And Glengarry. I also remind my colleagues opposite that it is precisely on this issue of the lack of funds for the CBC that Mr. Manera resigned. An hour before the budget was tabled, Mr. Manera was given by the deputy minister of finance a report explaining the extent of the catastrophe. But to conclude that Mr. Manera's resignation was tied to these cuts was too big a step for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the only one to be blind to the fact.
In fact, I would have a piece of advice for the heritage minister. Judging from the way he answered our questions, which he is apparently no longer allowed to answer-during question period today for instance, his colleague the Minister of Industry kept answering in his place-and from the stares he has been getting from all his colleagues recently every time he gives a clumsy answer, I sincerely hope that he did not get rid of his
driver's licence because he will be needing it before long, when he is a backbencher again.
As the CBC and other cultural agencies undergo drastic cuts, the minister continues to deny the cuts and keeps on parroting official figures. He reminds me of a bankrupt businessman who persists in denying any financial difficulty, when the trustee is already on the premises preparing an inventory of his assets. If I had a piece of advice to give the heads of the CBC, it would be to choose their friends more carefully, given that the minister claimed to be a friend of the CBC.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues, and the heritage minister in particular, of the advantage, for our national institutions, of the multi-year financing these agencies have been crying out for many years. This kind of financing over two or three years would allow such agencies to better plan their production and distribution activities on a medium term basis. It would put an end to this chronic uncertainty which undermines the work of full time creators and freelancers as well as those responsible for controlling costs.
In addition, multi-year financing would promote the development of the imaginative and sound solutions required for these agencies to be well managed. More importantly, it would give creators a better insight into how the federal government feels about them. Instead of seeing creators as dreamers who are incapable of managing a budget and therefore have to be subsidized in a piecemeal fashion, multi-year financing would reflect the respect the federal government has for them and for their contribution to society.
Perhaps the minister no longer has any use for these institutions in this time of great progress in the communications industry, as he tells the House automatically when fielding questions from the opposition. But if there was ever a time when high standards and a strong educational content were required and had to be maintained, it is now. We do not need long studies to tell us that. All we have to do is look at the Internet to understand how important it is that new technologies be monitored and subject to standards, which are often lacking in the private sector.
On these networks, you can learn, for example, how to make bombs and other scientific experiments, which means that this knowledge is now made available to one and all.
In closing, I would like to remind the minister and his colleagues of their 1993 election promises, although I could go on and on for hours without convincing this government that it should pay attention to our artists' cries for financial help and to the justified requests by national organization executives for multi-year funding. In response to a Canadian Conference of the Arts questionnaire, the Liberals had vowed to develop a national cultural policy in consultation with the provinces during the first few months of their mandate to enable them to face the challenges of the 21st century. The Liberal Party of Canada made this commitment in writing to the Canadian Conference of the Arts and promised to include it in their famous red book, which has now become a blue book.
These commitments were clearly spelled out in the red book, but have now been completely forgotten. The Liberals also promised at the time to provide stable multi-year financing for our cultural institutions, both in the red book and in the letter and document sent to the Canadian Conference of the Arts.
In the cultural sector as in other areas, we see how the government can say one thing and do another. During the election campaign, it promised artists a better future, although it never really intended to keep its word. That is typical of both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party in Quebec. That was demonstrated in 1982 when the government reneged on its referendum campaign commitment to carry out comprehensive constitutional reforms. Promises were also broken with respect to political party financing and unemployment insurance. After taking office, the Liberals, who used to tear their shirts in opposition, went ahead with UI reforms. I say reforms but I should really use the word cuts. These cuts were much deeper than those for which they criticized former Minister Valcourt. The Liberals also cut health care and social programs.
This is not the Liberal Party, but a party which has two different tunes: one which was used during the election campaign to get elected, and one which is used now that the Liberals are in office. The latter is very conservative; it is void of any long term objectives; it is based on a band-aid approach and it occasionally tries to alter the facts, whether in the context of an international fishery dispute or a trip abroad by the Prime Minister. But it never had a global vision for arts and culture, social programs, Canada's foreign policy, or deficit control. No global policy.
The government uses a piecemeal approach. It uses the Liberals' approach, who-after 10, 12 or 15 years in office-left the country with the worst deficit among G-7 members, with Italy. By the time they were ousted in 1984, the Liberals had managed to raise the deficit from 13 to 38 billion dollars. We are now feeling the effects of that deficit and this is why we must make cuts. But even now, the government is not using the right approach. It does not try to ensure the survival of vital organizations like the ones I mentioned and which I would call national cultural organizations.
I hope that these comments and the motion will be supported by government members, who have the opportunity, in the case of a motion like this one, to vote freely. They are not bound by the famous red book which their party shelved after only 12 or 18 months in office. Liberal members have an opportunity to express their views. They have an opportunity to support Canadian creators. They have an opportunity to show cultural
organizations that they are prepared to take a look at their valid claims. The time has come to do so.
During the hour allotted for this debate, I want to give Liberal members an opportunity to tell us to what extent they are prepared to co-operate with opposition members, to fulfil their election promises as well as the commitments they made to these groups when they were in opposition. They can do so by ensuring multi-year funding to these organizations.
I anxiously await their response, particularly with regard to their commitments and respect for creators and for Canadian cultural organizations.