learning about what was a tradition in the province of Quebec. I learned about Bonhomme and the Carnaval de Québec through CBC. I was not in Quebec, but I learned about it. In Newfoundland and Labrador, I learned about the majestic mountains of British Columbia through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I also learned about Canada's north and the 24-hour sun, the 24-hour daylight, through the CBC.

In the course of growing up in a small province on the eastern coast of this country, on a small island, in the days when communications were not as prolific as they are now and certainly not prevalent by any stretch, all we had were three or four channels. The CBC was my window to my country. Not only was it the ability to see the country; it was the ability to converse with the rest of the country. Later, when I grew up, I joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. I joined the air cadets and got to see the country that I had seen on television. I travelled to Alberta. I travelled to Nova Scotia and these areas.

I had a genuine interest in doing that because I had seen the country laid out in front of me on a small television screen. I got to see the majestic mountains of both western Alberta and British Columbia in person, and I was astounded by them. If it had not been for our national public broadcaster, I never would have really appreciated what I was about to see, and I never would have had a genuine interest to see it. This is what our public broadcaster has done. Through the years, it has provided us with a yearning to be Canadian in all facets of this country.

(1115) Let us not forget one of the greatest institutions alive in this country. That is Hockey Night in Canada . It was formerly La Soirée du hockey . For a child growing up in Newfoundland and Labrador, the upbringing was not that much different from growing up in Trois-Rivières. I grew up in the small town of Bishop's Falls. On Saturday, I would go and play hockey at the local arena, but I certainly would not miss Hockey Night in Canada . I am sure for kids growing up in Trois-Rivières, Saint-Jean, or other small towns in Quebec, it certainly would not have been dissimilar.

Our public broadcaster united us in what we had a passion for, whether we were children, teenagers, or adults, as we are today. However, the public broadcaster has had challenges. It has had budgetary challenges through the years, as the Government of Canada has had budgetary challenges over the years. I could say the same for the National Film Board, given what it is going through. What we must not forget is the genuine understanding that our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, is still vital to us today to make sure we share these conversations across this country.

We want to know what is happening in Canada's north. We want to see what is happening in Canada's north. We want to hear what is happening in Canada's north. Let us not forget another element of CBC/Radio-Canada. We pushed Canada out to the world through short wave radio service for many years. We were a pillar for shortwave radio, with our ability to communicate around the world and spread our message to billions of people in China or India and throughout the United States of America.

We had a service similar to its public radio, NPR, but ours was more challenging because we only have 30 million people right now, and in those days we had about 20 million people, trying to support this service that went from coast to coast to coast. Let me go back to my original point.

It is not just about having local stations, which are very vital and important, but what the CBC did, secondly and just as importantly, was allow a small child in Newfoundland and Labrador to experience the country through French Canadians in Quebec, French Canadians in New Brunswick, English Canadians in British Columbia and Alberta, and of course through many aboriginal groups across this country. The conversation was shared. There are institutions in this country that are famous, and not just by themselves. Let me use an example I used previously, the Carnaval in Quebec City. It is a fantastic event.

Its mascot, Bonhomme, is famous. It is not just a Quebec phenomenon. I always wanted to meet Bonhomme, and I had never been to Quebec at that point. Many citizens in this country want to meet Bonhomme, and they know Bonhomme because of our public broadcaster. That is why. It is because we had a conversation between French Canada and English Canada. In doing so, we got to share its triumphs, such as last night, when the Montreal Canadiens won game seven. That is not a bad admission, given the fact that I am Boston Bruins fan. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Scott Simms: Do not boo, because we lost.

Seriously, we cannot rub it in any more than what it is. That is the passion we share. As a child, I loved watching baseball. If I could bring the Montreal Expos back, I would bring them back tomorrow. God love them. The issue is not just about baseball or the Carnaval or the hockey that we share. The issue here, if I may steal something from a Canadian intellectual, the late Marshall McLuhan, is that the medium is the message. Today, that is exactly why we are debating this. It is the medium that brought us the message of Canada.

That medium is not just about radio, not just about television, not just about the Net or any social media out there, but it is about the existence of public broadcasting.

(1120) What worries me is there is a change in ideology. I know that once I sit down, I will be questioned about cuts that happened in the 1990s. I am well aware of that. There were budgetary constraints. The Liberals were under pressure to wrestle a massive deficit and tough decisions were made. It was not just the CBC that was affected. Other tough decisions had to be made as well. However, we never lost sight of the fact that public broadcasting was vital to our country. Funding was stabilized once the budget was back into balance.

What worries me, however, and I hope it is highlighted in this debate, is an ideology is creeping in that dictates, “Why should I pay for public broadcasting when private broadcasting can fill that space?” Through you, Mr. Speaker, to all my colleagues in the House, that is the most dangerous attitude we can have against any semblance of public broadcasting. I believe that our private broadcasters are doing a wonderful service to our country.

They donate to the Canada Media Fund, which is a wonderful program providing movies, documentaries, and funding for all these things that tell our story, not only to each other but to the world. However, our public broadcasting is incredibly sacrosanct. I would like to talk about some of the issues of recent time. I noticed the motion itself calls for multi-year funding to the public broadcasters so it can fulfill its mandate. Indeed, in the last couple of elections we talked about that. It is really the only way we can go about doing this. The BBC does it, and it does it well.

If members noticed, some of the best programming in drama is now coming from the BBC, a public broadcaster. One of the greatest worldwide news services, the most respected, is the BBC. We must look to other models around the world, and the BBC is one example, especially when it comes to multi-year funding. I want to talk briefly about CBC/Radio-Canada and its history through the years. It has been said that through 1920s, there was a proliferation of private radio stations in our country, but we also had a lot of private radio stations streaming across the border.

The origins of public broadcasting are not dissimilar from the origins of public broadcasting around the world, which is to say that we need to protect our message here. This is becoming more difficult because of the regulations in place to help protect our Canadian culture, like Canadian content rules allowing certain channels on the satellite spectrum. There are certain regulations, but a lot of people are now able to get around that because of technology.

By way of example, there is Netfllix, or what is called an over-the-top broadcaster, essentially, through the Internet, because the CRTC does not regulate the Internet. Therefore, content is now streamed through our computers. We can get copies from iTunes and these sorts of things. There is a fundamental shift in content and how we deal with content now. We will have to subsidize content in the future, but in the meantime, the CBC started with the very basics of protecting our own culture. In 1928, it established a royal commission to advise on the future of broadcasting in Canada.

Going ahead to the 1940s, the national public broadcaster took off. In 1941, CBC news service was formally opened. Radio-Canada's news division was also created. As the next decade approached, getting into the 1950s, television was on the horizon and CBC/Radio-Canada was preparing. In 1947, the corporation presented a 15-year plan for the development of television in Canada. Throughout the 1950s, CBLT Toronto and CBFT Montreal began broadcasting. In 1955, television services were available to 66% of the Canadian population.

That is a pretty big goal and accomplishment for a country with a few million people, the second-largest country in the world, and most of this stuff was over-the-air transmissions.

(1125) In the 1960s, the regulatory framework was refined. The CRTC formally took over as the regulator. Before that, the CBC handled it. In 1968, the new Broadcasting Act confirmed CBC/Radio-Canada's role in providing the national service. Therefore, 1968 was the year when we said that we had a national broadcaster, a public broadcaster, and, therefore, it should be enshrined and protected. Recently, however, due to cuts, the CBC had to make some fundamental decisions on its service. It had to manage $390 million in financial pressures since 2009.

Overall, these reductions have affected the equivalent of 2,107 full-time positions. We talked about some of the numbers earlier in this debate. For people are just tuning in now, I would like to repeat some of those numbers because it is very vital that we do so. A lot of people think we may spend too much on public broadcasting, but let us put it into perspective. Each Canadian pays $29 per year for the combined services, CBC/Radio-Canada, but the worldwide average in other nations is $82. Of the 18 countries that invest heavily in public broadcasting, we are at number 16. Therefore, there is room to grow.

Again, I go back to what was in the original motion. We also have to provide a model for multi-year funding. The services offered now to Canadians include 88 radio stations, 27 television stations, three all-digital services, two specialty television news services, RDI, CBC News Network , three other specialty television services, and 11 other services, including music channels and services in two official languages across six time zones. Therefore, we get the vastness of what our public broadcaster has to accomplish. The 1980s saw a tremendous growth in the number of private and specialty channels.

We went from a four- or five-channel universe to about a 60-channel universe in the 1980s, with American channels being the most prolific at the time, the CNNs of the world. We followed suit with Newsworld, which it was called at the time, the CBC component of an all-news channel. CTV did much the same. We had TSN as well as the Weather Network, MétéoMedia en français. The corporation continues to push ahead this multi-channel universe. Throughout the 1990s, it was much of the same. All of a sudden we find ourselves now in the proliferation of not just channels but platforms.

Therefore, we move into the digital world, providing content. The way we consume our entertainment through digital devices has changed dramatically. Tonight's Hockey Night in Canada starts at 7 p.m., 7:30 p.m. Newfoundland time. Basically, we are moving out of making appointments to see entertainment. What we are doing now is downloading content in our digital world. Whether it is to save it to view it another time or to stream it from a cloud or from the central service that is provided. CBC, our public broadcaster, has to fit its way into that.

However, what is interesting about that is it also provides a great deal of opportunities. Through one of these providers, lately I have downloaded—and paid for it, I might add—several programs that originated with the BBC. One has to wonder, with the BBC providing this content, if we could do much the same. However, we have to get serious about content, and that is a conversation and a debate we should have in the future about not only the CBC but the National Film Board and the Canada Media Fund. We can look at Canadian content.

I thank the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for bringing forward the motion. I hope the debate will be a fruitful one, despite the vote. We pretty much know how the vote will go, but in the course of this conversation, we can talk about fundamental reasons why we like our public broadcaster and how we can improve it, given technology today. (1130) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his testimony.

I think it was more of a testimony than a speech, and I was particularly touched by the emotional aspect, since I watched La Soirée du hockey as a young boy in Trois-Rivières. I also watched Les Beaux dimanches and shows like Rencontres , which we never would have been able to see or been allowed to watch on a private network. I think this shows just how important our public broadcaster is. CBC gave us a picture of this vast country that was much more accurate than the map on the “Canada” notebooks I was using at that age.

I must point out, though, that the member's party began these massive funding cuts to CBC, which is how we have ended up where we are now. When we know that we are rank 16th out of 18 in terms of funding for public television, I think that reversing the $45 million in cuts is just the beginning. I want to know whether my colleague thinks it is necessary that we bring ourselves closer at least to the world average for public television funding in the coming years. [ English ] Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, yes, I think it is.

By way of illustration, if I may continue with my testimony, over the next little while we anticipate getting from that dollar value to a world average, which is about $88. That is a substantial amount. That is more than double what we are doing right now. The models we could use in other nations may dictate. It is more expensive for us because of revenue sources. We are not in a country that is relatively the same size. Let us take a look at places like Switzerland and those areas.

They do not have to broadcast to a much larger geography; however, that gap is now decreasing, given digital and satellite technology. There is room to grow in that part. The member mentioned $45 million in cuts to be restored, which is true. However, the most important part of this has to deal with the fact that it is a multi-year model for funding. This is the most vital part of the motion that all parties should consider doing. Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what we are seeing is a change in market demand, and we see that in other industries. A good example is that Kellogg's food recently shut one of its plants because the demand for certain types of breakfast cereal around the world shifted and there was no longer that demand. I believe the government is providing significant funding to CBC, but the entertainment preferences of Canadians is changing. I like Murdoch Mysteries , a great show. I listen to the CBC when I have the opportunity to drive from Ottawa to my riding of Cambridge . However, I am curious about the timing of the motion.

Speaking of testimony, we had the Leader of the Opposition being hauled before a committee to provide testimony on the alleged misuse of taxpayer dollars. Is this a ploy for the NDP to find favourable journalistic coverage by CBC on this apparent misuse of taxpayer dollars?

(1135) Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, I came here today to talk about public broadcasting, quite frankly. With all due respect to my colleague, I have no interest in answering that question. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my very honourable colleague from across the way talked about changing entertainment preferences. However, my favourite program on CBC Radio when I was growing up was Quirks & Quarks , which is still going on. It is a testimony to how much people like it and how it has inspired a lot of people to go into science and engineering, something our economy needs.

We should be talking to people all across Canada about nature, about how things work, about the importance of science, engineering and technology in our everyday lives, without selling toys and sugary cereals, focusing on science, why it is so interesting and why people should think about a career in science and technology. Could my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor tell us about the importance of that to our country? Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the member's question.

He illustrates a very good point of this motion, about the multi-year funding, because there is the responsibility of our public broadcaster to raise money through revenues. Bidding for the Olympics is not a cheap thing, but it is great that our public broadcaster can cover the Olympics and hockey and that sort of thing. I know that now it is different with the contract going to the private sector.

However, to provide programming that is illustrative of who we are as Canadians, for education purposes and also for entertainment, and to be serious about providing something that is not always achieving the biggest number of viewers, we have to do something that enriches our nation. Multi-year funding will go a long way in doing that. It allows the broadcaster to make these plans so that programs like Quirks and Quarks , which he is a fan of and continues to be today because it is a great program, can continue. That is fundamental in this debate. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for his testimony about the impact of the CBC on him and his community and how it brings Canadians together. I have this question for the member. As well as representing greater diversity, does a public broadcaster also have an important role to play as an independent news source? Can he tell us if he thinks it is vital to have a public broadcaster to ensure full freedom of the press? Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely I do. I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for the question. I used to live in her riding and I know a lot of CBC employees live there as well.

I was in private broadcasting, I was part of the MétéoMédia/The Weather Network, which is regulated but private. When I would go and do stories and be associated with the CBC, I found the people very respectful of the journalistic standards put out there. I will give an example. The Senate is doing a study on the CBC and requested that its anchor, Peter Mansbridge, appear, and the president wrote back to say, “We must decline your invitation to Mr. Mansbridge.

It is not appropriate for journalists, whose job includes reporting on the activities of Senators, to be questioned by those same Senators at a Parliamentary Committee.” This is a good thing. It is proof that the CBC does live up to those journalistic standards and ethics, and if it does not, we have the ombudsman to go through and act as a mechanism by which that can be rectified. However, recent debates do alarm me. In response to the Senate demand of getting Mr. Mansbridge in, it proves that there has to be that separation in place and we must not micromanage in this particular area. (1140) [ Translation ] Ms.

Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what an honour it is to rise today in the House to speak to a fantastic motion on the CBC, moved by my party, the NDP. People may not know this, but I am a journalist by training. I will share my time with the great member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges . This is about information and freedom of the press, as well as the extraordinary work done by journalists, whose situation is becoming increasingly precarious. Friends often tell me just how difficult it is to be a journalist every day, on many levels.

Today, frankly, 10 minutes will not be enough time to say how much the NDP wants to support them and that we care about the CBC and we believe in it. My colleagues spoke a little about what the CBC means to them. Personally, I am a big fan of Radio-Canada. I watch programs like Enquête and Découvertes . I also listen to radio programs. I could not go without mentioning À la semaine prochaîne , a funny political program that helps me take things a little less seriously each week, when we find that the Conservatives are steamrolling over us.

I rise in the House to support this NDP motion that reminds us that the CBC plays a fundamental role in informing, entertaining and uniting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This role has been jeopardized, mainly because of the many rounds of cuts in the past 20 years, which is why we are asking the government to reverse the $45 million in cuts for 2014-15 in budget 2012 and provide adequate, stable, multi-year funding to the public broadcaster so that it can fulfill its mandate.

For the third time in four years, the CBC has announced significant budget cuts of over $130 million, which translates into 657 positions. Eleven positions will be cut in Québec, my riding. The CBC's situation is so precarious and difficult that 11 positions in Québec are threatened. The CBC is at the heart of our cultural ecosystem. It broadcasts programs that are made here and acts as a showcase for creators in all sorts of disciplines. The CBC is also a partner in broadcasting many arts events.

Given these cuts, we are wondering whether the CBC will be able to fulfill its mandate, particularly when it comes to Canada's regions and linguistic minority communities. I am particularly concerned about the regions and linguistic minority communities. They will be harder hit by these cuts, to the point where it will be difficult for them to recover because of the problems the cuts will cause. In this era of media concentration and cross-media ownership, Canadians need to be able to count on an independent and impartial source of information. We cannot stress enough how important this is.

We have seen the importance of public broadcasting in recent years. Without shows such as Enquête , the Charbonneau commission would never have happened. This is one of the most striking examples of the strong and meaningful contribution the CBC makes to our country's democratic health. Democracy can never be taken for granted. We work every day to make it real and meaningful. That includes freedom of the press. I would like to make another important point. I read Time for Outrage! by the late Stéphane Hessel.

In it, he said that any attack on freedom of the press, or an independent press, erodes the health of our democracy. It is really a step in the wrong direction. Sometimes, we come to this realization too late.

(1145) That is why we are sending out a warning today. The government needs to wake up. Today, we want people across Canada to understand this motion and join their voices with ours because it is important to stand up and say, in social media and other forums, that we care about the CBC. One more opinion is never one too many. That is part of democracy. Alain Gravel, a journalist and the host of the television show Enquête , said: Today, about 25 people make up the Enquête team. That may seem like a lot, but it is not too many for what we do.

We do not keep track of our hours and everyone who works here is extremely dedicated. Conducting investigations takes time and an organizational structure that supports our work. Losing staff will definitely have an impact on our work. Mr. Gravel goes on to say: We, along with other investigative news teams, have helped to save Canadians tens of millions of dollars by uncovering corruption [which can happen at any time].

The first year we did the show, the City of Montreal announced that the cost of major public projects had dropped by 30% even before the police had investigated, simply through the power of information. Alex Levasseur, president of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, said: At the end of the day, it is the younger people who will have to leave. However..., when all is said and done..., this means cutting a team that works and delivers results. The Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec wants a public debate on the CBC's role.

Brian Myles, vice-president of the FPJQ, said: It seems the Conservative government wants to let the CBC die a slow death. One cut at a time. This is the third time, and that is why we are saying enough is enough. Actually, ever since they came to power, the Conservatives have been targeting the CBC. Everyone can see that. They appointed Conservatives to top management positions and basically instructed them to take an axe to the institution. The CBC sports service has also been hard hit by cuts. Fifty hours of original sports programming are being cut. The CBC used to take a special interest in amateur sports.

When Louis Lalande, executive vice-president of the CBC's French-language services, was asked about future broadcasts of the games of Université Laval's football team, Rouge et Or, he did not seem very optimistic in his answer: It will be very difficult because we can no longer afford to have the same level of daytime programming as we do now. The CBC is one of the least subsidized public broadcasters in the world. The CBC costs every Canadian $29 a year,

whereas the BBC, for instance, receives about $111 per capita. That is unbelievable. Our broadcaster is one of the least subsidized broadcasters. I look at the figures, and when we compare ourselves to other countries, the difference is unbelievable. Our broadcaster is receiving less and less funding. Of course this will affect the quality of information and Canadians' access to this information. That is what bothers me the most. The Conservatives are not able to understand that informed citizens are citizens who actively participate in their democracy, and that is what we want.

There needs to be more public education so that people can react to what is happening. We know that the Conservatives are out to destroy that because they do not want to be challenged. This situation is the result of the Conservative and Liberal governments gradually abandoning our public broadcaster. The NDP feels that public broadcasting is important. Our motion is not asking for more funding, far from it. Instead, we want to stop the cuts so that the corporation can receive stable, adequate and predictable funding.

By making its budget more predictable, CBC would be able to cope with fluctuations in the current market. In return, we will continue to expect the corporation to meet the highest management and accountability standards, as is the case with all other crown corporations.

(1150) We can never stress enough how important it is to support our public broadcaster. The people at CBC have my full support, and I invite all Canadians to express how much they care about CBC. They should contact their MP and tell him or her that it is important to support our journalists. [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot in that speech. I did not hear a whole lot of content. I heard a lot of ideology. I heard a lot of accusations. I heard a lot of threats.

However, I did not hear any resolve as to the importance of CBC and its meaning and purpose to Canadians. Instead of talking about funding, because part of her speech was about the delivery of service CBC provides, could she stand in her place and provide two clear recommendations to the CBC on how it can better refine and define itself in this age of delivery of television services that the CBC could actually use? She is telling us how great the CBC is. Where is the advice? Where is the help? Where is the assistance?

What are the two major principles she believes the CBC should embark upon to solve the crisis and difficulties it is facing right now? [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, CBC is doing a lot with the little bit it has, so reversing the $45 million in cuts is the very least that can be done. We know that the Conservatives will be sitting on a nice big surplus next year. They are probably sitting on one right now. I know that for every dollar invested in the cultural industry, $3 or $4 gets injected back into the system.

Not understanding that it is important to invest in our cultural industry is therefore very short-sighted. This is also a question of identity. Everyone has a story about the CBC. This is about essential services, and public broadcasting is one of them. Support for these services can continue as they are currently, without endless cuts. Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about cuts to Radio-Canada in her riding, Quebec City, and there have been cuts in Montreal and Trois-Rivières too. Trois-Rivières is a big city, but not quite as big as Montreal and Quebec City.

What I am trying to show is that the “Radio-Canadian” network is nationwide. The same goes for Canada Post, which has an amazing network across the whole country. Can my colleague comment on the Conservatives' vision, which is most likely informed by a desire to privatize broadcasting and eliminate the amazing networks that people have woven over the years, networks that enable all Canadians, from sea to sea, to see a reflection of themselves in these institutions? Alas, that reflection is not as clear as it once was. Ms. Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I do not know how many MPs here represent the regions or how many represent urban areas but are from regions like the one I am from, the lower St. Lawrence. What I do know is that people get regional news from the CBC, which tells people what is going on in their region. It is the leading broadcaster, and this job simply cannot be left solely to the private sector and at the mercy of the market and the whims of advertisers. We must support the CBC in our regions across the country because the broadcaster helps us connect with others.

It also enables francophone communities to connect and find out what they have in common. The government wants to divide and conquer, but there are many ways for us to discover that we have a lot more in common than what others would have us believe. That is what the CBC does.

(1155) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague. I would simply tell her that I have been listening to and watching the public broadcaster for a lot longer than she has, for biological reasons. My question for her is quite simple. I would like to know whether she agrees with me. According to CBC's President Hubert Lacroix, the broadcaster's current revenue losses are tied to the loss of contracts to broadcast hockey games, a decline in viewership among 25 to 54 year olds, and the loss of ad revenue.

Does the hon. member agree that the challenges that CBC is currently dealing with are related to what is happening in the broadcasting market? Ms. Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am not part of the generation that saw the Indian head test pattern on television. I am sorry about that, but I have heard a lot about it. What I can say is that CBC is adapting. There is a great deal of competition. A lot is happening on the Internet. Having an Internet presence is imperative and I think the corporation is adapting well in that regard. I have become a big fan of tou.tv.

In fact, it is a big part of my social life. It allows me to watch what I want any time, day or night. Fortunately, CBC is using these alternatives to deal with this massive competition. By stopping these cuts, we could give the broadcaster some breathing room and help it keep adapting to the market. [ English ] Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the CBC is Canadian stories. It is our voice. It is our sovereignty. My first encounter with the CBC was in 1975 in Saint-Lazare, Quebec. As an anglophone Quebecer, the CBC and CTV were our two channels, other than the American channels we got.

During the day, there would be game shows and soap operas on CTV, but on CBC, there was a funny man who drew pictures, dressed up, and talked to puppets. For a four-year-old kid, Ernie Coombs was the cat's meow. Ernie Coombs fostered in me a love of art and a love of drama. He taught me things. He taught me good Canadian values. From that first encounter with that black and white TV set, I learned what it was to be Canadian and what it was to be an anglophone in Quebec. I learned the value of the CBC at that point.

In 1981, my grandfather St-Maurice's hotel in Quebec City burned down and he lost all his money and had to move in with my parents. Our TV programming underwent a shift at prime time. We were a family that liked sitcoms and American TV. We liked to laugh together. However, my grandfather liked les Canadiens de Montréal and les Expos de Montréal , so all of a sudden, we began watching CBC Hockey Night in Canada quite religiously. The transition took a bit of time, but I learned to love the theme song of Hockey Night in Canada and I learned to love the times we spent together as a family watching the games.

I am reminded that I went to my family last night and watched game seven of the Habs and the Bruins. There is a long tradition of matchups between these two teams. The Prime Minister can pretend that he is with the Habs, but he and his government, to me, act more like Boston. Here we have a team that is bullying, brutish, and, as we saw last night, desperate. When it is losing, it does not play a valiant game. It roughs up people against the boards. While we are here, our party is defending the public broadcaster, and the Conservatives are piling up on our leader in this very House, pulling a Chara.

Hockey Night in Canada is a symbol of our cultural sovereignty. With budget cuts that have been made, the CBC could no longer compete for the contract for the NHL, because for a long time, at least 20 years, it had had challenges in its funding. My colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor mentioned the 1990s and the $400 million in cuts the Liberals made, but I would like to mention something more recent. In 2003, Clifford Lincoln, the member for Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, prepared a report called “Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting”.

This report recommended that the CBC get multiple-year stable funding. The Liberals had two years to do this. They had two full years to implement the recommendations in Mr. Lincoln's report. It was a parliamentary committee that prepared that report. However, we know the record of Paul Martin, and we know that he and his government had no understanding of the importance of the public broadcaster. Paul Martin, in the 1990s, cut $400 million at a time when the CBC faced the challenges of exploding channels and platforms.

The Liberals could have prepared for the future, but instead, they cut the legs of the public broadcaster. To return to my family and the 1990s, I remember sharing Radio One with my father. We would listen to the radio. We would listen to people like Rex Murphy , L. Ian MacDonald, and Bernie St-Laurent. We can agree or disagree with these political commentators, but there was public debate, ideas, and stories.

(1200) I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that I was an anglophone. My father, William Nicholls, was an anglophone as well. He was not a man who watched sports games. He listened to the CBC. He listened to the radio, and he listened to the public broadcaster for information, because my father was a dropout. His father was a town planner for the town of Pointe-Claire. His father passed away when he was 17, so he had to take care of his mother and his mentally challenged brother and never finished high school, yet this was the man who was my foil and my debating partner.

My father, who was a Tory, with a disdain for Pierre Trudeau, and who was from a family of Tories, loved the CBC, because it was public debate. It was political ideas. He could shout at the radio about something he did not agree with, but we were talking about these issues. He was a critical thinker, and when he did not agree with something, he debated it. He debated, he spoke about it, and we would talk as a family about ideas. We would argue ideas. He did not shut down debate. He was not afraid of debate. He was not afraid of being challenged. He would never have identified with the party across the way.

He would have been like Flora MacDonald. He would be supporting our party these days, seeing that the NDP is the only reliable one left standing to protect our public broadcaster, the only one reliable and trustworthy enough to defend our cultural sovereignty and the right to tell Canadian stories. We are not just paying lip service here. This is not just a market-oriented decision being made. This is changing the fabric of Canadian sovereignty by crippling what has built our identity for generations.

We are not just saving money or making economies of scale here; we are actually destroying institutions that have built for generations our Canadian identity. I know that some members of the government party believe that the CBC is biased. This has always been an argument. I mentioned that my father would sometimes argue with what people said on the radio or television. My grandfather did as well. He was from a different political persuasion as well. However, we had discussions about politics and ideas.

I know the current government's position with respect to the CBC and its feeling about it, because I listened to the member for New Brunswick Southwest at the official languages committee. He had questions for Mr. Hubert Lacroix. He asked Mr. Lacroix about political bias in reporting and what he was going to do about it. Mr. Lacroix was talking about making efficiencies in his organization and budget cuts, yet the member for New Brunswick Southwest questioned him on political bias. Right there it became clear why these budget cuts were being made to the CBC.

It was not because the CBC was not effective in its role. It was not because it was not effective in telling Canadian stories. It was simply because the CBC often runs stories that are embarrassing to the government. Let us not beat around the bush. The current government does not like the news reporting service of the public broadcaster. It is so focused on its partisan agenda that it cannot see the wider picture of what this public broadcast