Monte Solberg

[Indian Affairs, November 24th, 1994]

Increase spending.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, November 21st, 1994]

A few minutes ago the Prime Minister mocked Reformers for taking a voluntary pay cut, as if that is a bad thing somehow. I would say that when the day comes that he cuts his pay for even one day or passes up one perk then he will have the right to criticize.

This time I want him to answer this question: Does he agree that allowing MPs to take a fat pension at age 55 would be to mock taxpayers?

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to comment on the member's remarks and on the whole social program review debate.

I wonder how seriously the government takes this whole program. When we look back at the chronology of events leading up to today and some of the recent statements by the human resources development minister, it makes us wonder how devoted the government really is to tackling the problem of social programs, the debt in general and how to make government run much more efficiently.

When I think back to the election campaign I remember distinctly how our party talked quite a bit about social programs and how they needed to be reformed. I remember Kim Campbell, the then Prime Minister, talking about social program reforms in so far as she said they were too important to be discussed during an election.

I also remember the deafening silence of the Liberal Party on this whole issue. If one looks at the government's red book it is almost without mention of social program reform. That was one year ago. I guess the Liberals must have been holding this close to their vests because shortly after they became government they started to make noises about the need to change social programs.

What happened is they came face to face with the reality, at that time, of about a $500 billion debt. Today it is just about $540 billion. They realized that they were going to have to do something to deal with the deficit and debt so they looked at social program reform.

During the throne speech and in the days shortly thereafter they said they would launch a task force and have an action plan on the reform of Canada's social programs. A motion was made to that effect at the end of January of this year if memory serves me.

Over the course of days after that, we found that it was going to be the same old thing, the same old way of doing politics. First we found out that this group was going to be hearing not from regular Canadians but instead from special interest groups who, in most cases, were funded by the government. In fact I sat on that committee as an associate member.

I remember as a newly minted MP how disappointed I was to find out we were not going to hear from some of the Canadians who have a vested interest, as taxpayers, in seeing social programs work well. We were pretty disappointed that this was not happening.

I must also comment that over the course of events we saw that the task force the minister was going to refer to was in many cases a bunch of hand picked patronage appointments, people who had strong ties to the Liberal government. Over the course of the summer we found that it lost its impetus and now the action plan has become a discussion paper. Over the course of events we have found that the government has failed to really pursue this with the necessary vigour considering this country's huge debt. Now taxpayers are running, afraid that the fat greedy fingers of government are going to get them.

So far this government has been unable to bring forward a real action plan. I encourage the government to move with dispatch. Get a handle on this serious problem by dealing with the social program review forthwith. Bring forward a real action plan that will bring the deficit and debt to heel.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-53 once again. It is my pleasure to talk about the various aspects of the Department of Canadian Heritage and to suggest that what is really needed when we talk about this department is not just a superficial streamlining of the department but a complete overhaul starting with many of the departments that reside within the Department of Canadian Heritage, including specifically departments like multiculturalism, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, status of women, CBC and many more.

Let me talk about some of these different departments on an individual basis and suggest that in some cases we could do completely without them.

Let me talk first about the department of multiculturalism, something many Reformers have talked about already. Hon. members from across the way have suggested that if there were not a department of multiculturalism somehow there would be no multicultural diversity in Canada. That is a crazy notion.

I remind members across the way that when we settled the west in this country we had cultures from all over the place. We did not need a department of multiculturalism. Those people had their own cultures, they preserved them with their own money, which is a new concept for Liberals. It is something that is still done today. People do not need the government to tell them they need to preserve their culture. They will preserve their culture if they see fit with their own funds. That is what makes sense to most Canadians.

For some reason this government has decided that some cultures are more deserving than others, that there should be a list of priorities in terms of cultures and that some groups should get money and others should be shut out. I think that is very divisive.

I point out to the members across the way who have often said that Reformers offer no solutions on cutting spending, here is an area where we can cut spending, something like $21 million. We could cut it today, I would argue, and most Canadians would be very much in favour of it.

I want to talk for a moment about some of the other problems with the department of multiculturalism. A minute ago I said that sometimes I think having a department of multiculturalism creates division. As an extension of that, not all behaviours are equal. Some cultures advocate types of behaviours that are clearly not supported by most Canadians. For instance, some cultures suggest that women should be somehow subservient and that they should play a lesser role. I do not agree with that.

I think when we start to fund cultures and give people money to support cultures, it stops what has become a standard in Canada, sort of an ethical or moral standard from spreading into these other cultures where sometimes they do not treat people with respect on the basis of gender. That is something I very much oppose and I hope the government across the way would oppose as well. We can make the argument that the department of multiculturalism has outlived its usefulness.

I would also argue that when we see things like what the justice minister proposed on the weekend or what came out of his department, that there be something like a culture defence in law, I think we can see the danger of this whole attitude toward setting up special status for certain cultures and what it can lead to, possibly opening up a Pandora's box.

Thankfully Reformers were on guard for Canadians and quizzed the minister about this immediately. He backed away from it, and well he should have.

It is not because they saw this was flawed from the outset. It was only because Reformers jumped up, raised the point and forced the minister to back down and hopefully we will always be there to do that.

In the meantime we would certainly encourage the government members across the way to take another look at this whole department of multiculturalism and to acknowledge that this approach to governing can lead to division, can lead to some of these strange ideas in the justice system.

Another departmental organization that should be looked at in the Department of Canadian Heritage is the Canada Council. The Canada Council provides grants for all kinds of Canadian artists and people who should be and would be producing art anyway. We spend tens of millions of dollars through the Canada Council every year to pay people to produce what they at Canada Council call art.

I would argue that before there was a Canada Council and in spite of the Canada Council people still create art. I know in my own riding there are many people who are painters, writers, who are thrilled to try to produce art not because they get paid to do it but because it is a creative impulse that they have. In order to satisfy that impulse they produce art and all of society is enriched for it.

What I really like about it is taxpayers are not expected to pay for it. They are not expected to either fund the artist or to buy the art. Contrast that with the Canada Council where we have tens of millions of dollars going to publishers so that they can produce books from writers who are also funded and then of course they sit on shelves forever. I read a book actually that was funded by the Canada Council about the abuses in the Canada Council, believe it or not. It is a great irony that it is almost impossible to write a book in this country without it being funded by the Canada Council because those funds go directly to Canadian publishers. That is one of the strange ironies.

This particular writer talked about a warehouse being devoted to all these volumes of Canadian literature that people simply would not buy. They could not even give it away.

When they proposed to send packages of Canadian literature around to schools, even to prisons, they were rejected. I suspect rightfully so because at the end of the day beauty is in the eye of the beholder and people have to make these judgments for themselves.

I think that is the best argument of all for not having an organization like the Canada Council that completely distorts the marketplace and really cheapens the product because many very good Canadian writers are lumped together with the ones who are not very good. In the eyes of people who try to follow this they get a jaundiced view of Canadian culture because so much stuff comes out that is not good. It is funded by the government and people get a jaundiced view and at some point say perhaps all Canadian culture is not very good. That is very unfortunate. There is a lot of good stuff out there. Because of organizations like the Canada Council people get a prejudiced view of what we can produce in this country. That is very unfortunate.

Another institution that causes people to wonder about the government's spending of tax dollars is the National Film Board. My colleagues from the Reform Party in this House have raised the issue of a series of videos funded by the National Film Board on lesbian love. They were restricted videos, ones that contained very explicit scenes. This causes us to pause and wonder whether this government is serious really about cutting spending at all.

There are many millions of dollars spent by the National Film Board every year. Should there not be some strict guidelines that that say anything that is pornographic in nature or is x-rated should not be produced particularly with taxpayers' dollars when so many taxpayers would reject that?

That is not what the Liberals think. It begs the larger question of whether there should even be a National Film Board. It seems to be largely unaccountable.

I would argue that many private producers of films would love to step in and provide films for schools as is done actually in the United States. I had a lady in my own riding who came to me and said she would like to show National Geographic films in the school. She wanted to know how she could go about getting the rights to them. As it turns out it actually offers these to schools for free. The National Geographic Society is a society that is funded by individuals, not by taxpayers. Why could that not happen in this country? I would argue very strongly that it could.

Let us talk for a moment about the department for the status of women also under the aegis of the Department of Canadian Heritage. One of the jobs it has it seems unfortunately is to fund private interests including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, a group that is highly politicized, very narrow in its focus and absolutely and completely does not represent the views of all Canadian women no matter what it tells us. If it is so certain of its position, if it really does believe that it represents Canadian women then it should go to Canadian women and get its funding from them directly. I would absolutely support it in doing that.

At this point in this country when we are in such a terrible fiscal situation I encourage the government to take a look at the complete Department of Canadian Heritage to seriously evaluate whether we need great gobs of that department and to really finally get its fiscal house in order.

[Gun Control, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister makes our case. The emphasis should be on controlling smuggling and that type of thing.

Professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University has released a report estimating that universal firearms registration in Canada will cost a minimum of half a billion dollars and could be as high as a billion dollars.

Given the failure of present registration programs to stem crime and the disastrous fiscal situation of the country, how can the minister justify even considering this major new spending initiative?

[Gun Control, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the justice minister again expressed his desire for the universal registration of firearms in Canada.

Will the minister acknowledge that since the introduction of the universal registration of hand guns in the country, the criminal misuse of hand guns has actually increased? Will he acknowledge this irony?

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is kind of like the ethics guidelines themselves. They are not written down either.

I listened to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon very carefully but found nothing in it to assure Canadians that this will not happen again. The ethics lapdog is still subject to the whims of the Prime Minister's office.

Will the Prime Minister now do what he should have done in his statement and replace the current ethics counsellor with an independent one responsible to Parliament and not the Prime Minister's office?

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said that initially he had contacted the ethics councillor. Then he changed his story and said that someone on his staff had contacted the ethics counsellor but only at the last moment.

Can the Prime Minister tell us who exactly contacted the ethics counsellor and will he provide the House with a transcript of those conversations?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

"At least they were in a line" the hon. member says. This was also art work.

If these people want to do this for their own pleasure, fine. If they want to put some underlay in the middle of their living room floor and marvel at it, that is great. We support that. On the other hand, if they expect Canadian taxpayers to shell out money so this can be displayed in the National Gallery it is crazy. The people are fed up with the waste in government. If it wants some areas where it can cut it can start with Canadian heritage. There is no end of waste in that department.

I remember reading about Charles Dickens. In England in those days there was no support from the government for artists. One fall that great writer was pressed to come up with a new book because he had a large family to support. Christmas was coming and he needed some revenue. Therefore, this prolific writer, who was prolific probably because he knew that if he wanted to survive he had to produce these works of art, was facing this Christmas deadline and knew he had to get something out so he could have an income. Faced with those pressures and faced with the fact that he had to be excellent in what he produced if he wished to sell his book to have some money, he produced one of the great classics of all time "A Christmas Carol".

I do not see why the principles of that time cannot apply today. Why do we have to have the Canada Council involved at every step of the way? People who have no business publishing a book because their work is not worthy are getting grants from the Canadian taxpayer to do it. That is crazy. I again urge the government to look at all these areas where it intervenes into the artistic community, to get out of there and allow real artists to blossom and do their thing.

We have great artists in the country from every area of the artistic community. They will prosper irrespective of whether or not they get grants from the Canada Council or protection from the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. We do not need to worry about them. We do not need to feel that we are somehow inferior. We have shown time and again that we have people who can compete in the international community with respect to the whole Department of Canadian Heritage and artistic accomplishments.

We have a deficit of $40 billion a year, a debt of $535 billion a year and the high taxes that go with that. Canadians used to have some disposable income to spend on art. By running up the deficit because of this ridiculous boondoggle of handing out grants, now they have less disposable income to go out and buy the art that we would all like to see produced. The government across the way is therefore cutting off access that Canadian people have to art.

I urge the government not only to reorganize the department but to cut spending dramatically and reorganize it right at the top starting today with the minister.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how ironic that today is the day we are looking at the reorganization of this department, particularly in light of the allegations that have been made against the minister of this department. I once had a boss who told me that a fish always rots from the head down. Today we should see a reorganization of the department starting at the top.

Last spring I sat in on the committee on Canadian heritage. I sat 10 feet away from the minister when he told us that agencies like the CRTC are to be at arm's length from the government. He has said it on countless occasions and now we are going to make him live up to his words.

Implicit in that letter he sent no matter what he says because he is a minister of the crown is the fact that he is the one who approves along with cabinet orders in council for the positions on the CRTC. His department sets the guidelines. His department sets the budget for the CRTC.

I remind the minister and the members across the way that it was not long ago when the hon. member for Sherbrooke was facing the same sort of situation. The leader of the Conservative Party was facing the same situation and Liberals across the way screamed for his head. They got it. They should have. Now they should hold themselves to the same standards at least of the Mulroney government, a government that did not have very high standards.

I encourage members across the way to get to their feet and tell the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms that this is absolutely not acceptable. I encourage them to move today while they still have a chance to cut their losses and ensure that no more damage is done to the credibility of the government.

That is at the top of the department. I want to move through the department now and talk about some other issues. When we look at all the issues that are within that department; multiculturalism, CBC, status of women, the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, the National Film Board, there are so many targets. It is an embarrassment of riches. So many boondoggles, so much waste, so little time.

I want to talk in general about Canadian heritage and how it protects Canadian artists and the whole idea of government intervention in the artistic community. This is a relatively new occurrence in western civilization, to have a government involved in protecting particular artists, choosing some and saying they are worthy of the support of the government while others are not. In ancient times when patrons regularly supported artists, those artists were at least accountable to that patron. If they did not produce art work it was guaranteed they would not be supported again by that particular patron. Such is not the case in Canada.

For instance, the Canada Council uses peer juries to select which artists should be worthy of support by the government. This is a closed system. It is like a bell jar, the jar they use in scientific experiments. There is no accountability to the public, the people who are paying the money. At the risk of repeating what I said the other day in a member's statement, they "breathe each other's air". We do not get input from regular people about what constitutes real art.

It is well and fine for artists to produce art for their own pleasure but it should be at their own expense, not the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Who does not stop and wonder about the huge distortion that government intervention in the arts community has had after they tour the National Gallery. I have talked on this issue before

but I must repeat what I have stated because it is so utterly unbelievable.

I remember distinctly the first time I went to the National Gallery. I was impressed with some of the art work. There were pieces of art work from classical artists which are universally accepted as great art. That rightfully belongs in a national gallery.

I remember like it was yesterday walking into a huge room and seeing in the corner boxes of Brillo pads stacked to the ceiling. This was not a supply room. This was a display of art, believe it or not, in a corner, brightly coloured boxes of Brillo pads.

In another room there was what I thought was some construction in progress. It was carpet underlay lying in the middle of the floor. This was a work of art according to the National Gallery. It was paid for by Canadian taxpayers. This piece of art, if you want to call it that, was called "256 pieces of felt" and it was a pile in the middle of the floor.

Another room had bricks lying on the floor in a line coming out from the wall-