Mr. Speaker, I will try to get back to the motion without getting overly excited. The motion says the following:
That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the minister of Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions-
I would like to start from that point. The member for Richelieu made a brilliant speech regarding the double talk of the Liberals these last thirty years. He gave us numerous examples where pre-election decisions are not implemented after the elections, where pre-election promises are not kept after the elections. This is in fact double talk, but there is also a lack of transparency when one refuses to tell the facts, when one prefers to remain silent. It is the thrust of the motion introduced today in the House.
I would like to read one or two little paragraphs from the red book, because they make an accurate description of the CBC's present situation. In the little red book, a few sentences relate to the CBC- this one, for example: "At a time when globalization and the information and communications revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development. Instead, the Conservative regime has deliberately undermined our national cultural institutions". So this was a criticism this government was making then of the Conservative government.
I go on: "Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial development". I draw the attention of members to the fact that the government is doing now exactly what he considered unacceptable on the part of the Conservative Party.
This is what Liberals wrote in their little red book, before the elections, of course: "Liberals recognize not only that the promotion of cultural industries contributes to enhancing Canadian identity, but also that cultural products create jobs at home and bring in revenues from abroad". What do we see later on? Job losses, lay-offs and also, probably, losses of revenue. Here is a last little sentence, again from the red book: "Finally, a Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear financing for national cultural institutions such as the Canada Council and the CBC". That is, the opposite of what we are doing now. "This will allow national cultural institutions to plan effectively". We can see the consequences of the decisions made today.
This is why Mr. Manera resigned. Because he could not plan for the long term. When you are a high level manager wishing to manage public affairs in a coherent manner, you demand coherent funding, which was not given. The cuts to the CBC-SRC fly in the face of the position stated in the little red book. We are denouncing the discrepancy between the decisions being taken and the government's stated position, as we have done every time it has not been true to its position.
I would like to point out that we are not the only ones to do it. Some government members also denounce this kind of activity. I will mention, among others, my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls, who spends the greater part of his time haunting the corridors at Revenue Canada and who, every couple of months, explains either in this House or in the press, how his government refuses to go and get the money where it should, in the pockets of rich Canadians who are not
paying any taxes. It is not the Bloc Quebecois who is saying this, but the member for Gander-Grand Falls.
I will also mention the remarks made by my hon. colleague, the member for York South-Weston, who tells us that every time the government goes after or wants to go after social programs, it is doing exactly the same thing it was denouncing when the Tories were in power. It is not the Bloc Quebecois who is saying this, it is the Liberal member for York South-Weston. I am also coming back to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who delivered a cutting speech in this House on how Canada's social programs did not cause the country's deficit. He concluded his speech on this issue by saying that he would probably vote against the budget. We will see what happens when the time comes.
This means that this method of doing things, which we denounce today, was amply decried by the hon. members of the current government. Of course, the minister does not wish to disclose anything when answering questions in the House. He has answered about 10 questions already, I think, regarding the CBC's budget versus the statements made outside of the House by the management of the CBC. The minister refuses to get his feet wet. The CBC's president is forced to resign, saying that $350 million will be cut, yet the minister refuses to confirm this figure.
Ms. Fortin says that 750 positions with the French network will be cut or abolished, yet the minister refuses to confirm the figure, claiming that it is all still hypothetical. Lastly, the media state unanimously that the minister's statements are inconsistent.
We are not the ones saying it, it is the newspapers who are saying it every day. There will be major cuts which will have a dramatic impact on both networks, but will probably hit the French network harder than the English one. There are actually great discrepancies between the two networks. I am referring to what the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata explained to us so well when she said that, in general, television programs produced for the French network cost less than those produced for the English one, and have a bigger public.
I am also referring to a report submitted to the committee by the Coalition pour la défense des services français de Radio-Canada. This coalition represents producers, artists and others involved in producing French-language services for the CBC. According to a summary of its agenda-I believe the House should hear this-the coalition for the defence of CBC French-language services denounces the disproportionate distribution of program resources between Canadian public television programs, depending on whether they are going to anglophones or francophones.
Further, Canadians are not entitled to public services of equivalent quality, if they are French speaking or English speaking. This is not only unfair, but in violation of the CBC-SRC mandate, as stated in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act. The coalition's support to the renewal of the French and English networks licences is conditional upon this iniquity being remedied. It recommends that the CRTC attach to the renewal of CBC-SRC licences the obligation to provide both networks with equal program budgets by the year 2001.
In its report, the coalition identifies three specific areas that require particular attention and to conclude asks that the CRTC step in to force the CBC-SRC to act on these problems as a matter of priority. We know where all this leads: to drastic cuts. All under the pretext of having a budget to produce and an enormous debt to deal with.
The Minister of Finance has in fact tabled recently in this House a budget with teeth. This budget does have teeth, but not for just anyone. It does not have teeth when it comes to family trusts for example. Family trusts will finally be abolished, but only in four years from now, to give those who have an interest in family trusts to get their most trusted tax consultants and review the whole gimmick that enables them to avoid taxes.
This budget has no teeth when it comes to tax havens. There are still tax havens and those who use them to keep their profits outside of the country do not pay a cent in taxes in Canada.
This is not exactly a budget with teeth for the banks either. Banks will be required to make a small effort. Peanuts, really, considering the astronomical profits they made this year. While individual taxpayers are asked to tighten their belts to the last notch, the banks get away with doing hardly anything.
On the other hand, this budget definitely has teeth as regards the little people. That is obvious. It bites into the tender flesh of our farmers, milk producers and wheat producers. Of course, it calls for some assistance to be provided to allow Western wheat producers to adjust, but nothing for Quebec.
It bites into UI. The UI system is not for the rich, but they bite off huge chunks of it anyway, without even swallowing the deficit. That is the beauty of it that if we have drastic cuts affecting the little people, it is because we have a growing deficit and debt.
All the cuts made this year will not prevent this deficit and debt from growing, which means that more cuts will be required next year. The effects of the cuts announced this year will not be felt for another seven or eight months.
This budget also compromises the future of our young people by forcing them to pay more to enrol in school in the hope of getting the few jobs that will be left when they graduate-and young people came to the Hill to show us that they understood this. So we end up with well-educated unemployed workers who are 80 per cent in debt. That is their lives. A big budget, indeed.
They are already salivating over their proposed reform of the old age pension plan. A 72-year old man came to see me yesterday in my office. As a good Canadian taxpayer, he had just filed his income tax return. This individual earns $23,000 a year. Because he claimed a capital gains exemption this year as a result of selling his house on paper, he will have to pay back his old age pension benefits, which amount to $4,600 for the year. There are now many people in the same situation who, while preparing their tax returns this month, will realize the extent of the cuts that have been announced but will only be felt in a little while.
I heard my hon. colleague tell us with a smile up to his ears that this budget had been well received throughout Canada. I am not sure that we read the same newspapers. Some fairly well-known people were quoted in the newspapers. The day after the budget was tabled, Roy Romanow said that it was "un-Canadian". And he used this term repeatedly. An indignant Bob Rae claimed that health care and social assistance budgets would be cut. All the newspapers headlined that Bob White was in a state of shock. And the CBC president resigned just after the budget was tabled.
In the meantime, alone in Quebec in the shadow of Michel Bélanger, the so-called great defender of Quebec's interests, Daniel Johnson does not say a word. To stay on the subject of sheep, this could be called the silence of the lambs.
All these measures do not change anything. The debt will continue to grow and the government will have to cut even deeper next year, just to fill in the holes. And the CBC's budget will be affected.
That is why we tabled this motion, to stress that the heritage minister should undertake to give us accurate figures in order to avoid creating an unhealthy climate. The minister himself claims that he is responsible for this portfolio and that he is a friend of the house. I think it would be in the House's interest to be given accurate figures and to know exactly what decisions have been made by this government.
