Monte Solberg

[Petitions, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the first petition I wish to present calls upon Parliament not to allow drunkenness as a defence.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon member's question. She talked about several things but I would like to comment on what kind of service should be provided to people in remote areas.

It is a legitimate responsibility of the CBC to provide service in remote areas. I completely accept that. However, there is a larger question and one I posed in my talk which is, does it always need to be the CBC? Is it really important that it be a particular institution, or is it the service itself that is important?

Sometimes that service can be better provided by a private sector broadcaster. When talking about news and current affairs, there is no doubt in my mind that the private sector can and has produced shows which are as good as those on the CBC.

I would argue that people in some of those communities should have the choice of bringing in either a private sector broadcaster or the CBC. It should be ultimately driven by them.

While it is a legitimate role for the CBC, it does beg the bigger question: Is it really the institution we want there, or is it a certain type of programming? That is probably what people

really want. At the end of the day it should be up to them to decide what kind of service they want brought in.

If it is something they cannot get otherwise, then it is something the government should provide for them. That is probably a good use for the CBC northern service. In talking about TV broadcasting, if people in a community would rather have CTV than CBC and it requires building a transmitter, then personally I do not see a problem with bringing that service in instead of CBC.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc motion reads:

That the House condemn the government for the refusal by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to publish the government's decisions concerning funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the next three years, thus causing an ominous threat to loom over the CBC's French-language network.

In essence the Bloc is chastising the government for not being accountable on spending decisions. Naturally I agree with that. My party agrees with that. We believe very much in the principle of accountability.

If turnabout really is fair play, and I believe it is, I have some questions for the Bloc. Where does it get off blocking the business of an entire nation on the whole issue of back to work legislation and the railway strike? How accountable is the Bloc being to its own people in its own province of Quebec who are losing pay, jobs, business and markets because their party will not stand up and act for them? Where is its concern for the unemployed now?

I really feel the Bloc is letting people down. It has acted irresponsibly throughout the whole process and has thwarted the democratic will of this place. That is why I find it ironic that it would put forward a motion that would force a degree of accountability on the government.

Let us talk for a moment about accountability and about the motion. The motion is too narrow. The separatist government of Quebec talked about how it would protect minorities in Quebec, but there is no mention of CBC English language services in the motion.

I have to ask why that is. Just how deep rooted is its commitment to minorities in Quebec? Not very, I suggest. I believe all the statements it has made about being fair to minorities is sugar coating. It is a vain attempt to draw in people who are not francophones in Quebec to vote for the Parti Quebecois in the referendum. I believe it is vain.

Let us talk for a moment about why accountability with respect to the CBC is so important. Obviously accountability is important at any time, but it is especially so when the future of the CBC literally hangs in the balance. We have a $550 billion debt and a deficit of about $30 billion. It is an understatement to say that our fiscal situation is extremely serious.

In considering the whole issue we have to ask ourselves whether as parliamentarians we will be accountable and responsible. We have to ask ourselves why we need a CBC in the first place. Do people really want some kind of institution called the CBC, or do they really want interesting programs that deal with issues not dealt with by private broadcasters at this time at a cost that recognizes our fiscal constraints? That is the real question. I will talk more about it in a moment.

Let us talk about the different divisions of the CBC. People who listen are largely happy with what they receive on CBC radio. However, I firmly believe that the CBC's choice of issues to explore betrays a liberal bias and truly lacks balance on some social and political issues. If the CBC were to fix that it would have a larger audience than it has today.

I also believe all kinds of efficiencies could be built into CBC radio that would make it function a lot better than it does today. On the whole, however, relative to some of the other services the CBC provides radio is in relatively good shape.

The real problem is with CBC English language television. I commend a recent article in the Montreal Gazette to members of the House. It was by W. Paterson Ferns and is probably the best description of not only some of the problems with the CBC but also some of the solutions. I am mostly addressing English language television when I talk about this matter.

Mr. Ferns made four major points. He said that the CBC should start over, that it should start as if the page were blank, by a commitment to focusing programming. Mr. Ferns described Britain's channel 4 as a model and pointed out that it had a mandate to serve all of the people some of the time. Not all of the people all of the time but just all of the people some of the time, in other words to really sharpen that focus.

The question Mr. Ferns asked explicitly and implicitly in his article was: Why in the world should the CBC be broadcasting American programs? It makes no sense. Those programs flood over the border on cable systems. We do not need the CBC to rebroadcast them. To its credit I believe the president has recognized that it is a crazy idea. Certainly the chairman of the CRTC has talked about it. It is a crazy idea and we should move away from it.

Another question is why we are broadcasting programs the private networks are already carrying. Why is the CBC so heavily involved in sports? Obviously TSN is more than happy and more than prepared to pick up carrying hockey games and is already doing so. Do we really need hockey on the CBC? Why is the CBC bidding to pick up Olympic coverage? Why is it bidding twice as much as CTV was prepared to bid to pick up Olympic coverage? It is a huge issue and at a time of fiscal

constraint it is an important issue. It is something the heritage minister and the leadership of the CBC have to address.

We have to ask ourselves and the CBC has to ask itself what types of valuable programming are not on the menu of private broadcasters right now. I do not think that has been done yet. We see a lot of programming that is currently covered by either the major networks, by the Americans or by the specialty channels. That should be a cue to us that we must move away from it.

Mr. Ferns also talked in his article about the need for thin administration. He pointed out that Britain's channel four limited its administration to 10 per cent of the total budget. It is very difficult to examine the CBC figures because they are just not available. When we look through the annual report of the CBC it is not obvious just how much money is spent on administration and it does beg the question: What is it attempting to hide? Why can we not see those figures?

The motion brought forward by the Bloc asks the right question and it should be asked of all the CBC: Why are spending decisions not being made public? Then the question that flows from that is: Why is the CBC not forthright about how it spends all its money?

The CBC's percentage of administration to budget is unclear, as I pointed out. However we know the CBC has a very old style hierarchy of management. It has several vice-presidents and several senior managers in Ottawa. It has more senior managers at the regional level. There has to be a lot of money spent on administration, given the type of hierarchy.

Mr. Ferns also raised that leadership in a network should be comprised of programmers. I must admit that at first I took issue with that point, being concerned about the fiscal side. However if safeguards are built in there is some sense in the idea.

I point to the private sector and the great success of Moses Znaimer who has brought tremendous success not only to City TV in Toronto but also to MuchMusic and the Bravo channel, one of the new speciality channels that can be found on networks around the country. I believe it is enjoying a measure of success.

Visionaries like Mr. Znaimer are probably better able to anticipate public tastes and better able to see needs than perhaps they are sometimes perceived by the public. That is why Mr. Znaimer has been hugely successful. Perhaps one of the reasons the CBC has not been successful is that it has been too administratively driven in the past. Even with people like Mr. Watson there was so much bureaucracy in the way and such a lot of baggage attached to the CBC that it was very difficult for the programming vision to get down to the field level and to drive the CBC agenda.

There is a lot to be said about what Mr. Ferns suggested with respect to the CBC and other public and private broadcasters around the world. A program maker should lead that institution.

My experience is as a broadcaster who came up on the programming side as opposed to the administration or the sales sides. I have seen many successful private sector operations being driven by people with a good sense of programming, a sense of what people want from programming. From a personal standpoint I think it is really true.

A program producer who heads up an organization may indeed be the best choice as long as the organization is accountable. It has to be accountable not just to a board of directors but to its advertisers, its viewers and taxpayers. This is something that has not happened with the CBC to this point, nor with the government when it comes to not sharing information that is important to taxpayers, namely how their money is spent.

An institution such as the CBC must be accountable to Parliament not in name only but really accountable. There should be an annual review of the CBC by this body in a deep and probing way so that if things are going off track we have immediate recourse: We can jump in and make some changes as appropriate.

Also Mr. Ferns indicated that news and current affairs shows should be bought from a reputable source and all shows should be commissioned from the independent sector. That makes a tremendous amount of sense. He argues that the corporation should not make, that it should buy. The CBC invests a tremendous amount of resources-time, money and manpower-in producing programs when there is a huge creative sector out there that could provide and would compete to provide the CBC with all kinds of programming. It should avail itself of that.

That type of competition would lead to better programming. It would also lead to cheaper programming because people would go the extra mile to get their costs down to win the bid and ultimately get a program on the CBC. That makes sense. Why invest money in bureaucracy, administration, bricks, mortar and equipment when it can obtain programs directly from the makers of programs?

The analogy in the article was that book publishers did not hire authors to sit in a room and produce novels which they then published. Book publishers buy the finished product. It makes all the sense in the world. That is exactly what the CBC should be doing.

In summary, we cannot afford the CBC as it is now. To simply parrot what happens on other networks is a complete waste of money, talent and time. People do not watch the CBC as it is now. Advertisers do not support it. While there are a few popular programs, CBC English language television is generally not held in high esteem.

This impression is only compounded when the CBC and the government shroud themselves in secrecy. Given this veil of secrecy, who among us is not tempted to ask the obvious questions: What does it have to hide? What is it afraid of?

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by pointing out that I think it is important to put into context the whole debate about back to work legislation, the shutdown of the railway system and best offer arbitration.

Let me do so by pointing out that Canadian farmers are probably the best farmers in the world. They are the most productive and the most efficient. If it were just on that basis they had to make their living everything would be fine; they would be extremely prosperous and the country would benefit as a whole. However there are all kinds of other issues that raise their head and stand in the way of farmers actually being able to earn a proper living.

One of them is the trade war that seems to be ongoing with the U.S. and Europe. At the same time we have huge government debts and deficits that contribute to high input costs, high taxes and high interest rates which all conspire to make it very difficult for Canadian farmers to compete particularly against Americans.

Meanwhile we have farm institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board and the transportation system that are in desperate need of reform. There is tremendous pressure on the wheat board to change, not only from Americans, our competitors, but from inside, from people who actually support the wheat board. They want to see change. The hon. member for Vegreville has been at the forefront of pushing for a democratic wheat board elected by farmers and with farmers on the board. That makes sense to me.

I want to talk for a moment about the history of the transportation system in Canada. Even when it is not shut down by a strike it is at best inefficient and slow. I do not know how many calls I have received over the last year and a half from people asking: "Why are there no cars at my elevator? What happened to my grain as it disappeared down the track?"

We need Bill C-262. There is no question in my mind. It is one thing the government can do to bring to an end the problem we face today. As fate would have it, we are debating Bill C-262 on a day when we have a rail strike in the country. It will also provide a long term solution.

I encourage the government across the way to set aside partisan differences, to consider what is for the greater good and to consider farmers across the country. Actually the unions and the employers will benefit by this type of legislation, by best offer selection arbitration. We encourage the government to set that aside and to join with Reform today, the hon. member for Lethbridge, to bring the whole issue to an end by supporting Bill C-262 and by bringing some sanity back into the transportation system.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to present today a petition from the people of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and area who are very opposed to Bill C-68.

They wish the government to pursue other means of enforcing current firearms legislation and not to introduce new legislation that would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

[Petitions, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today. The first one is in opposition to any move by the government to include the term sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is from petitioners ranging from Moncton, New Brunswick, to Dover, New Brunswick, to Ottawa, Ontario, and right into British Columbia. I am very proud to say that I support the petition.

[Labour, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers took a tremendous hit in the budget and they are willing to do that if they know the government will back them up when it comes to getting their product to market.

What they would like to know is whether this government is willing to introduce back to work legislation as soon as possible to help them a little after the government has knocked the pins out from underneath them.

[Labour, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The current labour situation in the railways could easily lead to a national strike or railway lockout. This would have immediate and devastating effects on the Canadian economy.

When will the minister take action and introduce back to work legislation?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Kamloops, I guess the country I would hold up is the country that Canada used to be. There was a time when people were counted on to rely on their own resources to a great extent to find their way in the world. They did that most admirably and it enabled us to build a social welfare state that would protect the people who could not look after-

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I reject very much the hon. member's premise which is that the social safety net is somehow the fabric of this nation, as though people in this country cannot somehow create their own tremendous culture by virtue of their own dreams and aspirations and in what they contribute to the country.

Having said that, I would be happy to answer the hon. member's question. He has asked where we would cut and we laid it out explicitly, unlike the government. During the election campaign government members said not to worry about social programs, they were not going to touch them. A year later, of course, they did a tremendous flip-flop. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce announced that the government has flip-flopped on its red book promises. There is still $20 billion that the government will have to cut to get its deficit to zero, at

least $20 billion by its own projections, and it has not laid out how it expects to get there.

Is the government telling people everything? Is it really not going to cut any more social programs, like it says, or is it going to get to zero like it tells people? It cannot be both ways.

We have been very up front with people. We said we would cut $15 billion. We would cut $3 billion out of old age security. It will go from $20 billion to $17 billion. We would make big cuts to transfers for welfare. We have said that. We are not embarrassed at all to say that. We know that we have to do that so that ultimately we will not allow social programs to completely unravel. We have to make those cuts.

I would like to emphasize again that for the hon. member to say somehow Canada is a social safety net is ridiculous. People who work every day for a living look at that. People who contribute to the economy and make great contributions to the culture of this nation look at that and say if that is the best we can do to become a country, produce some bloated government bureaucracy to come up with a bunch of social programs, that is not a country at all. That is a social welfare state. The hon. member across the way does not understand the country at all.