Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the adjournment debate. I had a number of questions to ask the minister regarding an exchange we had, but unfortunately, the minister has chosen not to respond to me. I would say I am let down by that, but I am not surprised. The minister has pretty much established a reputation as an absentee landlord on most cultural issues since she was appointed to the portfolio.
The question I had raised was about the minister choosing to go to Charlotte Bell, a key member of the CanWest Global team, to flog tickets for her fundraiser. To refresh everyone's memory, Charlotte Bell is also a key person for broadcasters on the eve of a major broadcast review that is being planned.
We need to be very clear about what we are talking about here. This is not a matter of snooping through the election donations of a member to see who gave money. Certainly, members are going to receive money from all sources, and that is perfectly understandable. What is happening here is an ethical lapse in judgment. This is the question that I had for the minister, and of course she is not here to respond to that lapse in judgment, but the minister did not see anything wrong in asking a broadcast executive who has a mandate to influence government policy to promote a fundraiser at the same time as the same industry is pushing for major regulatory changes.
If we recall in Hansard the response from the minister at the time, she did not think there was anything wrong. She said she did not break any laws. In fact, it was the Treasury Board president who had to intervene. He stood and said that he would not allow big money to intervene in the political process. Right after that the fundraiser was squashed.
The question still remains, being that the minister had this lapse in judgment, how is it affecting her decisions on key issues?
There is another question that has to be asked and to which I would like to get a response from the Conservative Party. Were the cheques cashed?
The minister who has been absent on major issues in terms of her portfolio in fact has, I would say, become pretty much a fireside liquidation specialist for cultural issues. What has she done?
She has taken $160 million out of the aboriginal languages fund. Certainly the Cree and the Dogrib are not going to the fundraiser.
She shut down 12 out of the 16 status of women centres. Certainly the battered women were not being invited out by Charlotte Bell.
She made a 25% cut to the museums assistance program. We understand that the new plan brought forward is that the portrait gallery, our national heritage, will be given to the oil industry to be set up in its boardrooms. There were fundraisers in boardrooms; now national heritage is being put into the boardrooms.
There has been no move to renew the Canadian television fund. There has been no move to renew the media fund. There has been no move to renew the independent video fund. There has been no action on a plan for the CBC. Yet, major issues are being brought forward by broadcasters.
I would like to sum up by saying the government has made it clear it does not have a hands-off policy with the CRTC. The industry minister has already overturned the CRTC decision.
I would like to end by quoting a statement that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage made very clear in a recent hearing with CRTC president Charles Dauphin, that the minister was the captain of the good ship CRTC. He said, “I think we are in agreement that you take direction from the government. The CRTC takes direction from the government, from the minister and from the government overall and your submission says that the commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That's the way it is”.
The question is, why did the minister have such an ethical lapse in judgment in allowing a major television executive to host her fundraiser? Again, why has the minister been dodging a clear answer to the people of the cultural sector and to this House of Parliament?