Mr. Speaker, you can certainly understand my amazement at those comments by two members of the governing party, the Liberal Party. I have no difficulty with the position of the Reform Party, because it is true to its platform, to its vision-which I do not share at
all-on the involvement of government in the survival of the cultural organizations mentioned in my motion.
But the contradictions in the rhetoric of the two Liberal members are stunning. They deliver a quasi-philosophical lecture on art, culture and the need for art in our society. They say that these national organizations are essential because they are our very soul, the mirror of our society, the expression of our way of thinking, and the path to our future. In fact, our artists will help us assert our identity.
They serve us some rhetoric and they say that yes, multi-year funding would be better. Of course financing over two or three years would be better. They even say that it was promised in the electoral platform. That is the Liberal Party perspective. However, what are they doing in fact? They are destroying those agencies. They slash their budgets.
The former CBC president did not resign on a whim. He was solemnly promised that there would be no cuts and then they announced cuts of $44 million on one side and $350 million on the other. Now the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unable to fulfil its important mission, particularly in French Canada.
Now we are told in a wishful kind of way: "Oh! God, would it not be nice to have multiyear funding. It would be better to plan in order to insure the survival of these nobles agencies". But look at what your minister is doing, your government is doing, look at the campaign promises, look at your track record after one year in office. These agencies have been massacred; it is worse than what the previous government did, which you denounced when you were in the opposition.
It is hard to believe one's ears. The government is abandoning these cultural agencies on an economic level, through its February 27 budget, and through the policies, set puppet-like, by the Canadian heritage minister who later on said that he is a friend of the CBC. With friends like that, the CBC does not need enemies. We are told that the government will continue to respect these agencies. We are told that it would be in their best interest to have three year budgets. For years now, they have had only three or five year budgets.
Every time they have to deal with a government that demolishes their policies or makes cuts out of the blue. Now, has this government forgotten to cut in the right places? For instance, it has not cut the tax havens of those who finance its party. How many billions find their way to the Bahamas every year, to banks where they do not even declare the interests they accrue. Yet, a single piece of legislation would be enough to control all that money that is being drained out of the country and all those people who pay no income tax.
Why not deal with that instead of going after our cultural organizations? There was also mention of family trusts. We examined organizations like the other place, which costs taxpayers $50 million a year. What purpose does it serve? Is it a large dormitory, a day care centre? What is it exactly? Could we not make some cuts in there? The government is considering giving a half a million dollar party to announce the appointment of a new governor general. Why? Should we not instead leave this money to the organizations that make up the identity of our two founding nations and to the creators who are, in fact, the real soul of a nation?
No, it is not the answer I get to a motion as direct as this one, a motion that every organization was demanding, a motion that, in my mind, goes without saying. Whether an organization is economically, socially or community oriented or whether it is a public institution, it needs to know where it is heading and how much money will be available. That is just what we are asking the government. We want them to tell us that, for the next three years, we can rely on a fixed budget, a budget that will not change according to the mood of the finance minister, or according to the mood of the Canadian heritage minister or, with regard to copyright, for example, according to the mood of the industry minister.
We are asking for some planning with normal and formal commitments, which will then be adhered to. But the reply is: "Yes, this is fine in theory, but the fact is, we have to cut". I will conclude by saying that this motion, that I thought could get unanimous approval from all the members and from all the people who believe in planning, is getting approval only in theory. But in fact, as far as the money granted these organizations is concerned, the government is doing exactly the opposite of what it committed itself to doing in its red book and in its policy statements.