Monte Solberg

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion.

My remarks will be quite brief. The hon. parliamentary secretary has said quite a bit about some of the reasons why this motion should be defeated.

I was very conscious of ensuring that the rights of the provinces were looked after when this legislation came into the House. I looked quite closely at this clause to ensure that the rights of the provinces were not being infringed upon. I reviewed the transcripts from when provincial officials were before the committee to see what they had to say about this clause and about the possibility of any infringements. I placed phone calls to provincial officials to ask them if they were concerned about this. In every case they said they were not.

I believe they used their provincial jurisdiction and delegated their authority to the federal minister in this case because they were confident they could have that authority back at any time. They do have the protection of the Constitution in this matter.

There are many problems with this bill and there are some good things about it, to be fair, as well. I do not believe that this clause that the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about is one of the problems. There are many other things that we can be greatly concerned about, but this is not one that we need to worry about.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we will be speaking later on about some of the problems with this bill. At the end of the day, however, you will find we support this bill, but at this moment we will be speaking against and voting against the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Petitions, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by numerous members of my riding of Medicine Hat. The petitioners call upon Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, June 14th, 1994]

I will give a federal example. Canada Council recently spent money handing out a grant to a project called "A Linguistic History of Swahili". Another grant went out to something called "Anatomy of a Seance". Another grant went out to translate a book called I Lost it All in Montreal . Another went out to publish Poems Released on a Nuclear Wind . Of course the big one, there was $3.3 million that went into that famous museum in Montreal, the Montreal Museum of Humour.

I would argue that if any taxpayer walked through the National Gallery through some of the huge rooms, some as big as a high school gymnasium, and looked around and in one corner saw a box of Brillo pads stacked up to the roof they would question whether that was a good use of their public money. Frankly, I did. I think it is ridiculous. Taxpayers would make a lot better choices if that money were left in their pockets to make decisions about what is art.

If they walked into another room a saw a bunch of bricks laying on the floor and somebody from the National Gallery told them that was art, they would say that is crazy. If they walked into another room and saw 256 pieces of felt laying on the floor they would probably conclude that they were renovating, putting in a new carpet. In fact, that is what they call art. That is ridiculous.

Any time we start handing out more and more money to the government so that it can then decide who should get that money based on its determination of what constitutes art, it is absolutely ridiculous.

We have to look at the situation with the CBC. Here we are again rewarding failure. Not only are its ratings dropping, not only is it programming all kinds of American programs throughout the day, in light of the fact it is undergoing a review of its programming right now, here we are suggesting it should be granted the right to borrow money.

That is exactly what we are considering doing with Telefilm as well. That is a crazy idea. I do not think we need to get into that. We should let the taxpayers decide. Does the government not have faith in the ability of taxpayers to decide what constitutes art? Why not leave the money in their pockets?

Let me conclude by suggesting a great hoax is being perpetrated by bureaucrats in this country, by the government and by so-called artists. They are telling people: "If you give us money, we will give you art". They produce things they indeed call art. In the judgment of most Canadians I would argue this is not art. In fact in many cases it is garbage, absolute garbage.

Let us leave that $2 billion plus in the hands of the taxpayers. Let us not support those kinds of things any more. Let us allow the people of Canada to make those decisions themselves.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-31. In my judgment Bill C-31 simply perpetuates the myth that without massive government interference there would be no culture in Canada. That is something my party does not believe.

When we look at all the agencies that the Canadian government subsidizes, from CBC to the National Film Board, to Telefilm, to the Canada Council, it amounts to well over two billion in taxpayer dollars a year. This money is spent on those things bureaucrats in this country identify as culture.

I have to wonder what would happen if we removed this massive subsidization and allowed that $2 billion plus to stay in the hands of taxpayers and allow them to use that money to spend on the things they identified as culture.

Initially we would have a smaller cultural industry but it would be based on quality and not quantity. It would reward and recognize merit. When we walked into a bookstore and went to the Canadiana section we would be assured that whoever published any of the Canadian books had put their money into it feeling they were probably going to get money back out of it because it is a good book and not because they were being subsidized by the government to make sure it got on the shelves.

Consumers would like to know when they go into a bookstore that the books they are going to buy are there because they are good books and not because some government bureaucrat somewhere decreed this is a good way to spend taxpayers' money.

By subsidizing Canadian culture in all the different areas we send a message that our government does not feel our artists in all the different aspects of the art community can compete with artists from around the world. Why else would we be subsidizing them if the government is not sending that implicit message?

I have a great deal of concern about allowing bureaucrats to decide what pieces of culture are worthy of subsidization. In a free country and a free market generally speaking consumers are allowed to make those judgments and I think they make very good ones. They can decide what constitutes good art. They can decide what they want to purchase based on what interests them.

In Canada we let bureaucrats make those decisions many times. We let them hand out grants to all kinds of groups, like Buddies in Bad Times. This is a group that has been in the news recently. It is a homosexual theatre group and a very radically intolerant one. Recently when a Toronto Sun columnist, Christina Blizzard, questioned whether $377,000 in Canada Council grants should go toward this group, not only did this group get very upset and take her to the media board in the province of Ontario, to the newspaper board, not only did it abuse her in the media, it also produced a play called ``Dinner with Christina'' in which it advocated raping her.

That is complete garbage. To me it speaks volumes about the wisdom of some of the bureaucrats in this country who make those decisions. We do not have to stop there. There is a list as long as your arm of grants that go to groups like this.

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received letters from the 10th grade social studies class of Senator Gershaw School in Bow Island, Alberta.

One reads:

Dear Mr. Solberg:

I have decided to write to you on an issue that concerns me, the Young Offenders Act.

I am only fifteen so I can relate to the young offenders in this country better than an adult could. I saw on television a short time ago a little ten year old boy who is already an experienced car thief. He even admitted to his crimes-because he knew he could get away with it and-police could do nothing but "slap their wrists".

I am appalled that we are protecting the criminals. About a week ago in Medicine Hat, a young offender stabbed another and his name was not released. Why? Who did the crime? Why are we protecting the child who stabbed another one of his classmates? We should be protected from him, not the other way around.

Is this the Canada we really want? These are the generations ahead that will be in charge of our great country. What happens then?

Yours truly,

Adam Larsen

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on part four of Bill C-17 which would grant borrowing authority to the CBC.

I wish to address the several flaws inherent with this notion. First, the government has committed itself to a management and funding review of the CBC. Without waiting for the completion of this same review the government has remodelled funding for the CBC on two occasions.

In the first instance this administration has reversed spending cuts announced by the previous Conservative government from $350 million to $250 million over four years. Meanwhile the government's budget includes a provision that a $25 million borrowing authority be awarded to the CBC in order to offer it more businesslike flexibility.

I am very sceptical when it comes to assuming that the ability to borrow $25 million would accomplish efficient management not realized with $1.1 billion in appropriations from the Canadian taxpayers.

It really does baffle all logic that the government would call for a funding review in one instance while at the same time tampering with existing funding formulas.

It is obvious to me that the provision to grant the corporation borrowing powers is premature based on the government's own announcement. From a practical standpoint it makes no sense whatsoever to allow the CBC to seek loans.

The CBC is not like a business in the private sector. There are no shareholders or customers in the normal sense to answer to. There is no compelling obligation to strive for efficiency because there is no bottom line. In short, there is no need to worry about turning a profit, nor is the concept of bankruptcy a constant preoccupation.

In this type of structure there is never a shortage of things on which to spend money. Permitting the CBC to borrow is more likely to enhance the national debt than corporate efficiency.

The budget document suggests that the public broadcaster may be allowed to borrow an amount greater than $25 million with parliamentary approval. In effect the ceiling of $25 million is really a decoy. How did the government arrive at this figure? What measures will keep it from climbing to $50 million or $100 million? Who will be ultimately responsible for the debts incurred by the corporation?

The general trend is that when one includes clauses like these in legislation, there is a tempting desire and requirement to use them. The law of wasteful spending requires that unaccountable financial entities will spend any and all funds directed toward them without adherence to efficiency.

While testifying as a witness before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage not long ago on April 12, CBC president Anthony Manera conceded that the corporation currently estimates a shortfall from all sources to be in the order of $180 million over the next four years. The CBC has a $45 million deficit on operating budget on revenues of about $1.4 billion.

It would be paramount that any business facing such a financial crisis first put its own house in order before assuming any further liabilities. Borrowing to reduce debt load is synonymous to using a Visa card to pay down a MasterCard. Even in a best case scenario, it would require shrewd investments and a commensurate amount of time and good luck for the CBC to realize economies of scale from its borrowing authority.

Allowing an indebted company to accumulate further debts at the public's expense is poor management and it is morally irresponsible. The rationale behind the new borrowing power is supposedly to allow the corporation to make investments in systems and equipment that will result in long term savings.

What are these investments? What are the risks involved? What is the projected return on investment? Who will be responsible if the investment fails? These questions demand answers before this request by the CBC can even be considered.

It has also been suggested that a levy be raised on private broadcasters or cable subscriber fees be initiated to fund the CBC to the detriment of their competitors and the public. The crown corporation cannot have one hand in taxpayers' pockets and another in the marketplace, giving it the best of both worlds when there is no incentive to be cost effective or competitive.

With respect to its mandate, the CBC is facing an abundance of difficulties. For example, the CBC English language television audience has been declining steadily since 1990-91. The viewership has declined to only a 13.3 per cent share of audience, which caused CRTC chairman Keith Spicer to remark to Mr. Manera at a recent licence renewal hearing: "You are going down the tubes here in ratings. You are going down to oblivion".

What of the U.S. programming during prime time and a litany of U.S. soap operas from one until six in the day? How does the CBC explain the decline in arts programming, in children's programming since 1987? All of this combined with technological breakthroughs cause us to question the need for the existence of the CBC.

Specialty channels and the electronic superhighway have become catch phrases of the 1990s. Is there a need for a public broadcaster when the public will have 500 channels to choose from offering a similar and cheaper product to the CBC? The CBC has jointly submitted a bid to operate one of these specialty channels under the name of Festival.

Since Parliament has not changed its mandate, is it even appropriate for the CBC to establish and operate new television networks? One must also examine whether the CBC is undermining its current obligations by engaging in another channel bid. This relates both to its legally required programming as well as its management of scarce resources.

In addition, it would be important to critically examine the program management and copycat production practices of the CBC. Canadians frequently criticize the Canadian style U.S. programs that find their way on to the air waves. Meanwhile the shifting around of "Prime Time News" from 10 p.m. to 9 p.m. only to have it return to its original time slot has diminished public confidence in the operation of the CBC.

In the futile task of persistently propping up the CBC, there are some serious questions to consider with the prospect of borrowing money. Here are four issues which really demand answers. First, how will the CBC generate profits on its revenue in order to repay any loans it has incurred?

Second, clause 19 of the bill states: "Notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, part VII of that act does not apply to a debt incurred by the corporation". It is not clear after consulting the Financial Administration Act and the Broadcasting Act if the crown or the corporation would be ultimately responsible for the debts of the CBC.

Third, what guidelines has the government established to the exercising of this borrowing authority?

Fourth, why is the government allowing the CBC to borrow money in the first place? Would it not be more financially sound to privatize portions of its operations and realize substantial savings which then may be used to finance new cost effective ventures?

It is crystal clear that any attempt to revitalize the CBC using measures normally reserved for companies competing in the private marketplace undermines its integrity as a public broadcaster. Any special measures designed to raise capital for the CBC, such as loans, subscriber fees or licence fees, would be an unfair advantage should the CBC underbid its private counterparts for any services which it is given in addition to its heavy state sanctioned financing.

These factors along with the changing technological landscape bring into question the relevant role of the CBC. It is for the reasons outlined above that our caucus will not be supporting this borrowing authority.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motions Nos. 19 and 20

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

[Canada Communication Group, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the point the House leader made is entirely true.

Further, this audit that we are referring to, not so much the minister's statement, could have been sent out a lot earlier than it was. There is no reason in the world why it could not have been brought over at the beginning of the day.

I categorically refute what the minister has said. There is absolutely no excuse for not getting this report before 90 minutes before the minister's statement.

[Canada Communication Group, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond on behalf of the Reform Party to the minister's statement.

Before I do, however, I would like to mention that we did not get a copy of this report from his office until 90 minutes prior to this announcement. Since he knows that we are expected to respond directly after his statement in the House, and since his own party was scathing in its criticisms of such lack of information and lack of co-operation from the old government when it was in opposition, I would think that the minister would be particularly sensitive to the actions of his own people and would like to look into that in his own office.

One can imagine the righteous indignation from the minister if he were on this side of the House while the government delayed the release of a potentially embarrassing report.

In dealing with the audit report of the Canada Communication Group I will start by commending the minister for the quick turnaround in this audit. While we are happy that the government has moved on this issue, I cannot help but wonder why the government needed an audit in the first place to determine that as both supplier and contractor, CCG was in a conflict position. That appears to me, and I would hazard to say to most of the country, to be self-evident.

This audit was moved up due to a series of complaints against CCG across the country from private sector companies that felt they were unable to compete fairly for government business. These are the types of rumours that have circulated about CCG in recent press clippings.

First, there was a director general attempting to contract work to the private sector. CCG co-ordinates the bidding process. The winning bid selected by CCG is CCG. The agency comes in just below the lowest private sector bid. Understandably all sorts of questions about insider knowledge emerged.

Second, CCG is one of the bidders for a substantial contract with the federal government and it wins with the lowest bid. Only afterward is it known that CCG had a small advantage over the other firms in that it did not feel the need to include its employees as labour because CCG did not have to pay them for the work on the specific project since they already had a federal salary.

One area the minister did not address with any substance deals with the whole issue of special operating agencies or SOAs of which CCG is one. There has been much criticism that these SOAs create unfair competition for those wanting government contracts.

More and more, companies are finding themselves facing off against SOAs for contracts within government and even outside government. Several national industry associations have said that they have been deluged with complaints from their members. Companies have complained that these SOAs receive insider information because of their privileged position within government that can assist them in winning contracts.

Others complain it is not fair that SOAs, which are essentially subsidized by taxpayers' money, are allowed to bid against them in the first place. Still others complain that it is not fair that SOAs are winning contracts with universities and municipalities. Finally, some wonder if allowing government departments to compete for contracts internationally is such a good idea.

A number of questions need to be answered with regard to SOAs, none of which the minister has addressed today. Are there any rules governing SOAs when they find themselves competing with the private sector? Each SOA runs according to a private agreement worked out between it and the department.

Technically, when government departments offer to do work for another government department, the transaction does not fall in the category of contracting. It is called the provision of professional services according to one analyst. When SOAs aggressively seek out work that might have gone to public

tender, it is not competing for contracts because all SOAs are still 100 per cent owned by their departments.

Also the reason why SOAs such as CCG are bidding on contracts with municipalities and universities is they have literally interpreted the standard rule that work can be sought within government to include any level or institution of government. As for international contracts with foreign governments, government departments compete for these because they feel they as government often have the best chance of securing work.

The whole issue of SOAs has not been adequately addressed today by the minister other than his tepid reference to another government study on conflict of interest and some new nebulous review by his department and the Treasury Board on the role of SOAs. This needs much more serious attention in our opinion.

In reference to the auditor's report itself, the auditor has made five major recommendations respecting these conflicts of interest. However of greatest interest to our party is a recommendation that either CCG be privatized, given crown corporation status or retain its special operating agency status but with revised goals and targets.

Our party has a bias toward privatization and in the case of CCG this option does bear exploring. In the interim, the minister has moved to put CCG's procurement arm under-