Elwin Hermanson

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we agreed on that vote but we are opposed at report stage. We would want to vote at report stage that we are opposed to the bill.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with real pleasure that I respond to the hon. member's concerns and also his questions.

First of all, he is absolutely correct. I do come from an agricultural riding that depends on agriculture, small business and the production of oil. I might tell the hon. member that in our agriculture policy we clearly discuss with producers how we might save taxpayers' dollars, how we might become more efficient in the defence of the industry of agriculture without spending more money but in fact spending less, and how we would not justify spending for agriculture in areas unless they be beyond the control of producers. I would suspect that Bill C-31 does not affect film producers or the film industry in areas beyond their control.

I heard from small business that they want an end to grants and tax concessions, loan guarantees. It is not fair. If I do not happen to be the beneficiary of the program then I am paying my taxes for someone who is the beneficiary of the program. I may go out of business trying to pay the taxes to keep my competitor in business. It is a very unfair appropriation of tax dollars, whether it be in the form of grants or in the form of loan guarantees or whatever. It is a distortion in the marketplace when what helps Peter is paid for by Paul and many times they are in the same industry.

I know I have the support of small business in my concerns with this bill. The oil industry, by the way, has similar concerns. I have spoken in this House about the foolishness of spending millions, billions perhaps, of taxpayers' dollars on megaprojects such as Hibernia when we are not sure that they are fundamentally sound projects.

The marketplace has a very good nose for sniffing out where investments should be made and where they should not be made and government has a notoriously bad reputation for being able to sniff out what is a good business venture and what is a poor business venture.

I want to respond briefly to the hon. member's concerns over our giant neighbour to the south and the effect that that has on our culture. He mentioned specifically the music recording industry and the fact that radio stations in Canada have to play a certain percentage of Canadian content in their air time. Perhaps it might be even good to review whether that has had a positive effect on the recording industry in Canada.

I spoke some time ago with the general manager of a radio station who felt that this ruling had limited the growth of the recording industry in Canada. He said there were very few recording artists in Canada who had ever made it until they made it big in the U.S. Because of some of the restrictions in our recording industry they tended to leave the country and become Americans rather than maintain their allegiance to and close association with Canada.

It is not true in all cases. We certainly have many recording artists in Canada whom we are very proud of. There is some doubt as to whether or not this Canadian content rule has been a blessing or a curse to the Canadian recording industry. In some ways it has suppressed the industry rather than assisted it. I guess time will tell. We certainly do not have tons of testimonials to be proud of. Even today most Canadian recording artists do not make it big in Canada until they have made it big in the U.S.

We have to be looking at our own confidence and the fact that we do not consider someone to be of any value because government dollars go to support them. We expect and measure value based on the saleability of what is being produced for us. That is the true measure of quality and the true measure of culture in Canada.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, an act to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation. I am rising to voice my opposition to this bill. It will encourage state intervention in what should be a naturally evolving and privately funded industry. I will begin by speaking broadly.

Culture cannot be bought. It is something which exists because people practice it. They live it. They are it. It cannot be artificially created or preserved by the state. All cultures thrive, evolve and change naturally as the wishes and practices of the people change.

Although a young country, Canada has a culture and it is one to be proud of. We need to define what that culture is. Reform has taken a swipe at identifying some components of Canadian culture.

We believe that Canada's identity and vision for the future should be rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our land and the supreme importance to our well-being of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our natural resources and physical environment as a part of culture.

We believe the people of Canada are this country's most valuable resource. The nurture and development of human knowledge, skills and relationships are the keys to full participation in the knowledge based service economy of the 21st century.

We believe the creation of wealth and productive jobs for Canadians are best achieved through the operation of a responsible broadly based free enterprise economy in which private property, freedom of contract and the operations of free markets are encouraged and respected.

Furthermore, we believe in the value of enterprise and initiative. Governments have a responsibility to foster and protect an environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and groups.

Looking at Bill C-31, it reminds me of an old tax incentive program. I believe it was introduced by the Liberals, but maybe it was the past Conservative government; sometimes it is hard to distinguish between them. It was a research and development tax credit scheme. All of us believe in research and development and we want to promote that, but this scheme attracted a number of con artists. It was a fiasco. The design of the program caused the loss of millions and millions of tax dollars because it was not properly handled. It was interfering in what should have been more of a private sector enterprise.

We believe every individual, group, province and region in Canada is entitled to fundamental justice. Fundamental justice entitles the people of each region to benefit equally without discrimination from participation in Confederation and from the programs and expenditures of the Government of Canada. There is some doubt as to whether Bill C-31 in fact would be broadly based across the country and allow equal access by all Canadians.

To repeat what I said, Canada although a young country has a culture, one we should be proud of. It includes peacefulness, fairness, compassion, excellence, tolerance, initiative of spirit, an appreciation of the arts, in spite of government red tape, high taxes and inefficiency.

Any attempt to artificially interfere with the natural progress of Canadian culture is destined to become just one more failed attempt at social engineering. It is certainly not the role of government to dictate what the culture of the population will be nor is it appropriate for the government to interfere on the edges as is the case with C-31.

Much apart from the fundamental issue of state intervention within society, the bill itself has some significant problems. The loan guarantees this bill would provide will diminish the opportunities that would allow new, innovative and evolving cultural enterprises to break into the market.

Under this bill loans would likely be guaranteed to the healthiest existing companies. This will have the dual effects of entrenching the existing players in the market, thereby establishing an elitism within the industry which will hinder change and growth within the industry, and creating an industry that finds itself increasingly out of sync with mainstream Canadians.

Not only would this bill have a detrimental effect on the cultural industry in Canada but there is nothing to suggest that loan guarantees are required. For example, the motion picture industry in Alberta has had a 360 per cent increase in productions over the past few years without federally funded guaranteed loans. The results in B.C. are similar.

These examples prove there is no requirement for guaranteed loans at all. This bill is unlikely to have an impact on regions with fledgling industries like Saskatchewan. It is not that I support this type of funding for regional development purposes, but not even the regional development argument can provide a

pretence of defence for Bill C-31. One might question whether this bill is another of the government's special interest payouts.

Furthermore there has been a trend in Canada for more jointly funded projects involving Canadian and international organizations. Canadian culture can thrive in the private market and has demonstrated it can do so. One such example is the filming of the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven". It was filmed in Fort MacLeod, Alberta. The venture involved many Canadian production companies, one of which won an Academy award for set design.

Many Canadian television programs have gone into syndication as a result of partnerships with international agencies. There is a list of Canadian companies which have prospered without federal loan guarantees through this kind of international co-operation. They include: Alliance Communication Group; Paragon Entertainment Corporation; Accent Entertainment; Astral Communications; Cinar Group Ltd.; Nelvana Ltd.; Atlantis Media Group; Power Pictures Corporation; Post-Production Buzz Inc. These are but a few.

These companies are testament to the fact that Canadians can compete and thrive in the entertainment industry without government interference. It is these kinds of ventures that are going to drive the industry and also be most in sync with mainstream Canadian culture.

Art and culture for its own sake as an industry has its place in generating economic growth, but it is not the kind of thing we should be looking at to lead an economic recovery and end unemployment woes for Canadians. This government is constantly telling us, the media, the public, and anyone else who will listen that its priority is jobs. This bill will have no effect on unemployment. It may make job creation more difficult if the government has to shell out money to cover defaulted loans.

Some people may be looking to make political mileage by smearing our position on Bill C-31 and will say that there is a Reform bias against culture. That is clearly not the case. We want to remove all government barriers to the promotion and growth of Canadian culture. We do oppose government handouts to business, even the business of culture.

We take the same line with cultural organizations as we do with all businesses and special interest groups; that is, you cannot expect to get grants, loan guarantees and tax holidays from the government indefinitely. All special interest groups should raise money from the people they claim to represent or they should have a project that is viable enough that the bankers will lend them the money.

There are many examples of where we would reduce funding for these groups in the spending plan we published during the last election campaign. Our zero in three package outlined very clearly that business and special interest groups of all kinds would have to expect less from government in the way of grants, loans and loan guarantees.

There are some significant omissions in this bill, especially where issues of loan criteria and repayment details are concerned. Many people in the industry have very grave concerns that nepotism is rampant within some of these organizations. Many projects are funded on the basis of who knows who and family relationships rather than on artistic merit and economic potential.

The bill omits all explanation of repayment terms. If the government is backing 85 per cent of the loan and the loan defaults after partial repayment, is the government portion considered to be paid off first? Is the government liable for any of the interest on the loans when it backs over 50 per cent of the value? If not, what is the incentive for the banks to ever accept any less than 15 per cent of the risk?

It appears this bill was thrown together in a hurry, probably at the request of special interests, without completely thinking through the implications of such loan guarantees. I guess the details will be supplied later, but it does make us question the wisdom of supporting such a bill.

Voting for this bill and many others like it would be like co-signing on a loan when one's account is $520 billion in the red. I would not like to be considered as an accomplice to that crime against our future generations.

Another concern is that this program will encourage the government to underwrite those projects that would not ordinarily have been considered as an acceptable risk. That means the default rate is likely to be significantly higher than the current one which, by the way, is very low. If this happened, it would seriously hurt the reputation of the industry which has been steadily improving over recent years. As it stands, only those projects considered viable receive funding. That seems to be a reasonable place to set the standard for funding.

I said it once and I will say it again: You cannot buy culture. All you will get for trying to do so is a whole lot of debt. If the original idea behind this bill was to build a cultural future for the next generation, it will succeed in a small way. It will help to build a culture of high taxes and crippling debt. It will contribute to a society that strips away most of a family income to pay interest on a debt the previous generation ran up. It will create a culture that exists with no government services, no safety nets or social programs because most government revenue will be going to debt financing. This will be a country with massive

unemployment since no investment capital will be forthcoming to a nation in such a financial mess.

This culture of debt and poverty is not the kind of Canada I want to create for the next generation of Canadians. That is why I must oppose this bill and all bills like it. The accumulation of many bills which spend tax dollars unwisely is the reason we have accumulated such a huge debt to this point in our history.

It is time for government to carry out its most pressing responsibility and let the private sector do the same in its area of expertise, namely the marketplace. This bill encourages rather than discourages state participation in the marketplace. It is likely to increase rather than decrease government spending. It is likely to discourage rather than encourage new, innovative and emerging firms from entering the industry. It perpetuates the idea that a nation's culture can be designed by a select few and artificially preserved by the state.

As a final concern, this bill was only tabled in the House on May 26. Without adequate time, it has been brought forward for debate on second reading. Over one weekend our caucus has had a limited amount of time to study this bill, to discern its implications. As we look into it initially, we have some grave concerns about the wiseness of supporting such a bill. We will be reviewing this bill in detail in our caucus.

We are trying to slow down debate on this bill to give it some some second thought so that this House can make wise decisions in the way we are putting the taxpayers' dollars on the line in loan guarantees. After all, it is the taxpayers we represent and in the final account they are paying the bills we run up.

[Young Offenders Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think my concerns are being verified with the suggestion that perhaps age will not be dealt with promptly and that is of course a major concern of Canadians.

The minister has said that he has received correspondence, and we know that he has a paper called "Toward Safer Communities". The minister has invited public submissions on judicial reform in this effort.

I would invite the minister to table these letters before the House so that all members can review the suggestions that Canadians have offered to the Minister of Justice. Would he table these responses?

[Young Offenders Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister has been receiving information. My concern remains that the proposed legislation may not live up to the expectations of Canadians. Members of the Reform Party have repeatedly demanded that these three specific suggestions outlined in my initial question be adopted.

Can the Minister of Justice tell the House if these three specific changes to the Young Offenders Act will be included in his proposal?

[Young Offenders Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several months Canadians have told Reform members that any proposal to amend the Young Offenders Act must include the following three changes: That the age parameters be reduced from the current 12 to 17 years to a proposed 10 to 15 years; that repeat serious young offenders be automatically transferred to adult court and that the public has the right to know the identities of those involved in criminal activities in their communities.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the minister assured the House that the Liberal caucus is unified on the need to amend the Young Offenders Act. Can the minister today assure the House that the Liberal government is unified with Canadians and will introduce these three specific amendments?

[Government Policy, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from Mr. Jones. Anyway, his letter goes on to say:

I have to wonder why money is spent on consultants if you just go ahead and do it anyway. The difference is that it is not their money but taxpayers' money and there is no limit to that.

Thank you for speaking up about this.

Here is one Canadian who is fed up with the successive governments that squander his hard earned tax money. Mr. Jones and all those like him can take some comfort in the fact that there is now a party in the House that understands-

[Government Policy, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I recently was sent a letter by Mr. Jones of Chatham, Ontario who writes in part:

I am writing to say how glad I am that at least one member is willing to condemn the planned Theme Park in Shawinigan as just what it really is, blatant patronage.

Mr. Chrétien does not seem to get the message. The real reason the Conservatives were kicked out was because of patronage, appointments to the Senate, old buddies rewarded for life at our expense, and on and on. It appears to be just more of the same with Chrétien.

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky-

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I still have some very real concerns because for nine years under the Tories Canadians heard all the promises that action on the Young Offenders Act was a government priority. The recent announcement by the Solicitor General that the promised registry for child abusers will be delayed has created speculation that the Liberal government may be issuing the same hollow promises.

Will the minister reassure Canadians that the well publicized split within his party on this issue will not derail his commitment to immediate, and I emphasize immediate, reform to the Young Offenders Act which the House could deal with promptly?