1983-10-05

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, the Government often speaks in favour of small business and the desire of the Government to help small business, but it is hard to take those statements seriously when one sees the way Government Departments and agencies function. Everyone knows that for small business to be healthy it has to have a healthy cash flow and a healthy current account balance.
However, when the Post Office itself will take two weeks to deliver a cheque for $10,000, or $20,000, or $30,000, a delivery time that should take two or three days, one must wonder how seriously the Government agencies are in helping the small businessman. It deprives a company of the hard cash that it needs to function, and it adds extra costs in carrying charges for that company since it has to borrow the money that is being held by the Post Office. The question should be asked if business or the Post Office should pay the extra expense that it costs the small business because the Post Office will not deliver.
It seems to me that a company should not have to revert to priority post at the extra expense that entails in order to get the kind of service it should have from first class mail.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, with the international situation deteriorating from day to day, I must say it is very encouraging to see that the Canadian Government did not burn all its bridges, and I am referring to a statement made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister at the United Nations on October 1 of this year, when he said that
although NATO would be deploying Pershing-2 and cruise missiles in Western Europe, Canada would be taking a very active part in the Conference on Disarmament in Europe, to be held in Stockholm next January. Instead of making thundering and hawkish speeches on East-West relations like the official Opposition does, the Prime Minister has preferred to have Canada play a mediating role within the framework of this Conference. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his wisdom in wanting to keep the lines of communication open between the West and the Soviet block at this difficult time for international relations. This attitude is far more responsible than that taken by the official Opposition, which is fond of rhetoric and does not hesitate to fan the flames of discord by making far-fetched statements about a situation that is threatening the very survival of mankind.


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, all Members of the House will be aware that Lech Walesa was today announced as the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: Let me, in the moment available here, give three reasons why I believe all thoughtful Canadians will rejoice in this honour.
First, Walesa has faced, without flinching, the combined force of Poland's Communist Party, its Government, its army, and its official media, on behalf of the rights of Polish working people.
Second, the movement he founded, Solidarity, achieved in the brief period that it was legal an estimated membership of fully 10 million Poles in a work force of approximately 14 million.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but I must warn him that he must have a statement on a particular situation. He cannot use this particular time of the House to pay homage to someone, no matter what merit that person might have.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the third point was that Mr. Walesa is an unbreakably honest, intellectually brilliant and thoroughly democratic leader of faith, Christian faith 1 might

October 5, 1983
add, who has won a permanent place in the pantheon of those men and women who, through the ages, fought and suffered for the rights of their fellow human beings.



Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, yesterday during Question Period, in answer to question posed by the Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the shooting down of the Korean airliner by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister said that the super powers must try to find some way to stop shouting at each other when the world is teetering on the brink of disaster and atomic war. The Prime Minister was suggesting a peaceful resolution to the tragic Korean airliner incident. Statesmen who seek peaceful resolution as opposed to solutions by battle are prime candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this same vein I am pleased that the Nobel Peace Committee awarded the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize to Lech Walesa, leader of the Polish Trade Union Solidarnosc.
Thanks to Lech Walesa's peaceful approach in attempting to obtain the right of Polish workers to elect free trade unions, widespread bloodshed in Poland was averted. Demonstrations organized by Lech Walesa were large in numbers but peaceful in approach. Indeed, Lech Walesa was successful in moving Poland away from the brink of disaster. Thus, the choice of Lech Walesa as this year's recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize is encouraging to workers and freedom loving people everywhere. With this decision, the Nobel Peace Committee has given recognition to the crucial importance of the principle of freedom of association, and peace.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, Canadian farmers are deeply upset at the attitude of indifference shown by the federal Government to the urgency of their credit needs. These needs, which should be met by the federal Farm Credit Corporation, are not being met at all.
This House passed amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act which would permit it to resume its historic role as the major source of long term farm credit. Despite that, directors of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have recently noted that:
It is shockingly clear to farmers that the Minister of Finance is restricting the ability of FCC to borrow anything like sufficient funds to meet today's urgent needs. The Government must be either ignorant of the credit problems the industry faces or unforgiveably indifferent to them. Today, with farm incomes appallingly low, the role of the FCC in meeting the federal Government's obligations in farm credit must be respected and facilitated rather than resisted as the Minister of Finance appears to be doing.
There is simply no long term funding available from the commercial banking system to which this Government abdicated its responsibility. The Government of Canada is to be condemned for its failure to support the Farm Credit Corporation with adequate financing. By so doing it is thwarting the desire of many Canadian farmers to stay on their farms producing foods for Canadians.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interiake):: Madam Speaker, I was dismayed, as I am sure were many Members of this House, to learn that Air Canada has decided to discipline Captain Robert Pearson, the pilot who safely landed his crippled Boeing 767 on an airfield near Gimli, in July. He will receive a six months' demotion.
At the time Captain Pearson was praised, and rightly so, for his role in bringing the plane down. His action saved the lives of 61 people aboard, saved the aircraft, and saved Air Canada millions of dollars in potential lawsuits.
I do not think it is right, Madam Speaker, for Air Canada to make scapegoats of its air and ground crews for what is obviously a failure of the Crown corporation to implement proper training and operational procedures for the Boeing 767.
The fact that the crews at both Montreal and Ottawa made the same error when they manually measured the plane's fuel supply shows that Air Canada had not yet introduced the proper procedures for dealing with this kind of situation on the Boeing 767.
Instead of victimizing its staff, Air Canada should take a hard look at its own training and operational procedures for the new Boeing 767. It should abandon its efforts to discipline Captain Pearson and the other workers, and make sure flight and ground crews are properly trained to deal with this aricraft.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: The objectives of the western grain stabilization plan are commendable. Farm incomes cycle with unpredictable variables, and a plan for stabilization is appreciated.
However, the Minister of Transport's (Mr. Axworthy) announcement yesterday "that no payment is expected this year" from the western grain stabilization plan has been greeted by Prairie farmers with shock and disbelief. Underscored was the view that the mechanics and administration of the plan are insensitive to economic realities and the needs of
October 5, 1983

individual farmers, and that the plan is open to political manipulation. The Prairies are crying out for amendments so as to make a good principle workable.
In this period when farm receipts are equal to those of 1973 but the operating costs have tripled, the fact that the fund will be storing approximately $1 billion by January 1, 1984, mocks and insults our farmers. The intent of their investment has been betrayed.
I and my colleagues call upon the Government to amend the western grain stabilization plan quickly to make it sensitive to the realities of our economy, and to function in concert with the general expectations of the producer investors.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Conservative Finance critic, is reported to have a $200,000 deficit from his leadership campaign. Following in the footsteps of that world reknowned feminist, Hugh Hefner, the Member is planning to pay off his debts by holding a little fund raising bash featuring a former "Playboy" Playmate of the Year.
We all know of the Conservative Party's impressive track record on women's issues as exemplified in its caucus where women make up only 3 per cent of its members. I am glad to see that traditional Conservative sensitivity toward women is being upheld by the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
In fact, when questioned by the press as to the role of the playmate he said that she will not be the main course. He said:
She will be the aperitif.
He also said that he had abandoned the imaginative idea of wrapping his playmate in a Newfoundland flag and auctioning it off. He said:
Someone would say it was sexist.
He added:
You've got to be so careful these days not to be sexist.
And finally he said:
There'll be nothing sexist going on there, at least not in public.
1 assume the three women Members in that caucus will pass up the opportunity to be humiliated at the fund raising function and will, instead, mail in their cheques.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The position of the Farm Credit Corporation as the main lender to the agricultural community has deteriorated to a point where it is being referred to as a lender of last resort. What is the Government doing to ensure that Farm Credit will have enough funding so that it can lend on a regular and long-term basis to provide Canadian farmers with certainty and accessibility to funding on a regular basis?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should check the legislation by which Farm Credit is bound in its operations. The Crown corporation will be lending this year the most money it has ever lent in its history. It will lend somewhere between $700 million and $800 million. It is the eleventh largest lending institution in Canada. We cannot take private lending institutions off the hook for all the money that farmers want. Private lending institutions have a responsibility. It used to be that 17 per cent of the loans went for refinancing farm operations. This year nearly 60 per cent of all loans we make will be taking over debts which farmers have with private lending institutions.
I would like to have perhaps a large rural bank. Is that what the Hon. Member is suggesting, that we form another Crown corporation in Canada so that we can offer farmers short-term money? I was in British Columbia with a Member from that area this week. We met hundreds of farmers who are in really dire financial straits. But mostly the banks are cutting off their money, are cutting off their operating funds, and are cutting them off the long-term money they had. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that I take over from the banks?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Minister is on record as saying, "We want more money, we want to move the Corporation back into lending".


REFINANCING OF FARMERS' LOANS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, Farm Credit asked for $600 million in June. The Minister of Finance approved less than half that request, and it is not even all advanced. What advice does the Minister of Agriculture have for a Canadian farmer who is refinancing a bank loan or buying a farm? Should he apply to a bank or to Farm Credit?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, under the Bank Act banks have a responsibility to lend to people who can comply with the rules and regulations of a proper lending authority. The banks have a responsibility

Oral Questions
to the rural community just as much as we do. This year we will be lending and taking care of nearly 50-some per cent of all long-term mortgages in Canada because banks and other lending institutions are just refusing to give long-term money. Farmers want ten-year or 20-year money. We are offering it to them on ten year or 20 year contracts, if they want, with a renewable feature after ten years. We are probably the best lending institution for long-term money at the present time. If the Hon. Member can convince his Party and his Party Leader that Crown corporations are a good thing and that we should expand upon them, boy, we will go to the races!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Minister's track record at convincing people speaks for itself. Canadian farmers are not asking for free money. They are not asking for hand-outs. They are not asking for money to be spent on them. What they want is funding through Farm Credit which they will pay back, but they have to get it at reasonable rates and they have to know that they can go and get it, and they do not.


ROLE OF CORPORATION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, when will the Minister act to persuade the Minister of Finance to take the Farm Credit Corporation out of the role of lender of last resort and put it in the business of lending money to Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we have a responsibility that we are fulfilling under the legislation which guides the Farm Credit Corporation. The Hon. Member should read it. In one instance it is stated clearly in that legislation that it is to be a lender of last resort. We are lending to young farmers, start-up farmers, and farmers who are in dire need. He says that we did not get any more money. We promised that we would only put $200 million more into it. This year we will put nearly $300 million more into the fund.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He talked about creating a new Crown corporation. We do not need a new Crown corporation. We need the Minister to support the Farm Credit Corporation which is there, and is a very good credit corporation. That is all we need.
I had an opportunity to question the Minister on September 12. I asked him if he had seen fit to approach the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation for additional funding. I will ask him the same question again. Has he approached the Minister of Finance on behalf of FCC to see that the Corporation has additional funds to meet the requests of the farm community today?
October 5, 1983


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, this Member, who says that he represents the great free enterprise world, is asking me to expand a Crown corporation. I sat in this House last week and listened to his Party downgrade Crown corporations one after another, speaker after speaker, yet today they seem to have a change of heart. They want this Crown corporation expanded to be the largest lending institution in Canada. If we took over all the responsibility from the private lending institutions for rural lending, we would be the largest lending institution in Canada. In reply to the Hon. Member, yes, I have made representations to the Minister of Finance about the needs of the farmers of this nation.


AGRI-BOND CONCEPT
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, if we have ever had a windbag, do-nothing Minister of Agriculture that-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member can say that in the course of debate, but we are in Question Period and he should go straight to his question.


Charles James Mayer: As a result of the Minister's cap-in-hand visit to the Minister of Finance, can we expect some innovative financing through the Farm Credit Corporation, such as the agribond concept?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a bag of wind. The House rules would not allow me to say what kind of a bag I think he
is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: If and when he ever has the opportunity to serve as Minister of Agriculture, and the nation should beware of that, let him have so many good things as are said about the present Minister of Agriculture, and have been said by many people in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The agri-bond concept was not thought of by the Hon. Member, that's for sure. It is one that has been considered by many farm leaders in Canada for a long time.
October 5, 1983


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Canada's new Charter of Rights refers explicitly to the "liberty" and "security of the person", concepts which, according to the United States Charter of Rights, which has been around for 200 years, have been interpreted correctly to mean freedom from intimidation, among other things. Canada's Human Rights Commissioner revealed yesterday the extraordinary fact that some 75,000 Canadians who have had some kind of dealing with or working for the federal Government and who have had security checks done on them. How can the Government of Canada justify this extraordinary situation? Why all these incursions into the privacy and security of Canadians?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, this very high figure is, of course, known to the Government. It is a matter of concern to the Government as well. I can tell the House that between two and one-half and three years ago I cut out a very large number of positions in the Government of Canada from requiring security clearance so that at present security clearances are limited to those positions, which was not the case in the past, where actual access to classified documents takes place.
I would like the Hon. Member to know that a paper is being worked on in my Ministry which I will be bringing to Cabinet, to provide for a more rational system of classification of documents. 1 confidently expect that that will result in a considerable reduction in the number of security clearances that are necessary in the course of a year. Most important, I remind the Hon. Member that his Party has hidden behind shrill rhetoric until today about the important Bill C-157 which will establish a security agency, and which will also establish a right of review for the first time for people who are denied security clearance. This would be a good day for the NDP to tell the House and the country about the things in that Bill and that they are prepared to support the steps that are undeniably an advance in the rights and respect of privacy of Canadians. Let us get on with that Bill.
[DOT] (M25)


REASONS FOR SECURITY CHECKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has brought up no fewer than two red herrings in his answer. First he said he took corrective measures two or three years ago. The figures that Mr. Fairweather produced yesterday were from last year. The corrective measures that the Minister took two or three years ago were totally inadequate.
The second point that Mr. Fairweather makes is that, whatever new provisions are in the security Bill to provide rights for Canadians who are subjected to security checks, too many security checks are being made. The Minister did not deal with that.
OraI Questions
I would like to ask him specifically about two kinds of checks that are now being carried out. One pertains to employees working for the Human Rights Commission itself. Mr. Fairweather has indicated that no such security checks are required. I ask the Minister why those employees are subjected to security checks. Second, in terms of federal-provincial relations, why is it that provincial Government employees involved in such relations are not subjected to the security checks to which federal Government employees are subjected? Why do these incursions exist?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, it was actually provincial classifications that 1 excluded in the action I took sometime between two and a half and three years ago. Before those measures, security clearances were being conducted by the RCMP on people who worked for provincial Governments. That is no longer being done, for the simple reason that those employees do not have access to classified material.
Within the Human Rights Commission there are some employees who, as I understand it, do have access to classified material, but I would be very glad to discuss that situation and look into it in more detail, and hear the Commissioner's views about the amount of classification that should exist in that agency.
I do agree with the Hon. Member that too many security clearance checks are occurrring. I have explained what I have done in the past. I am telling the House that work is being done right now on an improved system of classification that I confidently believe will result in a great reduction in the number of Canadians who are subjected to security clearance checks in order to work for the Government.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the complacent tone of the Minister is not encouraging. If 75,000 people were investigated last year, the steps he has taken in the past are clearly inadequate.


INVASION OF PRIVACY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister if he does not realize that, in a society that really respects the individual, any incursion by the state on that individual's privacy must be justified. If he accepts that as a criterion, will he tell the House today what criteria are used by the Government for the broad range of investigations that are occurring? Does the Government not realize that Canadians do not want a society in which the Government holds files on everyone?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not think that we need a lecture from Members of the NDP on that subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government has indicated its respect for rights of privacy and civil liberties for Canadian people by

October 5, 1983
Oral Questions
bringing forward the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Access to Information law, and by the program I have just described which will reduce the number of jobs that require security clearance. I have told the Hon. Member that security clearances are now required only for an employee who has access to classified material. Too much material is being classified so we are now in the process of developing a criterion of procedure which will prevent an excessive number of government documents from being classified. 1 think the result of that will be that the clearance requirement will be removed from a great number of positions.
Finally, I respect as much as does the Hon. Member the privacy and civil liberties of the individual. I believe that the project that is underway will mean progress, but I think that the main progress we could achieve together is the passage of Bill C-157 containing, as it does, the first provision in the history of Canada to give an individual who is denied a security clearance, first, the information that he was denied that clearance, which does not happen today, and, second, a right of appeal and review by independent outsiders.


REVIEW OF SECURITY REGULATIONS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. There is some concern with the criteria now used by the Government with respect to who will be subjected to security checks. Mr. Robert Bryce has indicated that the reason such a large number of security checks have occurred is that the Government views the protection of federal-provincial negotiations as being paramount. 1 should like to ask the Solicitor General if he can give us a time when the internal review of this matter will be completed. This is important, so that when people are dealing with the Government they will know that they do not automatically need a security clearance. They should also know that the story that is current at the present time that even the tissue in the washrooms is marked confidential, is not the case under this Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can give that assurance to the Hon. Member. There are only top secret, secret, and confidential classifications. The criteria for applying those designations are not as tight as I think they should be.
We are working on a project, but I cannot tell the House when it will be completed; however, neither can I tell the House when Bill C-157 will be passed. I hope that with some co-operation we will be able to achieve progress in protecting the rights of Canadians by having the whole range of safeguards that the Bill contains, as well as, for the first time, a procedure for complaining if an individual is denied a security clearance.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister who is responsible for tourism. In a speech he made in Toronto last Monday, the Minister finally followed some of the initiatives of the Conservative Party, in at least recognizing the importance of tourism in this country. I compliment him for that.
Unfortunately the Minister did not address himself to the major problem facing tourism in Canada, namely, the excessive taxation on lodging, food, gas and liquor, which is pricing the industry out of business. Can the Minister tell us why he has not dealt with this most important of issues? When does he intend to recommend to the Minister of Finance that he make the necessary tax changes in this respect?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the subject of the cost competitiveness of Canada vis-a-vis the United States in terms of the North American tourist dollar was the subject matter of a federal-provincial conference held in September at the federal initiative. That matter was put on the agenda by the federal Government, and I had the opportunity of discussing that issue with my provincial counterparts. We discussed a wide range of approaches.
I should point out to the Hon. Member that the main problem grows from provincial taxes, so perhaps he could speak to some of the Conservative Premiers in this country.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding that answer, the fact is that the tourist industry in Canada suffered a $1.7 billion deficit and a loss of 70,000 jobs in the first six months of this year.


PROMOTION OF CANADIAN TRAVEL ABROAD
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, can the Minister tell the House if he agrees with the External Affairs press release which promotes Canadian travel abroads and which states, in part, that travel beyond the North American continent is again becoming attractive to an increasing number of Canadians, and information booklets designed to assist Canadians travelling abroad will be distributed to members of the public? Does the Minister agree that the Department of External Affairs should promote Canadian travel abroad, or does he believe it is counterproductive to the efforts of the industry trying to bring tourism to Canada?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, we happen to live in a free country. If Canadians want to travel abroad I think it is only reasonable that the Department of External Affairs would provide them with good advice. The Government has given a lot of emphasis to promoting tourism to Canada. Last year there was a television campaign in Great Britain, and a radio campaign in the United States. On Monday of this week I announced an incremental increase in funding of $7.5 million,
October 5, 1983

$3.3 million of which will be spent in Canada to promote Canadian vacation travel in Canada. There will be a television campaign entitled "Canada. Oh, what a country" which will take place this winter. There will be more radio ads in the States, and another $1 million spent in Great Britain and other countries. We are putting the emphasis where it should be, namely on getting Canadians to travel in Canada and inviting folks from abroad to visit us.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister for Employment and Immigration. Will the Minister confirm that his Department no longer sponsors those adult Canadians with less than a functional grade seven into skill-training programs, even though the National Training Act states that the object is to increase the employment potential of individual workers without regard to education? While the Minister is on his feet, will he confirm that this was done after an evaluation of Canada Manpower training programs confirmed that academic upgrading at lower levels rarely led to further skills training or employment? Would he also tell us who made the recommendations and who did the evaluation?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I think we have one question and two supplementary questions here. As 1 have already said to the Hon. Member in the House, it has been relatively long-standing policy that training at the educational levels he has described is primarily the responsibility of the Provinces. I believe it is also the case that the Provinces, generally, share that view. This position goes back a considerable number of years and it flowed from recommendations made by the Senate committee which looked into the matter several years ago.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, to try to push on to the Provinces the responsibility that the Minister has to treat all adult Canadians in an equal manner, is a very poor excuse indeed.


PLIGHT OF THE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, does the Minister not realize that one million adult Canadians have sought job-training programs but have been barred from those programs? Does he not realize that the problem is not the one million people with less than a functional grade seven education-the problem is getting an insensitive Government to act on their behalf?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I think I am more aware of the problems at those levels in society than the hon. gentleman. 1 am aware, but 1 am not sure that he is, of recent reports which
Oral Questions
have indicated very serious problems with literacy on the part of Canadians, and the difficulty of many Canadians in meeting the grade six or grade seven educational standard.
It seems to me that what the Hon. Member is suggesting is that we try to pre-empt the role of provincial Governments, which is a legitimate role, in responding to this problem. I do not know why he is counselling that we take initiatives which would lead to that result.
Last week I was discussing this problem with the Minister from Ontario. In discussions with the Provinces we seek to respond to that kind of problem. I think it would be helpful if the Hon. Member found out a little more about it before he began to blather in the House.


MANUFACTURERS' SHARE OF DOMESTIC MARKET
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Products from other countries occupied only 19 per cent of the Canadian market in 1968, the year the Prime Minister took office, but occupy 31 per cent of our market today. This shows clearly where the jobs have gone. Will the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what policies his Government intends to introduce to stop this massive erosion of the Canadian market for Canadian products, which has cost Canadian workers hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last 15 years, and is going on at an unabated pace today?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is seeking an occasion to express his views. Rather than do it on motions, where he would not have a chance to reply because of his backward position in his Party, I would suggest that perhaps it could be done on the debate on the Government Re-organization Act where we could deal with precisely the re-organization of the Department of External Affairs, giving greater importance to external trade. That might be an occasion where he could get the floor and discuss this matter.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has taken a very circuitous route to explain to the House that he has no idea what the answer to this very important question is, and has no intention of doing anything about it although it is one of the most important reasons why the country has nearly two million unemployed people today.


REQUEST FOR POLICIES TO ASSIST MANUFACTURERS
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, would the Prime Minister take this seriously, stop trying to duck this very important issue, and introduce policies that would make it possible for Canadian producers to win back the very large proportion of their own market which they lost during his prime ministership? I would remind him that a

October 5, 1983
Oral Questions
blueprint for doing just that has been presented to him on the floor of this House on several recent occasions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this is known as the rhetorical question. The Hon. Member is prepared to discuss his views on policy. We are discussing ours. As a matter of fact I have just had lunch with Canadian businessmen who are doing with the Chinese markets, precisely what the Hon. Member suggests they should be doing. This is something which is a matter for debate. If the Hon. Member has any ideas, apart from questions, he could express these ideas in a debate to which I welcome him. However, as usual, the Hon. Member, like his party, is better at asking questions than giving answers.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I have presented various programs to the Prime Minister in this House on several occasions and he has taken no action on them at all.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF STATE COUNCILLOR AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, MR. WU XUEQIAN
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Wu Xueqian, who is the State Councillor and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sure he is aware that in 1978 the Government of Canada accepted the recommendations of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger, which were supported at that time by the National Energy Board, that the area on the North Slope in the Yukon be withdrawn from development for the purpose, particularly, of a national wildlife park and conservation area. Would the Minister reconfirm the July 21 promise he made at Rankin Inlet, that should he proceed and accept the Gulf application for Stokes or King Point, he will return to Cabinet and obtain an Order in Council for that purpose.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I believe it would be premature to give the Hon. Member an assurance of that kind simply because -and I believe he would be aware of this
- there is a project review group on the North Slope, now in the midst of deliberations. It has agreed, hopefully, to give me its recommendations in about a week from now, certainly by October 17. It is looking at the whole question of Stokes Point alternatives. I believe it is considering other elements which could possibly form some type of package arrangement in terms of national wilderness parks.
I believe the Hon. Member would certainly agree that I should await the recommendations of that group. It consists of all the varied interests, including representatives from COPE and the native interests. I am sure the Hon. Member will agree that we should wait and see what that group will come up with before making any further decisions on this matter.


POSITION OF YUKON GOVERNMENT
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada trusted in the recommendations of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger, on the very project about which the Minister is talking. Given that one half of the representatives on the North Slope project review group were appointed by the Yukon Territorial Government, 1 wonder if the Minister would tell this House whether or not, on behalf of the Government of Canada, he supports the statements made to the Leader of the Yukon Government, Mr. Pearson, from the Deputy Minister of Economic Development, and I quote:
-without economic growth the North could become a large "reservation" with our native population comprising the majority of the population.
... YTG must do everything possible to ensure that some of the Beaufort Sea hydrocarbon action is centred in Yukon, e.g. Stokes or King Point.
It is pretty clear, Madam Speaker, that the position of the Yukon Government is blatantly racist-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, if the comments set out in that letter from Mr. Lang to Mr. Pearson, as read by the Hon. Member, are correct, I also find them objectionable. May I also say that a letter from a Minister to his Leader does not necessarily represent Government policy. I believe that is the situation there. Let us see what are the recommendations of the task force. The position of the Government of the Yukon will be presented to that task force. Presumably it will be the position of the Yukon Government, not the personal, rather objectionable views of Mr. Lang.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the recent OECD report which shows Canada has the second highest rate of highway fatalities in the world, will the Minister tell the House if he plans to introduce any new programs or
October 5, 1983

legislation designed to help prevent or eliminate this serious situation? Where delay is measured in terms of human lives, when will the Minister act?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question, and for his notice of the question. This is indeed a matter of great concern and common concern, 1 believe, to Hon. Members on all sides of the House. I have tried to be open with the public as to where we are on this. I can say that 1 have now made my decision with my Department on what to recommend to the Government. We will be making recommendations. We would hope they would be in the omnibus Criminal Code Bill which we will be able to bring forward as soon as the Hon. Members opposite will allow us to get on to the next session.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ACTION
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the Minister of Justice realizes-although some of his colleagues do not-that the Government does have carriage of the business in the House and is in complete charge of the agenda. I realize that the Minister has a review of the Criminal Code under way. However, this section deals with human lives. I cannot think of anything more important. I would like to suggest to the Minister that that section should be brought out and legislation introduced immediately, particularly when the Minister tells the House that he has taken a decision. How many Canadians have to die on their highways before the Minister will act?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, this legislation could be introduced in the next week or two or three, depending on the co-operation of Hon. Members opposite. We are only too anxious on this side of the House to start the new session. However, Madam Speaker, I would not want Hon. Members or the public to be under a misapprehension that the only way of dealing with this problem is through legislation. 1 agree that changes to legislation are necessary, but public education and much stricter enforcement are at least equally important in dealing with this very serious public problem.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In response to a recent question the Minister said that, of course, the reduction of unemployment is a major priority of the Government. The construction industry in New Brunswick is experiencing a 76 per cent unemployment rate. By December, work at the Saint John Shipyard will have dried up with the result that 400 or 500 persons will be added to the soup lines. Unemployment in the Miramichi is between 40 per cent and 50 per cent, with another 3,500 to be added to that figure. This is reflective of
Oral Questions
the entire situation in the Atlantic region. Where is this policy of reducing unemployment in Atlantic Canada? It certainly is not there. What is the Minister going to do about it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the next time I am Acting Prime Minister I will answer that question.


EFFECT OF GOVERN MENT DEBT
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I will address my next question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure the people in Atlantic Canada will take notice of the answer of the Acting Deputy Prime Minister.
I would ask the Minister to address himself to the question I have already asked. In addition to that, would the Minister tell the House how a Government, which has built up a deficit of $31 billion, with an annual price tag of $17 billion to $18 billion, with only pittance to show for it in Atlantic Canada, can possibly say to the desperate unemployed in that region that it is trying to do something about unemployment?
Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigra-.
tion): Madam Speaker, I could go back over a long litany of answers pointing out to the Hon. Member that in fact there has been considerable job creation in Canada. The record since last November is one which we on this side of the House are glad to see in terms of increasing employment, and we are optimistic that the recovery of the economy will continue. About three or four weeks ago I did send to the Hon. Member a complete description of the variety of programs which we have available to help his constituents. I would hope the Hon. Member would look through that material and come forward with projects which he could suggest to be utilized under those arrangements.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On April 21, 1980, on behalf of various multicultural groups, and in support of the appeal by the National Congress of Italian Canadians, under Standing Order 43 I called upon the Government to create a full Ministry of Multiculturalism. More recently, many multicultural groups have indicated that the present multiculturalism directorate no longer seems to be capable of handling the workload. Since we have groups such as the National Coalition of Blacks in Canada and other multicultural groups which are calling for a full Ministry of Multiculturalism, would the Prime Minister tell the House what his intentions are concerning the creation of a full Ministry of Multiculturalism?

October 5, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I feel the present arrangement with the present Minister is the ideal arrangement. If we had a full Ministry it would cause problems in the machinery of government, because obviously people who belong to multicultural groups come under different Departments and they can be served by different Departments. There is a specific interest in multicul-turalism which is best discharged, in our view, by having a Minister of State for Multiculturalism.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the response of the Prime Minister bacause it seems to indicate a kind of backtracking from the commitment that he made in 1971 with his policy statement to the House.


BUDGET OF DIRECTORATE
Laverne Lewycky: My supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The Government's budget for 1983-84 works out to something like sixty-six cents-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member must ask a question. His preambles are much too long.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, going directly to the question, could the Minister indicate what type of pressure he is exerting on other members of Cabinet to see that multiculturalism in Canada is more of a way of life rather than a mere Government policy to which they only devote 66 cents per capita for the population of Canada?


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, first, the Government has increased the budget of the multiculturalism directorate, in fact, has doubled it, for the period of the last year and the next four years. Therefore I think that is quite a commitment. It would take too long here to catalogue all the various programs that have been put in place by the Government of Canada to enhance the multicultural dynamic of the country. I would be glad to give the Hon. Member information at a later date.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It follows on the heels of his answer of yesterday when he said, "We do not expect a payout with respect to the western grain stabilization plan". Does the Minister find any fault with the present administration or regulation of the plan? Specifically, is he trying to cause a greater sensitivity of the plan toward economic conditions that currently exist, and the needs of individual farmers?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in my answer yesterday, the grain stabilization payment is regulated by the legislation. It must be adjusted over a five-year average. That is very clearly part of the rules which the Hon. Member, himself, admitted in his earlier statement would have to be amended by the House. As I pointed out, according to the formula that is not a matter of policy but a matter of requirement, the average this year, or so it appears, will be above the five-year average.
I did indicate that that matter would be under review at the end of October, which is the normal time. If the Hon. Member has any specific complaint or judgment about the administration, I would be glad to receive it on behalf of the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board.


FIVE-YEAR AVERAGING PRINCIPLE
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister has touched on the very point that I wished to ask him about. We in this House are all aware that we are bound by the legislation and a five-year average. I want to put the question to him again, though. Does he find any fault with the concept of the five-year average, bearing in mind the fact that a 10 per cent inflation rate for five years would in fact yield a 50 per cent misrepresentation from payments for the farmers? Therefore, can I have the Minister's view as to whether or not he finds that five-year averaging at fault, and is he agreeable to accepting an amendment that would shorten that period of time?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to have more detailed representations from the Hon. Member concerning any changes that he would want to see. I think it is a matter that would have to be more carefully assessed than one is given time to do during Question Period.


INCREASE IN PREMIUMS-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PAYOUT FORMULA
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. If, in his view and that of most producers, the formula that establishes the payout is at fault, considering that the payment for the insurance program started at $500 per year, was raised $900 per year, and is now at $1,200 per year, if the premiums can be changed would the Minister agree that he could change the formula to reflect the realities of 1983, and trigger a payout at this time?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think we are all aware of the changing conditions in the grain market. It is for that reason that a review is being undertaken of the operation and application of the grain stabilization program. But I do not think one can pick out one ingredient and isolate it as being a cause or a factor. I think it must be reviewed over all. That review is under way and should be completed very soon. As I said, if Hon. Members of
October 5, 1983

the Opposition would like to make further representations, I would certainly be very pleased to receive them.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Public Works Canada completed a study into building a pedestrian tunnel from the West Block to the Confederation Building to replace the present bus service. Does the Government plan to proceed with the building of the tunnel?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not seen a final report. Obviously I will want to find out what it contains before I answer the Hon. Member.


POSSIBLE SAVINGS ON BUS SERVICE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, Public Works Canada also conducted a cost ratio study which showed that millions of dollars would be saved with the building of a tunnel to replace the bus service. Would the Minister also have an update on the cost ratio savings and inform me and the House, as soon as possible, if the Government plans to proceed with the tunnel?


Roméo LeBlanc: Obviously, Madam Speaker, if this were considered seriously, substantially, those questions would have to be examined.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, we have just learned that five staff members of Air Canada have been severely reprimanded, some of them suspended, some of them demoted, and other things done to others. In light of the fact that the airline, Air Canada, was just praised for its service, and in view of the fact that the pilot of the airplaine, through his miraculous ability to land the plane as a glider pilot, saved the lives of 69 people-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -would the Minister, to avoid the appearance of a cover up-because the chairman of that investigation committee said, "You shouldn't have a bastard bunch of metric airplanes mixed in with the whole fleet"-would the Minister order a public inquiry into that Air Canada incident at Gimli, Manitoba?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, such an investigation is already under way. I have already indicated to the House that results will be made known in a period of two or three weeks, at which time we would be able to provide a fuller assessment of what did take place in the Gimli air incident.


PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the same Minister. The last time, on September 15, that I asked that question here in the House, the Minister responded that if the Members of the Opposition would speed up the removal from committee of Bill C-163, we could have a public inquiry. We did speed it up. We removed the Bill from Committee, and the Government is dragging its feet in an effort to cover up Air Canada in the Gimli disaster by not having a public inquiry and by not bringing the Bill of the House of Commons for final approval, agreement from all Parties, and a public inquiry, to get around this reprimand of five employees of Air Canada, in an effort to cover up a bad administrative story.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, just let me remind the Hon. Member that the Government does have legislation that is presently before the House. As soon as the Opposition is prepared to pass it, we will be in a position to bring forward the aviation safety Bill.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You haven't brought it before the House.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. If my information is correct, it seems the Minister met with his Quebec counterpart very recently to discuss Quebec-Ottawa job creation programs. Could the Minister inform the House today how negotiations have progressed and whether an agreement can be expected shortly that would be in the best interests of both parties?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member suggested, I met my Quebec counterpart, Mr. Leonard, last night, to start discussions on how both Governments could proceed so that municipalities would receive funds designated for employment in the Province of Quebec. I can say that last night's meeting was very general and, I feel, fairly positive, and that during these talks, officials will continue to demonstrate their good will and common sense and that a way will be found to respect the jurisdiction of the provincial government and also the right
27766

October 5, 1983
Official languages
of the Government of Canada to treat its citizens in Quebec as it does Canadian citizens in other provinces.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on October 4, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.
Although the petition by residents of the United States, presented by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) is correct as to form, I must note that it cannot be received by the House on the grounds that are cited in Citation 688(1) of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition which states:
Aliens, not resident in Canada, have no right to petition Parliament.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there has been consultation among the representatives of the different Parties on a very important subject.
I suggest that you seek unanimous consent of the House to deal with the following House order once I have finished reading the House order so that we will be able to adopt it without debate today and are able to proceed accordingly. Therefore, the House order is the following:
That at 3 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 1983, any business before the House shall be interrupted and a Minister of the Crown shall propose the following motion:

Whereas a fundamental purpose of the Constitution of Canada is to protect the basic rights of all Canadians, including Aboriginal peoples, English-speaking and French-speaking minorities, religious, ethnic and other minority groups; Whereas the Constitution contains provisions respecting the status and use of the English and French languages in Canada;
Whereas the Manitoba Act. 1870 was enacted by the Parliament of Canada to establish the province of Manitoba and is part of the Constitution;
Whereas in 1870 Parliament provided special protection for the use of the English and French languages in Manitoba under section 23 of that Act; Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada, on December 13, 1979, reaffirmed this constitutional protection under section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870;
Whereas the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and is binding upon Parliament and the Legislatures of all provinces;
Whereas it is in the national interest that the language rights of the Englishspeaking and French-speaking minorities in Canada be respected and protected in a spirit of tolerance and civility, amity and generosity;
Whereas an agreement was reached on May 16, 1983 by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, with the participation of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine, to modify the Manitoba Act. 1870. so that the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba can fulfill effectively their constitutional obligations under section 23 of that Act;
Whereas it is in the national interest to support continued efforts by the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to fulfil effectively their constitutional obligations and protect the rights of the French-speaking minority of the province;
(1)	the House endorses, on behalf of all Canadians, the essence of the agreement reached by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, with the participation of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine, on May 16, 1983, to modify the Manitoba Act, 1870;
(2)	the House invites the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to take action as expeditiously as possible in order to fulfil their constitutional obligations and protect effectively the rights of the French-speaking minority of the province.
[ English ]
Provided that after one spokesman from each Party in the House has spoken, the said Motion shall be deemed to have been adopted.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, it is quite evident that the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) did not provide the translation services with a verbatim copy of the resolution, for as I listened to the translation, it departed significantly from the text of the resolution which the Government House Leader was good enough to provide to me when he sought my consent.
All that he has to do is to assure me that the copy he provided to me is the actual text of what he read in French today and I would be happy, on behalf of my Party, to provide our unanimous consent to this House order.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) that what 1 read in French is what I have shown in both French and English.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: tion (Mr. Nielsen) were indeed the same concerns that I had. I am pleased to hear the House Leader (Mr. Pinard) indicate that the text which we have had an opportunity to peruse and approve is in fact the text that will appear in Hansard. We are very pleased to give our consent.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I have been consulted on this matter by the Government House Leader and he has provided me with a copy of the resolution.
I have categorically stated my views on this very important matter in my speech on the Constitution on March 10, 1981, and again under Standing Order 21 on May 26, 1983, both of which are recorded in Hansard. I wholeheartedly give my consent to the resolution that is presented to the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.



NOBEL PEACE PRIZE


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is unanimous agreement, after consultation with all Parties, to the following motion. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House conveys to Lech Walesa our congratulations on behalf of the people of Canada on his being named the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, last evening it was brought to my attention that the record of yesterday's debate indicated that I had, during a heated exchange with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), called the Minister of Finance a liar. I know the rules of parliamentary debate. I recognize that this word is not acceptable parliamentary language, regardless of the circumstances or my personal view, and I withdraw it.
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have four petitions today which are basically on the topic. One is submitted by Mrs. Violet Drabble from Speers, another from Mrs. Roy E. Kieper from Radisson and another from Jessie and Bruce Smith from Battleford. They call upon the House to bring about a resolution regarding what they and many Canadians see as a problem that of pornography being degrading to women, children and men alike. The undersigned, your petitioners, ask that this Parliament demonstrate its opposition to the degradation of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act. This was introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on March 8, 1983 which will be debated in the House this afternoon.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have a large number of petitions which I would like to present as a group. Some come from my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood. They are all in support of my Private Members' Bill to be discussed this afternoon, Bill C-675. Some are from other parts of Toronto, including the riding of St. Paul's and some north Toronto ridings. There is a large number from Kootenay West from the towns of Castlegar; Glade; Trail; Riondel; Proctor; Fernie; Rossland; Crawford Bay; Argenta; Nelson; Salmo; Burton; Winlan; Fruitvale and Nakusp. Also there is a petition from the board of directors and regional representatives of Media-Watch.
I would like to thank them all, and indeed the many hundreds of people who have sent in petitions in support of this Bill.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions touching on the same subject as the Private Members' Bill which will be introduced today by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). These petitions come out of an information meeting held by the women's movement in Winnipeg for the general public, and they call upon Parliament to act to stop the abuse consisting of pictorial representations that affect women in this country.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Spadina, Ontario, on the matter to be debated this afternoon, namely an Act to oppose the denigration of women by amending the Broadcast Act as introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on March 8, 1983, and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.

October 5, 1983
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,880 and 4,955.
[ Text]


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What is the method of determining employer pension plan contributions for employees of Departments?
2.	What is the method of determining employer pension plan contributions for employees of Crown corporations who are covered by the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA)?
3.	What was the estimated percentage of payroll employer pension plan contributions made by (a) Departments (b) Crown corporations who are covered by the PSSA for the fiscal year 1982-83 and each of the preceding five fiscal years?
4.	What is the estimated additional amount in employer pension plan contributions that PSSA Crown corporations would have been required to make in the fiscal year 1982-83 and each of the preceding five fiscal years if their pension plan contributions had been determined in the same manner as those of Departments?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Under the legislation governing the Public Service Pension Plan, the Government as an employer, each year:
(a)	Matches the departmental employee contributions made to the Public Service Superannuation Account in the previous year,
(b)	Matches the departmental employee contributions to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account in the current year,
(c)	Pays the net cost of amortizing the actuarial credits (e.g. for annual salary increases) made to the Public Service Superannuation Account,
(d)	Pays the cost of any indexing payments made to retired employees in excess of pensioner credits to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account.
The Total of the costs is divided by the total of the salaries and wages of departments to determine a uniform percentage of payroll that each department pays as pension contributions in respect of its employees.
2. Public Service Corporations match the current contributions paid by their employees to the Public Service Superannuation Account and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account.
	(a) Departments	(b) Public Service
	Per cent	Corporation
		Per cent
1982-83	13.3	6.41981-82	14.3	6.41980-81	11.4	6.41979-80	10.6	6.41978-79	11.4	6.41977-78	10.6	6.4(000.000's)1982-83	$ 961981-82	841980-81	241979-80	171978-79	191977-78	18


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Board (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Board publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Peter Joseph Lang: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Yes.
(a)	The Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board is comprised of a Chairman and the Deputy Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce/Regional Economic Expansion, Finance and National Revenue. Deputy Ministers are represented at these meetings by officials from their respective departments.
(b) (i) The members of the Board or the officials who represent their Deputy Ministers at Board meetings are required to have a broad understanding of their representative department's responsibilities in terms of commercial policy, tariff administration and knowledge of the machinery sector of the Canadian Economy.
(ii) Deputy Ministers are ex officio members of the Board.
(c)	Neither the Chairman, the members of the Board nor officials who replace Board members receive any remuneration for exercising their responsibilities to the Board.
(d)	The Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board's administrative requirements are provided by indeterminate employees of Industry, Trade and Commerce using existing accommodation and resources.
2.	(a) The Board was established on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to section 15 of the Department of Industry Act (P.C. 1967-2301). The terms of reference of the Board are to consider applications for remission of duty on goods classifiable under Tariff Item 42700-1 and to advise the Minister of Industry which goods, in the judgment of the Board, are eligible for remission.
(b)	See 2 (a) above.
(c)	The Board generally meets weekly, although there are no specific requirements on how often it must meet.
October 5, 1983

(d)	The Board published an annual report in 1982-83 and provided recommendations concerning approximately 17,000 duty remission applications.


John Leslie Evans: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]
['Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill is withdrawn and the subject matter thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.\nBill withdrawn and order discharged.\nThe Disabled']
Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I note that the number that has been called and the item set down for the first item of business bears a serial number of about 600. May I respectfully raise again the objections that I have put before, that late comers on the list are getting debating time, whereas there are some Private Members' Bills that have been on the Order Paper, quite as important to the Members who are the sponsors, since 1980.
Why is it that an official, to whom apparently this authority has been delegated to select items, should do so? That is a matter for the Table officers, and there was an order of precedents that was set. I am not aware that there has been any agreement by the House to vary the procedure. Why is it that we have the Johnny-come-latelies coming in now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to comment too extensively on that subject. 1 might indicate to the Hon. Member very briefly that my understanding is that Private Members' Bills come forward on the basis of agreement and availability of the private Member. I might also indicate that recent information from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization that
Private Members' Business
the handling of Private Members' Bills will be shifted from its present system to a system which responds to the Deputy Speaker and to the Clerks at the Table.
I understand the Hon. Member's point. He has raised it before.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And nothing has been done to vary it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 believe that if the Hon. Member wishes to check the records of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization he will find that that problem has been addressed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the only time this has been addressed is apparently in a letter circulated by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council who was proposing a rather complicated procedure. It did not receive sanction from anyone as far as I know.
All I am saying is that we have well known established rules with regard to the filing of two types of motions and of private Bills. There were procedures laid down quite clearly as to how the priorities would be chosen. May I say, as one who still has two outstanding Bills, that no one has approached me concerning these apart from the one that I have had to debate. I do not believe there is a sort of seriatim right pertaining to everyone in the House to be asked or to have proposed a Bill so their name may appear as a proposer of some private Member's motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will repeat, with the permission of the Hon. Member, that I have heard his comments before on the subject. 1 am aware of the grounds for his comments. I have indicated that, as far as I am aware, the Procedure and Organization Committee has addressed this subject. I think that if he would accept my comments as indicated that the form for procedure with respect to Private Members' Hour seems to be on the way, then, with his agreement, 1 might be able to proceed. I cannot say anything further because it is not within my particular authority to do so. I would hope the Hon. Member would understand that and realize the subject has been addressed in the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If you are deputizing for Madam Speaker, you have the authority-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the Hon. Member wishes to stand and make a further comment, I will recognize him, but it is difficult to have a personal conversation with the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as my last comment may I say that 1 admire your diffidence as to authority, but at the present time the occupant of the Chair is representing the Speaker, and the Speaker has the authority on all these matters. Therefore, in my book there is no ducking it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I shall not attempt to duck it and will simply proceed as I ought to in the circumstances.

October 5, 1983
Private Members' Business
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 475 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will let it go on division. 1 am not going to make any issue of it. I do want it noted that I protest on the part of a great number of Members in this House against the procedures that are adopted.
Just to go on a little bit. I do not have any material here but if the Clerk will pull out a Bill that is in my name, I will take it.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Of course I will recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) on a point of order, but I indicated in my remarks that I hoped the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had realized I was aware of the point he raised and that it was my feeling the problem was on the verge of resolution. Having said that, that is no more than an effort to ask the Hon. member for Edmonton West whether he would accept my indication in the present circumstances. If he does not accept that view and does not wish to give his consent to proceed, that is entirely his right as an Hon. Member of the House, and I would respect that right without any hesitation whatsoever.
I have indicated that I will recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi, but I want to indicate that if the matter becomes one of increasing debate, the probability is that we will not be able to proceed today in the usual fashion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, obviously I did not rise to debate a point but simply to raise a point of order. When you asked for unanimous consent, it was not given. Consent on division is not unanimous consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in light of what you said, I was prepared to go ahead with any Bill of mine they want to bring forward. 1 will withdraw that for today. I have done this, but I want to underline that I disapprove of the procedure under which we are going forward with Private Members' Bills and that we should return next week to the appropriate procedure which had been laid down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton West has made his point, and has made it strongly.
I hope other Hon. Members realize that he feels strongly about the issue and that recommendations to the Standing Comittee on Procedure and Organization might be considered
in the circumstances. He has also indicated that he is prepared to give his consent toward a unanimous consent that we might proceed as we do in the ordinary course of events. Accordingly, I will put the question again. Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 475 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Lynn McDonald: that Bill C-675, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to debate my Private Member's Bill, Bill C-675, this afternoon. It is a very simple amendment to the Broadcasting Act. All it will do is to add the following sentence:
Notwithstanding paragraph (c), no station, network operator or pay television licensee shall broadcast any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation of any race, religion, creed or sex.
This is a phrase which has been taken from the existing broadcasting regulations established by the CRTC. It is necessary for Parliament to put this clause into the Broadcasting Act because the existing phrase in the regulations includes only the first three criteria-race, religion or creed. Abuse on the basis of sex is not there despite many recommendations that it be added to the list. The broadcasting regulations are hopelessly out of date. Regulation amendments were proposed more than a year ago by the CRTC task force on sex stereotyping in the media. They have been advocated by groups like the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Media Watch and various organizations. The CRTC has persistently refused to amend its own broadcasting regulations, so it is now up to Parliament to take the necessary action.
One proposal has been that as well as race, religion, creed and sex there should be other criteria added, for example, age and physical or mental handicap. Some people have suggested that the Act should include all categories which are now in the Charter of Rights. I would certainly be in agreement with doing this. The appropriate time to do this, I would suggest, is at committee. The real problem in broadcasting right now is the abuse of women, the problem of pornography. That is the real problem.
I am a practical person. I am directing my efforts toward solving a most important problem that we have to face in abusive broadcasting. That is why the proposal is the way I framed if. Race, religion and creed have already been accepted. Now we have to add sex to the list. Certainly it would be appropriate to add the other categories. There is some symbolic importance in doing this, to make clear the kind of protec-
October 5, 1983

tion we believe Canadians deserve and to make it consistent with the Charter of Rights.
There is support for this proposal all across the country. Petitions have been introduced in Parliament from all parts of the country; there have been thousands of signatures. I am very happy to report that the people who supported this Private Member's Bill include women and men of all ages, church groups, unions, voluntary associations, large organizations, small organizations, all kinds of people. I am very pleased to be able to report that there is a great deal of support for this Bill among men. I have had many men in my own constituency say that they are very glad to see that I am taking up the issue of pornography and taking it up very vigorously. Male constituents of mine have told me that they are horrified and ashamed by pornography.
it is women who are the prime victims of pornography, it is women who are the physical victims of abuse, as well as a growing number of children. But it is still largely women who are the victims. However, the role for men in pornography is as the "pornographer", as the aggressor. Decent men do not like to be identified with this role. Men too are demeaned by pornography. Pornography is demeaning to men. It is also an insult to their dignity. To women it is an insult not only to their dignity but also to their security and sometimes to their lives. The wielder of the whip is demeaned but the receiver of the blows bears the scars.
Let us be very clear about what is the problem. I am talking about pornography, especially violent pornographic abuse with real victims. The issue is not sexual explicitness; it is coercive relationships, it is about abuse. Pornography is growing in quantity and it is getting worse in quality. We also have growing evidence of the harmful effects of pornography. There are psychological studies which show that men who are exposed to pornography, to pornographic films, video cassettes and so forth, are more likely to injure, to hurt a woman or a child. It has been shown that men who are exposed to pornographic films are more likely to accept the rape myth that rape does not really happen, that the women really liked it after all, that aggression is all right because the woman comes around in the end.
Indeed, this has been found to be the most dangerous kind of pornography because it is the one that excuses actual sexual assaults, at least in the mind of the person who commits them. It is false, it is a lie. Pornography does lie. We must face that lie and denounce that lie.
1 want to relate the issue of pornography to the broader issue of sex role stereotyping. I was a member of the CRTC task force on sex role stereotyping in the media. It was set up in response to a large number of complaints which women had been raising with regard to their portrayal generally in the media. These were complaints about under-representation in serious programming, under-representation in the news and public affairs, not treating women's issues seriously as real news issues and of course over-representation and ridiculous representation of women in advertising. These were the issues which prompted the task force on sex stereotyping. It was only
_________________________________27771
Broadcasting Act
at the end of a three-year study that the pornography issue really became clear, that it emerged. Thus, public members of that task force came up with the following statement about pornography:
Male dominance and female submissiveness are at the very heart of the stereotypes of men and women. Pornography is the extreme portrayal of dominance and exploitation of women's sexuality. Pornography, or any portrayal of violence against women, is the ultimate expression of dominance submissiveness, the objectification and the abuse of women. As such, pornography or the portrayal of violence against women has no place in the broadcast media.
Very specifically, the public press members recommended that sex be added to the list in the broadcasting regulations. This, of course, has not been done and that is why we have proceeded to this Bill this afternoon. We worry that all the good that the task force on sexual stereotyping did could be undone by the proliferation of pornography. We are seeing some improvements in the portrayal of women in the media, but all of these good effects could be reversed if late at night we see adult programming that is pornographic and demeans women in a much more serious way.
Mr. Speaker, we could move from ring-around-the-collar on the old television to noose-around-the-neck in the adult programming. Women used to be portrayed as being excessively clean. We worry now about women being portrayed as excessively bloody.
In the old television, women sought to get male approval by being good housewives. Now it goes very fast, women are simply beaten into submission in pornography. In the old days, television showed women as the chatelaines of middle-class domesticity. Shall we give this up now for women as inmates of the torture chamber?

There is the matter of freedom of expression. Yesterday, in answer to my question, the representative for the Minister of Communications raised the point of freedom of expression being entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all know there is a limit to freedom of expression. We do not have the right to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre. We are not allowed to make libellous statements about another person. We are not allowed to counsel someone to commit murder, assault or any other crime. The individual's right to life and security is more important.
I think the Minister of Communications has been somewhat hypocritical in his comments. He raised the issue of freedom of expression when women demanded legal protection. The same protection already exists for minorities and religions. Why the double standard? Does the Minister of Communications mean that minority groups and religions deserve to be protected by law and that women do not? And if that is his position, I would ask him to say so clearly to Canadian women, and if it is not, it is up to the Minister of Communications to take a stand and to support this Private Member's Bill today.

October 5, 1983
Broadcasting Act
The CRTC made its position on freedom of expression known not long ago in its ruling on the complaint against CKVU in Vancouver. A complaint had been lodged by Media Watch, after a program where the commentator expressed the hope that in a conventional war, the women of Media Watch would be at the front so they could be raped by Russian soldiers. The CRTC explained that the Broadcasting Act involved certain rights and obligations assumed by all licensees. One requirement is that programs must be of high quality. The Commission stressed that freedom of expression was not absolute and was limited by other legislation passed to protect other values that were equally precious. The CRTC agreed with Media Watch that the issue was not whether the women should be raped or not, and I quote:
The right to freedom of expression on the public airwaves cannot prevail over the public's right to receive high quality broadcasts that are free of denigrating comments or incitements to violence against any identifiable group.

The CRTC has shown a great deal of sense and sensitivity in its decision, but note that there was no remedy in the decision. There has been a lot of hypocrisy when the issue of freedom of speech has been raised. Where were the people who talk about censorship when women were demanding the end of censorship of women's news and the right for women to be in the news and to be part of public affairs programs? Why are the people who are worried about censorship not demanding that the protection that now exists on the basis of race, religion and creed be removed? There is certainly an inconsistency. Why is censorship only an issue where women's rights are concerned and nobody else's? I ask people to be consistent.
What are we going to do about this? Passing this Private Members' Bill today is only one step. I suggest that many others are needed. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) is responsible for appointments. There is a vacancy for the position of head of the CRTC. I suggest that the Minister should be considering a woman. He should be considering a feminist. He should consider the stand on pornography of whoever is considered for this position. The CRTC should ask these questions as much as they ask questions on Canadian content.
The CBC has a board of directors. It is responsible for a great deal of programming. There is only one woman on a board of 15 members. There are four vacancies. This is shameful. It is not because women's organizations have not put forward names. I have personally recommended people, but it has not done any good.
I would like to support the recommendation which Canada presented at Copenhagen to the United Nations Decade on Women. There was already a provision encouraging "the fullest and most active participation of women at all levels of policy-making and decision-making within media organizations". Our Government put forward this addition, and I quote:
Governments should use the opportunities they have by way of appointments
to regulatory bodies and broadcast networks to ensure that women are equally
represented in senior decision-making.
We have only one woman out of 15 on the CBC board of directors, and yet that was said in 1980 in Copenhagen. Where is the Minister of Communications?
The CRTC must get tough on Pay TV and tough on pornography. Adhering to the guidelines on sex-role stereotyping should be a condition of licence for every station and network in the country. There should be the possibility of revocation of licence when there are serious violations. These are the public airways. Commercial operators make money by using them. We should demand high quality and concern for human rights when we in effect rent out our public airwaves.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has some responsibility. The obscenity laws are inadequate. They are antiquated. The language is bizarre. The Minister has proposed an amendment. It is a good amendment. However, it will not come up for a while even though he said it would be up shortly as long ago as last April. It will stress violence and add the notion of degradation. This is certainly moving in the right direction, but what we need are tough laws and much tougher enforcement. Pornography is a business. People make money from it. It is important that the fines that are levied make this business unprofitable.
The courts do not adequately understand pornography. In some cases their interpretations have been quite misguided. Certainly the fines they have imposed have been rather paltry. We hope to see a growing sensitivity on the part of the courts. We want to see many more prosecutions in order to really get rid of the problem.
Something else the Minister of Justice could do in bringing in tougher laws is to see that they are carefully directed. We want them to be tough, but we do not want them to go all over the place. We do not want to see people like Margaret Laurence, who has been harassed by the school boards, hindered by the Criminal Code. We need proper distinctions. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has proposed an eminently sensible one, in my opinion, to ensure that scientific research, political discussion, serious artistic and literary work will not be included in the definition of pornography. That would be a sensible approach and one that would make it easier to have really tough laws to go after those who are clearly the offenders.
I seek today, Mr. Speaker, approval in principle of this Bill. Simply referring the subject matter to committee is something which I would be happier to accept than having the Bill talked out. However, I would suggest that simply referring the subject matter to committee is not quite what this Bill deserves. Referring the subject matter to committee, would suggest that this is a matter which perhaps is a good idea but needs more study. We do need more study about what to do with the victims of pornography and about all kinds of aspects of pornography, but we do not need a study on the principle of the Bill. We need a clear statement of that principle and we know what it is. Wording has been developed that comes right out of the broadcast regulations. It would fit right into the Act
October 5, 1983

and it would fit right into the section of the Act which deals with policy. It is an appropriate amendment, and I do not think that we really need to take a step backward and merely look at the whole subject again.
The issue at stake is equality. Anyone who believes in equality for women in Canada must be against pornography because it limits the freedom of women to work, to go out, to take part in trade unions, political Parties, and social, cultural and sports events. Pornography makes women afraid and women cannot be full citizens and full participants in our society while that fear exists. Therefore, I call on all men and women to recognize that we must resist, denounce and fight pornography wherever and whenever possible. Hon. Members of the House here today have the opportunity to take a step that will approve Bill C-675 in principle. The women of Canada expect that of Hon. Members and the women of Canada deserve no less.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to and offer my full support for Bill C-675 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Because of the nature of politics, some people may find it unusual that a Conservative Member of Parliament would speak in favour of a Private Member's Bill standing in the name of a Member of the New Democratic Party. However, this Bill is interesting, it is important and it deserves support from all Members of the House. I would like to endorse the principle of the Bill and certainly see it obtain approval in principle at second reading. Failing that, I would like to see the subject matter of the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
1 should point out as an aside to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood and other Members of the NDP who were not here five and a half or six years ago that at that time,
I was here in the Parliamentary Press Gallery and as a broadcaster was very concerned about the subject matter of pornography and particularly pornography on the airwaves. A whole series of Private Members' Bills were put on the Order Paper five and a half or six years ago by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) and the then Hon. Member for the riding that was then known as Selkirk, Mr. Dean Whiteway. The subject matter of the Bills was referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the Chairman of which was the present Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). The committee came up with unanimous recommendations designed to deal with the spreading pornography crisis. All of those recommendations have been ignored to this day.
We are starting all over again, Mr. Speaker. It is our expectation that the Government side will approve in principle the subject matter of the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, and certainly we on this side give that approval. Perhaps when the subject matter goes to committee this time, specifically the Committee on Communica-
Broadcasting Act
tions and Culture, we can deal with it expeditiously and put on the statute books, through an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, some meaningful legislation and laws designed to deal with the spread of pornography over the public airwaves and, in some cases, through the printed media. 1 will refer to that in a few moments.
The genesis of the Bill is worth mentioning again. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was a member of the task force on sex role stereotyping in the broadcast media which was formed in September, 1979, by our then colleague, my friend, the Hon. David McDonald, who was the Minister of Communications. The mandate of that task force was, and I quote:
To delineate guidelines for a more realistic and positive portrayal of women in radio and television (both programming and commercials) and to make policy recommendations for consideration by the Commission and the broadcasting industry.
The task force reported in September, 1982, with a well thought out document which contained many valuable recommendations, some of which deserve reiterating now. I read from that report as follows:
The following summary of concerns was compiled and discussed by the Task Force: (only related concerns listed)
"Women should not be used as sexual stimuli or lures, or as attention-getting, but otherwise irrelevant, objects."
"Broadcasting should not demean or degrade women through the images used to portray them."
"Male dominance and female submissiveness are at the very heart of the stereotypes of men and women. Pornography reflects the extreme portrayal of dominance and the exploitation of women's sexuality. Pornography, or any portrayal of violence against women, is the ultimate expression of dominance/ submissiveness, the objectification of women. As such, pornography, or the portrayal of violence against women has no place in the broadcast media."
As a former broadcaster intimately involved with that industry, I say Amen to those concerns.
The task force recommendations for Pay TV read as follows:
1.	recognize the public concern about sex-role stereotyping
2.	adopt the applicable programming recommendations set out in this report
3.	exercise sensitivity to, and awareness of, the problem of sex-role stereotyping in the acquisition of programming material or rights
4.	ensure that women are adequately represented on and off air
I presume that off air in this case means that women should be represented as prominent members of boards and commissions.
Incidentally, 1 would applaud and second the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood that the next Chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission might well be a woman and one who would be able to bring to that very important regulatory body the concerns that are raised in this Bill.
The recommendations I have just read from the task force report are ones that we as Members of Parliament should look at very carefully, particularly in light of the second stage generation of this Bill and the Playboy adult programming controversy which surfaced last January over Pay TV programming. Before I get to that, I will point out that this issue is clearly in the minds of the media. As I was putting together some remarks for this speech, I came across an interesting

October 5, 1983
Broadcasting Act
article from the Hamilton Spectator of September 27, 1983. The headline reads: "Use power of sales against porn: Broadcaster". That braodcaster was speaking in Kitchener and said:
People should use their buying power to force pornographic advertising from the media, says a 10-year veteran of radio broadcasting.
"It's a weapon too many of us don't use," said Liz McCIoy, a third-year divinity student at the University of Toronto, during a conference on pornography. "Radio stations have images, corporations have images."
When listeners or viewers phone to complain, they may not see the effects of the call, but Ms. McCIoy said from her radio experience, "panic sets in."
"Memos go out from general managers to announcers, salesmen and programmers: 'We have to clean up.' "
There is great power in the advertising dollar over the broadcasters when they do step over the mark. The problem that this Bill deals with and the problem we all face is that there is nothing now in the Broadcasting Act to give any kind of direction which would regulate or prevent pornography or the sexual exploitation of women in advertising.
I mentioned the furor on one of the pay TV channels over this Playboy adult programming. 1 think most Members received a lot of mail on this from their constituents because I did. Although the Playboy TV issue is only a small part of the pornography question, it serves to focus attention on the fact that we have progressed-if you like to use the word progressed in this context to the point where soft-core pornography is available on your television set via broadcast. I wonder how long it will be before soft-core pornography gives way to hard-core pornography and all its horrible ramifications.
The Playboy pay TV episode focused concern on the entire pornography/violence issue. One of the connections between violence toward women and pornography, violent sexism whether implicit or explicit, is that it leads to the degradation of women and has no place in the broadcast media.
As a communications critic for the Official Opposition I am concerned with the sex stereotyping of women in advertising and the degradation of women over the airwaves. Some of us take equal exception to printed exploitation. As a former journalist I recognize that this takes us into the most difficult and sensitive area of censorship, and I am not prepared to deal with that at the moment.
The CRTC is supposed to make decisions based on its view of what is in the best interests of the general public. It must decide what minimum standard of public morality should be applied by those it licenses. This is not a new idea and it falls within the power of the commission.
I would draw to the attention of the House the current code of advertising ethics developed by the CRTC, broadcasters and advertisers and the task force report which I mentioned earlier.
I should like to see the pay TV companies subscribe to and work within the guidelines set out in the report on sexual stereotyping, but there does not seem to be a great deal of activity in this area. Perhaps this is an extremely important and vital reason why we must have a new Broadcasting Act
from the Government-or from the next Government which some of us on this side will have a say in.
1 should like to see a new Broadcasting Act tabled in the House as soon as possible and 1 think it should contain the material set out in Bill C-675, introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.
Although I would prefer pay TV licencees and the CRTC to come to a co-operative agreement, perhaps the way to set up such a public forum would be to send the Bill to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and invite pay TV companies to appear before it to justify why they feel they should not come under more stringent laws on pornography.
Essentially, we are still dealing with the public airwaves and with young people, and we just cannot leave everything to their choice. Somewhere a provision has to be enshrined in the Broadcasting Act which will prevent the sex stereotyping of women.
I am sure I speak for all Members of the Official Opposition when I say that we are pleased to support wholeheartedly the subject matter of Bill C-675.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-675, presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.
I think it is quite evident from the remarks and comments I have heard outside of the House by Members of all the Parties represented here, that there is a great deal of support for the Bill. I had hoped that the debate this afternoon would be along those lines. This being politics, however, I must say that I am a little disappointed in some of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood in her criticism of the actions or, as I suppose she was suggesting, the inaction of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) regarding this very important concern.
I believe that actions do speak louder than words. If one were to look in Hansard since the whole issue of pornography came to the fore, one would see that the Minister of Communications has stated a number of times-and that I, as Parliamentary Secretary have stated a number of times-concern about this matter. We have suggested to the various elements of society responsible for pornography and the degradation of women in broadcasting, and the sex stereotyping question, that they clean up their act.
I am not going to go on at great length this afternoon about the Bill. 1 think everyone supports it in principle. Certainly the Minister has indicated his concern that something be done in a very definite and parliamentary way through the legal process to put teeth into the Broadcasting Act and regulations affected thereby.
As late as yesterday afternoon the Minister of Communications and I had the opportunity of a meeting with representatives of Media Watch, one of the groups to which the Hon. Member referred. It was set up to watch the media, television
October 5, 1983

in particular, and programs related to pornography and sex stereotyping. Media Watch has been funded by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women who has been very much concerned about this matter and who wants to see something done in a positive way.
It is not only the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood who has been carrying the torch on this question. Certainly on this side of the House the Ministers responsible have been trying to arrive at a suitable solution to this very penetrating question.
It has been suggested by the Hon. Member that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McGuigan) set up a special committee to see how the Criminal code could be changed as it relates to violence and sexual crimes. In turn, this will relate to the broadcasting industry.
I should like to add my support for this Bill, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that we send it on to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, and I think that is where it should be handled. It is not a question of trying to prolong the debate, but to change the Broadcasting Act and put teeth into this section is not as simple as the Hon. Member states. There is a difference between changing the Broadcasting Act and amending CRTC regulations.
I would therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-675 an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act be not now read the
second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the
subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Burghardt) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill is withdrawn and the subject matter thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Bill withdrawn and order discharged.
The Disabled



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government, in pursuance of a policy that will ensure that all disabled Canadians have the same opportunity to participate fully in all of the employment, recreational, consumer, educational, community and domestic activities which characterize everyday Canadian society, should consider the advisability of introducing legislation that would require ail telephones being produced in Canada or imported into Canada to be fully accessible to hearing-impaired Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion arises from a decision which was made on November 23, 1982, by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. In that decision the CRTC refused to require that all telephones should be compatible with hearing aids. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will know that many people with hearing aids use a telephone switch or T-switch on the hearing aid to improve access to telephones. The T-switch enables the hearing aid to respond to the magnetic pulses of the telephone receiver, the part you hold to your ear. This feature improves reception. In short, it gives hard of hearing people better access to the telephone.
Admittedly, much of the argument which I am going to present is of a rather technical nature. However, it is necessary to go through it in order to allow Hon. Members to understand exactly what the problem is. In arriving at its decision, the CRTC dealt a severe blow to the hearing impaired, indeed, to the whole thrust of achieving full accessibility to the disabled community generally. In fact, this decision will have serious implications for the hearing impaired, that it has been appealed to the federal Cabinet by the Canadian Co-ordinating Council on Deafness, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association and the Hard of Hearing Club of Ottawa. This petition has received wide public support from both individual Canadians and numerous organizations. Among those organizations is the Canadian Labour Congress, the Laurentian University School of Social Work, the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Communication Workers, to name but a few.
The reason for this massive support, Mr. Speaker, is apparent to anyone who cares to look at the issue carefully. Hearing loss in Canada is one of our most common physical disabilities. About a million and a half Canadians have some degree of hearing loss. It is estimated that some 200,000 Canadians are profoundly deaf. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare has estimated that of those who are not profoundly deaf, some 550,000 Canadians have a significant hearing impairment in both ears.

The Disabled
I cannot emphasize enough that while the impact of the CRTC decision is most severe on the present hearing impaired population, it will become even more so in a few years' time. As Hon. Members are aware, all indicators show that Canada, as well as other nations, is faced with the fact that our population is aging very rapidly. Hearing problems will increase in number rather than diminish as we go through the process. I cannot conceive of a better time to prepare for that than right now.
It is to this large group of Canadians that my motion addresses itself. The telephone is often a much more important device to the hearing impaired than it is to a person who does not have this disability. In cases of emergency, it may be the only way a person can call for help if that person has impaired hearing. This can often be the case if one is elderly and housebound, or if one has multiple disabilities or happens to live in a rural or isolated community. The telephone is also a very important device in a number of work places. Being able to use the telephone can mean the difference between keeping a job or losing it and, indeed, even in securing employment. A major problem for people with hearing impairment is in finding suitable and reasonably well paying employment.
Witnesses were heard before the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. I saw an estimate not too long ago which indicated that the unemployment rate within the hearing impaired community was in excess of 40 per cent, and I believe more in the area of 50 per cent, of the unemployed within that population group in our society. That spells out the size of the problem, Mr. Speaker, because to the hearing impaired an inaccessible telephone is a major obstacle toward achieving the right to independent living. I would even say that it flies in the face of the spirit of the amendments which this House recently made to the Canadian Human Rights Act. If the federal Cabinet fails to overturn the decision of the CRTC, it would be doing a great disservice to those Canadians who looked on the International Year of the Disabled Persons as a starting point for greater future achievements.
The telephone has become a part of daily living in our society, whether it be in business, social contact or in communicating information quickly. Yet for most hearing impaired Canadians, the telephone is only of use when special attachments are available. The CRTC in its decision, to which 1 referred, has refused to prescribe technical standards which would ensure that all telephones are compatible with hearing aids and are equipped with a device known as a telecoil. In the face of that refusal, this motion asks the Government to consider introducing legislation which will require all telephones which are produced or imported into Canada to be accessible to the hearing impaired.
On occasion, Mr. Speaker, I and other members in my Party have been severely critical of Bell Canada in the way it conducts its business with the public at large. However, in this case, Bell Canada has played an excellent role and has been a good corporate citizen in recognizing its responsibility in this area. It has been fitting its equipment with the necessary devices. Unfortunately, a number of other producers have not
October 5, 1983
followed suit. By not doing so, it has been argued that Bell has been placed in a position which makes it less competitive with other producers. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the only real long-term solution is to put all telephone equipment producers on the same competitive basis. All of them should be required to provide telephone terminals which are magnetically compatible with hearing aids. All telephones manufactured in Canada or imported should be required to generate enough electromagnetic flux to be compatible with hearing aids. This requirement should apply to all telephones, residential, public, those used in business. Existing incompatible public telephones should be retrofitted where that is required. It is essential that all new telephones imported into the Canadian market also be required to be compatible.
It has been argued by some that if the federal Government did overturn the CRTC decision, which I would like to see, the whole question should be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for further examination. It is my recollection, after speaking with some of the consumer groups representing hearing impaired Canadians, that some of the evidence presented to the CRTC hearings, from which it made its decision, was clearly erroneous. In fact, I have some correspondence from B.C. Tel and others disputing the information that the CRTC received in making its decision. Short of referring the whole question back to the CRTC for proper examination, a perhaps more productive way of dealing with it would be to place it before a committee, such as that on Communications and Culture, where elected representatives of the people in this country could ensure that the hearing impaired in Canada were being dealt with equitably. I am quite sure there is not one Member in the House who has not received correspondence from hearing impaired groups about this very question. I am sure that concern is shared by all Members, and not just by myself or people in my Party. It is something that requires more examination.
I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), worked extremely closely with groups such as the Western Institute for the Deaf. He has made many representations to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) on this matter. Unfortunately, the response from the Minister's Department has not been as productive or useful as we had hoped. The Minister himself, I must say, is one of the more concerned Members in the Cabinet when it comes to enacting recommendations that have emanated from the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, of which I am a member. The Minister has been one of the most caring Ministers. I hope that he uses his persuasive powers to convince the Cabinet, which presently has an appeal before it right now, not to dismiss it lightly but, rather, to have the question referred right up to the Standing Committee or back to the CRTC for proper examination.
There are many misunderstood aspects of this particular case. I have in my hand a letter from one of the Members of the House who had written to the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. He argued thus in the letter:
October 5, 1983

Part of the difficulty comes with deciding whether or not to impose what would in effect be a universal tax on all telephone subscribers.
That would be if all telephones were required to have the telecoil implanted in them. It is an argument I have often heard, whether it comes to providing ramps for wheel chair use or removing architectural barriers from federal buildings. Why should the general taxpayer pay to remove those barriers for a small group of disabled Canadians? First, I want to tell Your Honour that that small group of disabled Canadians amounts to something like 10 per cent of the total Canadian population. In fact, it is estimated that there are over two million Canadians who are considered to have disabilities of one form or another. It seems to me that rather than placing those kinds of offhanded, dismissive remarks about why we generally should be caring in our attitude toward those who are disabled, we should be discussing what kind of society we really want. Do we want a society that reduces every problem to dollars and cents and wonders where these dollars and cents are coming from when it comes to human needs? Or are we to be the kind of society that says, "I look after me first, on a dollar and cents basis, and everyone else is on their own"? That is not the kind of society in which I am interested. I daresay that most Hon. Members in the House would share that view. I do not place all that much importance on that kind of an attitude.
But then it comes to a more serious question, where one particular Member says that another problem arises with the effect there could be on international trade from requiring all new telephones to be compatible with hearing aids. Now that telephones no longer have to be leased from the telephone company, which is Bell Canada, such a requirement could be perceived as a non-tariff trade barrier with possible retaliation.
I felt the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association presented the classifical argument to that classical argument when its Chairman wrote back to this particular Member and said:
-in regard to international trade, I cannot see how such a requirement could be perceived as a non-tariff trade barrier. In particular, such a requirement would in no way give any advantage to domestic industry. International trade agreements do not take away our right to control the performance of devices in the Canadian health, transportation and, in this case, communication system. We already regulate automobile safety, medical device performance, et cetera.
While the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped was going through public hearings over the last three-year period, we found that there was a readiness, even a willingness on the part of able-bodied Canadians to dismiss out of hand, lightly, problems faced daily by people with disabilities. They used the most specious, spurious arguments to dismiss legitimate claims on society, arguments that they would not dare use with any other group in society. However, they feel quite free to use such arguments against disabled persons simply because the individuals are disabled.
1 do not feel that 1 am being unkind in making that statement, because it is a fact. We found it time and time again, from witnesses who appeared before the committee, relating their experiences with the able-bodied community. I found it quite shameful and shocking. We all did in the committee, and I think that is what made it one of the best committees the House has ever had.
The Disabled
I would argue that the time has come when the House has an excellent opportunity to say that we must play a role in changing the attitudes of society toward the disabled community. Today we are presented with no more of an excellent opportunity than to do it right now. I would ask the House, in all sincerity, to give its support to the motion. If the Government wishes to amend it in such a way as to get the motion into a committee where it can be examined, where we can be assured that the hearing impaired population will receive their due right to have the matter examined closely, 1 will not object. What I am interested in is ensuring that the question be fully and properly examined. I would ask the House for that support.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by complimenting the Hon. Member and congratulating him on his choice of issues to raise before the House. It is certainly true that the ability of disabled Canadians to participate in the mainstream activities of Canadian society is something that all of us should be concerned about. 1 honestly believe that all of us in the House have that same concern and share it as sincerely as the Hon. Member opposite. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that 1 also absolutely support the idea that disabled Canadians should have access to the same employment, recreation, consumer, educational, community and domestic activities which characterize Canadian society every day.
However, before Members consider the specific issue raised by the Hon. Member, that is, the advisability of introducing legislation that would require all telephones being produced in Canada or imported into Canada to be fully accessible to hearing impaired Canadians, 1 believe some background information would be in order and helpful.
There are more than 180 telephone companies in Canada. Of course, some are very large like Bell Canada and some are very small. Generally speaking, federal and provincial Governments are responsible for the regulation of the telephone companies under their jurisdiction. Usually, carriers must apply to their regulatory agency, be it the federal agency, a provincial Government public utility board or a municipal council in some cases, for approval of the terms and conditions on which telephone service is provided. Of all these telephone companies, only four are currently subject to regulation by the federal telecommunications regulatory body and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC. These are Bell Canada, which operates in Ontario, Quebec and part of the Northwest Territories, the British Columbia Telephone Company operating in the Province of British Columbia, NorthwesTel serving the Yukon and the other part of the Northwest Territories, and Terra Nova Telecommunications, which serves part of Newfoundland.
Traditionally, for all or most of their operations, the telephone companies have carried on business as monopoly service providers within their operating territory. This monopoly extended to the provision of telephones and other devices

October 5, 1983
The Disabled
which were attached to the telephones companies' lines. Over the past ten years, however, this situation has been changing, particularly in the Territories served by the four telephone companies I mentioned a few moments ago. Over much of this period, the federal Department of Communications has sponsored a program known as the Terminal Attachment Program which has put in place mechanisms for an orderly transition to an environment in which telephone company subscribers can attach their own devices to the telephone networks.
Over the same period, the CRTC has made regulatory decisions which have progressively given subscribers greater choice and flexibility in deciding on the kind of telecommunications equipment they want and whether they will lease it from the carrier or buy from an independent supplier. It is worthwhile to describe briefly the work of the program advisory committee, TAPAC, which has played a major role in the orderly development of the telecommunications industry in Canada.
In 1975, the Department of Communications, recognizing the evolutionary change in the telecommunications environment, proposed the creation of a committee dedicated to the development of terminal equipment standards which could be used in the telecommunications industry across the country. Under the chairmanship of the Department of Communications, a voluntary co-operative committee was formed composed of provincial Governments, federally regulated common carriers, telecommunications equipment manufacturers and suppliers as well as representatives from consumer associations and users. TAPACs first work was on terminal attachment standards for network non-addressing devices, that is, devices which cannot be used to dial directly into the telephone network. An example of such devices is the well known automatic telephone answering machine. When a consensus is reached within TAPAC, its decisions are referred to the Department of Communications and are published in the Canada Gazette for public comment. Upon completion of this process, the standards are issued by the Department. The committee has now completed the development of standards for network addressing devices, which include the ordinary single line telephone, of which some 10 million are currently in operation in this country.
As I have said, matters progressed in an orderly fashion, and in 1980, the CRTC made an important decision with respect to Bell Canada. At that time the CRTC issued a decision which permitted ordinary extension telephones purchased by subscribers to be attached to Bell's lines. This was the first such decision in Canada. Prior to this, only certain kinds of business equipment could be attached to Bell's lines, and many telephone companies permitted no subscriber-provided equipment to be attached without special protective couplings which were to be provided by the telephone company at a tariffed rate.
While many subscribers welcomed this decision, one group of Canadians, the hearing impaired, viewed it with some concern. The concern of the hearing impaired was as follows: hearing aids which are equipped with a device called a telecoil
can, when the telecoil is activated by the hearing aid T-switch, detect and amplify the magnetic field generated by certain telephones. However, not all telephones generate sufficient magnetic field to activate a telecoil hearing aid. Some telephone receivers must have a flux coil added. The flux coil increases the magnetic field sufficiently to be detected by a telecoil.
Just prior to the 1980 CRTC decision, representatives of the hearing impaired had held lengthy discussions with Bell Canada, and Bell had made a very public spirited commitment. Bell Canada had committed itself to equipping all of its telephones with flux coils. Thus, the hearing impaired were assured that any telephone leased from Bell would work with a hearing aid equipped with a T-switch. With a decision that subscribers could attach their own telephones to Bell's network, the hearing impaired were concerned that a proliferation of non-Bell telephones would lead to a situation where telephones would not generally be compatible with hearing aids equipped with telecoils.
In the fall of 1981, the CRTC held an extensive public hearing into the issue of attachment of subscriber-provided equipment to the networks of federally regulated carriers. Representations were made by 30 representatives of various organizations interested in the matter, including three associations representing hearing impaired persons. These associations were the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Co-ordinating Council on Deafness, and the Hard of Hearing Club of Ottawa. Groups representing the hearing impaired urged the CRTC to prescribe technical standards which would ensure that all telephones are compatible with hearing aids that are equipped with a telecoil. Representatives of the hearing impaired were concerned that in an environment in which consumers and businesses can purchase their own primary telephone set, and in the absence of appropriate technical standards, an increasing percentage of telephones will not be compatible with hearing aids. Also, they expressed the view that access to telecommunications services would be reduced owing to the fact that private or business users would be able to purchase telephones which are not hearing aid compatible.
On November 23, 1982, the CRTC issued its final decision, Telecom Decision CRTC 82-14, which concluded that it was in the public interest that the terminal attachment policy that was established as a result of the 1980 interim decision be continued. The liberalization of ownership of telephone equipment and other devices to be connected to the federally regulated common carriers' public networks is now a fait accompli and has generally met with positive reaction.
In its decision, the Commission stated its view that any device necessary to permit a disabled person to have access to the telephone network should continue to be priced at a level as low as possible, and that it continues to be committed to ensuring that hearing impaired persons have access to telephone service in the most effective and efficient manner. The evidence presented at the public hearings, however, did not convince the Commission that requiring all telephones to be hearing aid compatible is the most feasible way of achieving
October 5, 1983

this goal. Also, the CRTC noted that alternatives to the imposition of technical standards could be implemented, such as modifications to the design of hearing aids themselves and modifications to the design of and rates for portable accoustic couplers. The latter permits the amplification of the voice signal received at the handset receiver and acts in a manner similar to the volume control amplifying handset which is provided free or for a nominal charge by the majority of the telephone companies.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Commission noted that Bell Canada reiterated its commitment during the public hearing to continue to provide telephones on a lease basis which are equipped with a flux coil, the additional feature which is favoured by the hearing impaired associations. The British Columbia Telephone Company had made a commitment to continue to provide, upon request, amplifying handsets to residence subscribers at no charge and to business subscribers for a nominal monthly charge.
Based on all these considerations, the Commission decided not to require that all telephones meet technical standards which ensure hearing aid compatibility. However, in so deciding the Commission also encouraged the Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee to explore additional means by which the access of hearing impaired persons to telephone service can be improved.
Subsequent to the release of Telecom Decision CRTC 82-14, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre presented a petition to the Governor in Council requesting the CRTC Decision 82-14 be varied to require the CRTC to issue an order to the effect that, within 90 days, all telephones authorized to be attached to a public telephone network be compatible with hearing aids. The Centre is acting on behalf of four associations representing the hearing impaired-the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Co-ordinating Council on Deafness, the Hard of Hearing Club of Ottawa and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association.
Representatives of the hearing impaired are concerned that the technical standards approved by the CRTC do not require manufacturers to make their telephones compatible with hearing aid devices and are of the view that an additional component, a flux coil, should be mandatory in telephone receivers to ensure their compatibility with certain hearing aids. Also, the associations feel that this component should be treated as a basic part of the telephone network, the cost of which all users share in order to preserve universality of service.
The Governor in Council will, Mr. Speaker, be dealing with this matter very shortly. As I said at the outset, I support the idea that disabled Canadians should have access to the mainstream activities which characterize Canadian life. I am sure that every reasonable Canadian accepts that concept.
As for compatibility of telephones and hearing aids, there is considerable work going on in Canada and in fact all over the world. The Comite consultatif international telegraphique et telephonique, the international organization concerned with
The Disabled
devising and preparing recommendations for international telecommunications standards, practices and procedures, is currently studying the question of developing an international standard for the coupling of hearing aids and telephones. This is complicated by a number of factors.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 have been watching the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) reading word for word his intervention. I wonder whether it is appropriate that there be some originality somewhere if he feels so deeply as he does about this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The point raised by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is completely in order. It is a point of order because the rules of the House require that Hon. Members should be able to make use of notes, but in that sense it does not include the possibility that a speech may be read entirely. The purpose is simply to encourage debate rather than accept set speeches.
On the other hand, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters). A number of Members throughout the House on both sides do read speeches. But when the point is drawn to the Chair's attention, I think it is the responsibility of the Chair to remind Hon. Members that they should, if possible, attempt to avoid reading speeches verbatim.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the point of order. It is not my normal practice to use notes. I usually do not use them except on the rare occasion when one is presenting items that are technical. I think this item does require some clarification in the technical sense of what is going on and of what the inhibitions are in providing the hard of hearing couplings which the Hon. Member has suggested should be mandatory through legislation.
While I am certainly sympathetic, as I have said in the read speech-and I grant the Hon. Member that I have been reading verbatim-I accept the principle of trying to provide that kind of service to the hearing impaired. Like other Members in this House I, too, have intimate knowledge of the difficulties that the hard of hearing have inflicted upon them.
I had almost come to the conclusion of my read remarks on the subject. However, I do believe that from time to time-and this is one of those times-when we have the crossing of jurisdictions, when we have various regulatory bodies that come into play, when we are dealing with a situation that technically is controlled directly by the CRTC and all of those companies that we control in a regulatory sense by the CRTC, they have in fact lived up to the letter of the intent of the Hon. Member's motion.
I do take very serious note of the Hon. Member's representation. I hope that by trying to bring about an orderly procession of facts and figures and the history of what has been happening, I will be forgiven for reading my speech. I hope it has helped-perhaps it has not enlivened debate-to have information available to all Members of the House in a

October 5, 1983
The Disabled
comprehensive manner on such an important subject that we can digest and work with.
Finally, because I think 1 will be abusing the time of the House if I go on much further, I do compliment the Hon. Member for bringing forward this matter this afternoon. 1 would like to reiterate that it is my commitment, along with the rest of the Members of Parliament, to ensure services to the disabled not only as they are now in an improved situation but that the whole process be accelerated so that all handicapped people will participate more fully in the mainstream of life.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, as 1 was saying in addressing Bill C-675 earlier this day, it is not every day that I get up to endorse the essence of a Bill or a motion proposed by one of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. Today I get to do it twice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will never understand this. I want to speak in support of the principle of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for the Beaches (Mr. Young). This is a totally non-partisan issue and that does bring to mind the work done by our late colleague, the Hon. Walter Dinsdale. I want to pay tribute to him on behalf of all Members of this House because of his work of love. Indeed, his entire life was dedicated to those Canadians who suffer from handicaps and disabilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: That work is now being carried on by my colleague the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), and my colleague the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), who has replaced the late Mr. Dinsdale on the committee.
1 was looking into a little bit of the background earlier today on the hearing impaired, and I was surprised to learn that hearing loss is the most common form of disability, that 1.5 million Canadians have some degree of hearing impairment, that 200,000 Canadians are profoundly deaf and 550,000 have difficulties hearing in both ears. A quarter of a million people wear hearing aids and an equal number of individuals could use them. Current demographic trends suggest that more individuals will be using them as the population grows older. I apologise for using notes on these statistics, but they are startling and I wanted to make sure that I was correct.
With the permission of Hon. Members, I would like to digress for a moment to illustrate how important the problem of the hearing impaired has become. In terms of one particular project in my riding, a lady by the name of Jacqueline Harbour has started a school for hearing-ear dogs. The problem of the hearing impaired in Canada is as significant as, if not more so, those with visual difficulties. They can be treated
in much the same way as the blind who are provided with seeing-eye dogs. I will refer to the work of Mrs. Harbour in greater detail on a future occasion, but it is really incredible to see the dog actually taking the place of the human ear and alert the hearing impaired to the telephone ringing, the doorbell sounding or anything of this nature around the home. This project deserves national attention, and I will be giving it that attention at the earliest opportunity.
In this particular motion we are talking specifically about telephones. The progress report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped issued in June, 1982 made three basic yet very important recommendations. Recommendation No. 56 read:
Reduce telephone rates for hearing impaired persons who need special TDD (teletypewriter) equipment.
Recommendation No. 57 read:
Special telephone equipment for disabled persons be provided under basic monthly charge.
Recommendation No. 58 read:
Equip federal offices with special telephone equipment for disabled persons.
These recommendations were made to enhance the accessibility of the hearing impaired to general communications. They would also enhance the already valuable role played by these Canadians and would be in accordance with the Charter of Rights that was passed by the House.
However, there is a larger international situation of which the committee should be aware if and when it begins to deal with the issue, and I hope it is soon. The United States adopted accessibility standards-90 per cent of telephone receivers in that country are compatible. We do not have a large number of U.S. manufactured phone sets in the Canadian marketplace, but in all probability they would have a telecoil.
CRTC Decision No. 82-14 to allow business and home subscribers to purchase their own equipment has opened up the market. As a result we are receiving imports from Japan, Korea, Italy, Singapore, Poland and Sweden. Needless to say, these units may not be compatible. If we impose this new standard, it may be seen as a non-tariff trade barrier and we may be open to retaliation. If we want to explore international markets for our technology, we must cultivate these trade barriers. However, there is an excellent argument that we should have standards in place as we do for cars, medical devices and so on.
There may be some interim solutions which could be proposed to the non-compatible phone units being sold in Bell Canada territory where, incidentally, two-thirds of the hearing impaired reside. For example, we could put labels on these units indicating that they are not compatible or they do not work with a T-switch on hearing aids. That was suggested by the Canadian Hearing Society. Perhaps these temporary solutions could be considered while legislation requiring these units to be compatible is being discussed and studied.
The problem faced by my predecessor and I in this role as critic for communications, when discussing modifications that
October 5, 1983

should be made and additions that should be considered by Bell Canada, was that they increase the cost to the consumer and place a bigger financial burden upon Bell Canada. I can sympathize with that point of view, but we are dealing with something which I think transcends the matter of cost to consumers. We are dealing with a person's hearing ability. That is something which is critical to all of us. A few more dollars being spent by the consumer to aid the hearing impaired is unarguable. If that is what a Commons committee looking further into this matter recommends, then Bell Canada and the people with normal hearing should be more than willing to give consideration to a slight additional cost if it were really to assist the hearing impaired.
In connection with Motion No. 91, of course we endorse the principle of enhancing opportunities for the hearing impaired.
It is in line with the commitment the House has made to the "Obstacles" report and with the Charter of Rights. The question is how we best enhance opportunities for the hearing impaired.
There are several areas at which the committee could look. First, it could look at ensuring if the equipment of provincial telephone companies is compatible, such as B.C. Tel and Sask Tel. As members of the committee we should figure out a way to ensure that non-Bell telephone systems can be altered so that they are hearing aid compatible. Bell Canada has made a commitment to continue to ensure that its receivers are compatible. Given its commitment, we should try to work out a similar arrangement with provincial telephone companies.
Second, it could look at labelling. When I was consumer affairs critic for this Party for about three years, I learned that we would never be able to see the name of a product if all labels recommended by various commissions and committees were stuck all over it in both official languages, in imperial and metric. We should look at putting labels on telephones that are compatible with hearing aids for people who can see perfectly well. They would take precedence over many other labels of which I can think. We should be putting labels on all telephones that are compatible with hearing aids so that when hearing impaired persons buy telephones they will know that they can use them. That sounds reasonable. We should look at labelling public telephones. When we think of the number of public telephones in the country, that in itself will be a major but very necessary undertaking.
The Committee could also look at the idea of international standards so that some day we will be sure that technology will meet the need of the hearing impaired. Canada could take the role at the international level given the expertise of Bell Canada in this area. We have done it before and Bell's expertise in the area could be most useful internationally.
Then the committee could look at the extent to which the mobility of the hearing impaired is deterred in the workplace and how best to prevent it. There are many hundreds of thousands of productive individuals whose ability is impaired as a result of their hearing deficiency. This is something we as Members of Parliament should be looking at to correct.
The Disabled
The right of access to telecommunications by hearing impaired individuals is a very important issue. It is a non-partisan issue. As technology increases, it is only right that the largest disabled group in Canada be guaranteed equal accessibility. It is in that spirit that I endorse the motion by the Hon. Member for Beaches.
As that Hon. Member said earlier, the subject matter of this Bill, as technical, detailed and important as it is to the hearing impaired of this country, shoud be sent to the appropriate standing committee for detailed study and the calling of witnesses. Members on all sides of the House could be made aware not only of what Bell Canada and the provincial nonBell companies can do now, but might be able to do in the future as technology increases. I would like to hear suggestions from the Canadian Hearing Society and other associations which have ideas to present to the committee based on the recommendations of this motion.
1 am sure this Government would want to listen to the report of the disabled and to pay very close attention to the thrust of that report. I hope that Government Members recognize the obligation we have to Canada's hearing impaired and allow the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to give this motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches further examination. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the motion be withdrawn and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 91 with regard to aid for the hearing impaired. I want to say first that we agree with the honourable intentions of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) in presenting this motion. We know of his work on the Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped which came out with a far-reaching report concerning all handicapped and disabled persons. The report was entitled "Obstacles". Therefore, we know of his honourable intentions.
The motion presented to the House fails to take into consideration much of the work and many of the areas of progress undertaken by the Department of Communications in dealing with this very important subject matter. In the next few minutes I would like to share with the House some of these areas which the Department of Communications has already undertaken. Many of the steps taken thus far came about as a result of recommendations in the "Obstacles" report to which 1 referred earlier. Before speaking to those recommendations, I remind the House that the Department of Communications has for a number of years been vitally concerned in promoting telecommunication services for the disabled.

October 5, 1983
The Disabled
In recent years a number of activities designed to improve such services has been sponsored by the Department. I will have to refer to my notes to get the exact dates. As early as 1976 the Department commissioned research which was carried out between 1976 and 1978 by St. Paul University in Ottawa and which aimed at identifying the basic telecommunication needs of the disabled and the handicapped. Following this research at St. Paul's, a separate study was sponsored in 1979 at Queen's University to determine the telecommunications needs of the hearing impaired. Just this year the Department published the report of a study undertaken by Dr. Elaine Pressman of the University of Ottawa and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario on the communication and telecommunication needs of the speech impaired. The Department, moreover, recently awarded a university research contract to Memorial University of Newfoundland to study the telecommunication needs of the cerebral palsied. I mention these past research studies that have been taken by the Department in order further to emphasize the fact that the Department has not been standing idly by, ignoring this very pressing need.
One of the problems that I have with this motion is that it does not recognize the fact that the Minister and the Department of Communications have indeed taken some very positive steps to try and alleviate this current concern.
There are numerous other examples which I could mention of initiatives on the part of the Department of Communications and the Minister that have been directed at improving the accessibility of the disabled to telecommunication services.
I can speak personally on this because I was part of the first meeting. One of the recommendations in the "Obstacles" report referred to the setting up of a special advisory committee to advise the Minister of Communications on behalf of the disabled community, not just the hearing impaired but all handicapped, so that the Department would be able to provide better services for all handicapped people.
The first such meeting of this advisory committee which the Minister set up was held last June. I was privy to being part of that meeting. At that meeting were not only representatives of the hearing impaired but those with other physical handicaps; in other words, all areas. I would like to report that this advisory committee is presently at work with the Department of Communications in providing some stimulus and advice as to how the Department can further initiate improvements that will help handicapped people of all natures to have more access to telecommunication needs.
It is not just a matter of dealing with the hearing impaired; I must reiterate that the Department has looked at the entire question. We all know that there has been much concern regarding the hearing impaired when it comes to watching and listening to television. As a result of that, we have the close captioned hearing organization set up. That is well under way. Many of the broadcasting services at work in Canada have made use of the captioning services for the hearing impaired.
It is certainly the intention of this Member, the Minister of Communications and the Department to see that further
expanded. This not only involves the public network, the CBC, but I must also congratulate CTV, Global Telecommunications of Ontario and some of the private broadcasting outlets for at least establishing the foundation upon which this can be further developed.
There is much under way at present that will help the hearing impaired and others in the handicapped community. The year 1983 is World Communication Year and is a year, Mr. Speaker, of sharing technology with underserved nations. This is something of which we can be proud as far as communications in Canada is concerned because the Canadian communications industry is certainly leading the way in this area. As a matter of fact, there are some very important conferences on an international level still to come up before the year is out at which the Department of Communications will play a very important role not only in further developing hearing devices and hearing aids to help the hearing impaired in Canada but also throughout the world.
While the Hon. Member for Beaches is certainly honourable in his intent in presenting Motion No. 91, as I said earlier, it does not take into account much of the work and research and progress that has already been accomplished in this very important area. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we cannot-
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 33 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 5, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. McLean that Bill C-233, to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, on October 1 of this year the National Anti-Poverty Association released figures indicating that by definition, using an acceptable measurement, four million people in Canada were living
October 5, 1983

below the poverty line. That, Sir, is one out of every six of us in this land of plenty and this land of opportunity.
Today we heard in the House a question directed to the Government expressing concern about another group of disadvantaged Canadians, the approximately one million Canadians in the country who have less than a seventh grade education and for whom the employment incentive and job-creation programs of the Government are of little or no benefit. According to the present policy of the Government, these people are the responsibility of the Provinces.
On Friday of this week, unemployment statistics for the month of September will be released. 1 do not think it would be going out on a limb to predict that there will be virtually no change in the level of unemployment in the country. Indeed, there may even be a slight increase. We know that the labour force figures which will be released in a few days' time will show that there are approximately a million and a half Canadians who are unemployed. If we count the hidden unemployed, we can bring that figure up to almost two million unemployed Canadians.
We know that included in that million and a half officially unemployed Canadians are approximately one-half million young people between the ages of 15 and 25 and approximately 600,000 women. These are the two groups that have been hardest hit by the recession. Indeed, these are the groups that are preoccupying us as we express our concerns in the House. The Bill introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), goes a long way toward addressing the concerns of the poor and those who have been hardest hit by the unemployment situation in the country.
I congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Waterloo, not only for bringing in this Bill, which will enable the voluntary sector to play an even more important role in addressing the problems of the unemployed, but for the job that he has done in the House by articulating so eloquently the problems facing the voluntary sector of the country which has traditionally played an important role by looking after the needs of the less fortunate among us.
I do not mean to be critical in a partisan way, but I suppose almost inadvertently we have undermined the role of the voluntary sector through our desire to address in a dramatic and expeditious way the business of job creation. Our make-work programs have had the effect in many instances of undermining the work of voluntary organizations in the country. We should gear our employment programs toward complementing and assisting the work of the voluntary sector.
This Bill will assist the voluntary sector through the implementation of the National Voluntary Organizations Committee which would be provided certain tax breaks. In essence, the give and take proposal would enable charitable agencies to avail themselves of the same tax position as political parties with respect to donations so that the voluntary sector as a whole will finally have the necessary funding channelled to it to realize its proven potential for job creation.
Registered Charities
What is the potential of the voluntary sector in terms of job creation? We have heard evidence, Mr. Speaker, presented to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration from members of organizations such as the Canadian Council on Social Development. We have heard from officials of the national voluntary organizations, such as the YMCA, the YWCA and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. These officials told the committee that the voluntary sector would be capable of producing three to four times as many jobs as the Government through its make-work programs if the money was channelled in some way through the voluntary sector. This is one way for us to assist the voluntary sector to achieve that potential. We should give it the same income tax breaks as are given to the political parties of the nation. Surely that is not too much to ask.
We should assist the voluntary sector. We should provide it with encouragement because it is in a position to help the less fortunate of our nation. It is in the best position to help the poorest of the poor and to help the most uneducated among us who really have little or no opportunity to enter the trade colleges of the country because of the low grade of their primary education. It is the sector that is best capable of providing that kind of assistance and I believe the Government would be well served by allowing this Bill to go to a committee of the House.
I would therefore move, Mr. Speaker:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-233, An Act to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
That amendment is seconded by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should inform the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that the Hon. Member for Waterloo cannot move the motion being proposed since he is already the mover of the main motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to gauge the mood of the House. There may be a Member of the Government who might be disposed to second my motion.


Mr. Fisher:: I will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to talk this motion out. However, I should like to get a few thoughts on the record and I think some of my colleagues across the way want to add their throughts. We have until six o'clock before the motion would expire and if we are careful and do not go past the deadline, we can all get our thoughts on the record and then pass the subject matter to the Finance Committee.

October 5, 1983
Registered Charities
May I commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) the Chairman of that Committee, who has for some time now aggressively sought this kind of subject matter for the Committee's consideration. The Finance Committee has done a very good job over the past two years in considering tax legislation, banking and a variety of subjects and has passed its opinions on to the Government. It has become a sort of tradition started by the former Minister of Finance, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), who last year wanted the Finance Committee to comment on tax matters. Some very controversial legislation was sent to the Finance Committee in the summer of 1982 when we had two or three months of discussion and reported to the Minister. Some of the Committee's recommendations were then incorporated in Bill C-139.
There has been a lot of activity of that sort and all of us who are members of the Finance Committee are proud of our contribution. It has worked as parliamentary committees should and much of the credit does to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, the Chairman.
The subject matter of the Bill, charities, is the subject matter of the discussion paper issued by the Department of Finance entitled "Charities in the Canadian Tax System". I refer Hon. Members to that paper which has captured the attention of charities and foundations across the country. I understand there was an August 15 deadline for submissions to the Department on that paper but submissions are still coming in at the rate of 40 or 50 per week. They are being accepted and studied despite the deadline. There will be more consultation between the Department and the private sector before any recommendations go on to the Minister. The reference of this material to the Finance Committee will complement the work that the Department of Finance has been doing on its own.
I have reflected on the experience I have had with charitable organizations in my riding, Mr. Speaker. When I first heard about this Bill it occurred to me that Mississauga charities were probably typical of those that operate all across the country. Thousands of people are involved in a variety of activities, from community enrichment to hobby and sports groups. They do not rely on big handouts from Government but on the ingenuity and generosity of participating citizens. Some of them are ready to charge the beneficiaries of their activities a small user fee.
There is a school lunch program in my city which affect thousands of families. Mothers from across Mississauga go to the schools and help in the supervision of children over the lunch hour, trying to upgrade their nutritional standards at the same time. They take occasional small grants from Government agencies but are proud of the fact that they have a self-supporting volunteer organization. They recruit senior citizens and I think they are about to go to the New Horizons' program to see if there are ways to encourage and fund the activities of seniors to complement their own work in the schools at lunch hour. The schools that take part in the program are grateful for it and the people who run it take pride in their self-sufficiency and independence.
In Mississauga we hold an annual Citizen of the Year dinner. The people nominated and the person selected are voted tor and supported by volunteer groups in Mississauga. Over 200 people come to the dinner and the proceeds go to a selected group within the city. The award is named after an outstanding citizen, the late Gordon Shipp, who was a great community builder as well as a leader and volunteer. The family, under the leadership of Harold Shipp, continues the tradition and supports the Citizen of the Year dinner. The people nominated work in hospitals, with crippled children, school associations, trade unions and business associations. This year the winner was Mr. David Doncaster and I am sure Hon. Members would like me to extend my congratulations to him. He is a well rounded community spirited man whose contributions have made our community stronger. The people involved in the award do not rely on Government help. They do not want it. They rely on their own ingenuity and I compliment them for it.
An Hon. Member referred to Government grants and Government aid programs. In Mississauga these programs work very, very well. For example, the New Horizons program was used by the Senior Asian Multicultural Association under the leadership of Mr. J. D. Mohan. Every year it gives an award for human rights and community development to people who show leadership in those areas. It is a nice occasion when a bus driver, a postman, the mayor or any other person active in the community who contributes to human rights and community development is recognized.
The New Horizons program also helped a group of senior citizens in the Ivan Franko Home. That is one of the non-profit homes built by the outstanding Ukrainian community in my city. It has a few extra acres of land which have been turned into a farm. The New Horizons program was used to buy gardening and farming equipment. Residents in the home now grow their own food and are becoming more and more self-sufficient through their efforts. They have a nice hobby in the garden and they have returns for their efforts. There are beehives and orchards and a variety of vegetable plots which the residents maintain. That is something which has made that corner of Mississauga very pleasant. I understand that the home will be relying on a Summer Canada grant next year to hire a few students to maintain the orchard and to continue this farming operation.
The Summer Canada program with students in Mississauga worked very well. For example, this year I received two letters which I feel are worth noting. The first letter was from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Mr. Victor Irvine, District Administrator, wrote to me on September 13, and I would like to quote one paragraph:
We, at the CNIB, have been pleased to provide the vehicle for the employment of sincere students and to facilitate meaningful programs to visually impaired children.
As well, Mr. Speaker, on August 26 I heard from Lorri Smith and Barb Brandow of the Boys and Girls Club of Peel. I would like to quote from their letter:
October 5, 1983

I would like to thank you very much for your help and support with The Boys and Girls Club of Peel Summer Adventure Day Camp. It was very important that these children had some opportunity for summer recreation. With your support that was made possible.
The project was a great success and we hope it will be possible to run it again next year.
Summer Canada, in my city, helped people as well in places like the San Salvador Centre where three students worked out a slide presentation on the immigrant experience in our city. Those slides will be distributed to service clubs, schools and churches and will help its residents to understand some of the emotional upheaval which new people in Mississauga sometimes feel.
On the job creation side, Mr. Speaker, the United Way, which, of course, is currently in the middle of its fund raising drive, has just received $70,000 from the Canada-Ontario Employment Development Program, COED. It is going to use that money to hire four people who will then improve its fund raising and community group liaison work. As well, people at the San Salvador Centre are developing a new community centre which will become the home for Serbian people in Mississauga. Again, that community centre is being built by volunteers in partnership with the Government.
In the Canada Works area last year, two non-profit community newspapers, the Valley Echo in the centre of Mississauga and the Meadowvale World in the community of Meadowvale each hired a person who has helped to build up the newspapers. These are non-profit monthly newspapers which pass on important neighbourhood information to local residents. It is the kind of information which can only really be communicated through this sort of community paper. Each of these newspapers hired a person who has contributed greatly to the advertising revenues of the nespapers and to their internal administration. 1 was very pleased to be able to recommend both those organizations for these grants.
The Peel Multicultural Council is hard at work on a citizenship program. The Malton Community Council and the Mississauga Canadian-Italian Association are helping to build up immigrant aid services in those two important parts of our city.
I have mentioned all of these organizations, Mr. Speaker, as I believe that Government and volunteers work hand in hand best in this way. When these kinds of specific grants are used they help people accomplish given tasks, specific tasks, without creating undue dependence upon Government. The very nature of the work of a volunteer is to stay independent from Government, to use extra energy without having to rely on the public sector. I feel these grants, whether they be New Horizons, Summer Canada, COED or the Canada Works, are helping people to build up the quality of life in our city. They are not the fundamental financing, not the lifeline of the group, but they are important seed money which launches specific and important projects for each organization.
The grants also help these groups avoid a dependency on Government. They are available, of course, for parliamentary scrutiny. They are available for community examination in our city. We here in Ottawa on the Government side have to
Registered Charities
answer why we are spending money in this fashion, so these grants satisfy the requirements of a responsible Government. For the groups which receive them, grants are available in predictable amounts and there are predictable methods of application. For the people in Government they are predictable as well because we can control or dedicate specific amounts of money towards each of these programs. These grants are not open-ended. They do not add willy-nilly to Government spending. They add specific, concrete amounts each year to Government spending. The community benefit, of course, comes in the form of accomplishments in each group which many times results in extra employment.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that any time we are going to offer assistance to charities-and 1 feel it is important to do that-we must remember the question of dependence on Government agencies. We do not want our volunteer groups to become too deeply involved in Government financing and then find the only way they can stay alive is through repeated injections of grants, i do not believe the community wants that.
When I approve a grant in my own area to a specific group,
I make sure it knows it is only going to last for a year. It is not there for an unending period of time in the future; it is there for a specific period of time. 1 do not feel we want groups to be built up to rely solely on federal Government largesse. We want groups which will take the opportunity provided by these grants to build up specific projects or special programs without becoming dependent upon us. In my city, that is what people seem to respond to. They seem to like that approach. People seem to agree that a specific targeted spending of grants is an appropriate way to support worth-while activities and to develop some employment.
When we are looking at this issue, it is my hope that we will not ignore all the good ideas which the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) has raised. He has proposed that a variety of Government facilities should be made available to volunteers, whether they be in charities, sports leagues or any other voluntary agency. However, I would be concerned that we would be constantly making these facilities available and creating a dependence on Government which neither the Government nor the people really want.
As we study this issue, I would like to take a look at that question of dependency. I am very proud of being associated with the community groups and volunteer agencies in my city. I feel they really improve the quality of life there. I would like to take this opportunity, in this brief address, to extend my congratulations to the men and women who have worked so hard and who freely and generously have dedicated their time to their neighbours and to their city.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will take only about five or six minutes to speak on the principle of this Bill. I will begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) on addressing this very important problem. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I could not disagree more with almost everything which the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 5, 1983
Registered Charities
Fisher) has said in the contradictory remarks he has made on this very important topic. We have heard from the community bulletin board of the Hon. Member for Missisauga North and I did not think that was the intention of this particular piece of legislation.
The 1960s and 1970s were the golden age of Government programs. If there is anything we should have learned from that golden age of Government programs it is that Governments fail. Contrary to what the Hon. Member for Mississauga North said, the problem with Government programs is that you cannot depend on them, rather than that you can. It depends upon the caprice of the Government. On the one hand, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North says one can depend on them. On the other hand, he says that the problem with these community agencies is that they should not depend on Government grants. The Hon. Member does not have it straight. The problem with Government programs, I say again, is that you cannot always depend on them.
It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that Government programs grew at the time of greatest prosperity. It was in the mid-60s to the 1970s that Government programs grew. Is it not ironic that it is during the times of recession that the Government programs fail? The Government programs pull back, and the people who need help the most get the least during these times when they ought to be able to depend on them. Therefore, it is a time like that when the voluntary agencies and charitable organizations are most necessary. They should not have to depend on the caprice of the federal Government to feed them.
I cannot understand the audacity of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North in listing such organizations as New Horizons and Canada Works as voluntary agencies, when in fact they are Government grant programs, just the thing that we think ought to be avoided.
First, I would say that we need to encourage voluntary agencies and charitable organizations because they are most capable of reaching the most needy. They are the ones that are out there in the community, meeting the people where the needs are the greatest. All one must do is look at the agenda of people s law school, trying to help those who cannot help themselves because they do not have the mechanism. Government cannot do it.
Second, Government is not the cheapest way of doing it. Lest people think that I will attack Canadian Government programs, I want to give an illustration by way of our neighbours to the south, the United States. It is no accident that the highest per capita income in the United States is in the community surrounding Washington, D.C. Who lives in those communities? They are the highly paid administrators of Government programs. I think I have my history right when I say that those Government programs sprang up during the years of Lyndon Johnson, and rightly thereafter, with his war on poverty. He did wage a war on poverty. It was a poverty of Government administrators, because they are well paid, thank
you very much. Government agencies are simply not very cheap.
If one wants to have the work done well, and if one wants to have it done economically, one must turn to the voluntary agencies, to these self-help organizations. That is why the Hon. Member for Waterloo has been promoting in this House a very good program called the "Give and Take". We use that same principle for political parties. We seem to think it is good for political parties to be able to get a tax reduction so that they can operate in an accountable way. If it is good for political parties, why should it not be good for charitable organizations and self-help agencies, the voluntary organizations? As the Hon. Member for Waterloo can attest, the "Give and Take" program has been shown to be a more accountable, cheaper way of funding agencies than the grant system. Why should the Government not take the best way of doing it and do it through the "Give and Take" program?
Finally, I want to mention a point raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauge North. He complimented, by heaping encomiums on the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the way the Bill would be dealt with in committee.
Mir. McGrath: Would you repeat that?


Benno Friesen: Encomiums, yes; it is a great Latinized English word!


Donald W. Munro: Tell us what it is!


James Aloysius McGrath: Spell it!


Benno Friesen: He heaped these praises, these great praises.
Now that I have taken 30 seconds to define the word, may I have 30 seconds more in which to say what I wanted to say? He heaped too much praise-I know the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre can take a lot of compliments, but even he had a hard time handling these-saying that the Bill would be dealt with expeditiously in the committee. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Mississauga North that almost to the day four years ago I presented a motion to the House that was unanimously passed dealing with tax breaks for the parents of handicapped children. It passed on to the Finance Department. That motion has not as yet been dealt with by the Department of Finance. We have had an Obstacles Committee submitting two reports, but it has not yet dealt with the motion. Regardless of how efficient and interested the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is concerning the work of this particular committee, and the necessity that he may see in dealing with the report, I want to see some action before I believe all of those encomiums that he has heaped on the Hon. Member.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am not sure that that is parliamentary language!


Benno Friesen: Again, I want to close by complimenting the Hon. Member for Waterloo on the work that he has done and by saying that this Bill turns the attention of the Government in the right direction and, hopefully, will encourage the Government to see the value of voluntary agencies so that these
October 5, 1983

agencies can do their work unmolested by Government whim or caprice, in a way which will have dependable financing. The people who are interested in these agencies will give to them, if only the Government will encourage them to do that through the "Give and Take" program.


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Something must be happening this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. This is the fourth or fifth occasion today when all the Parties in this House have agreed on something.


Mr. Huntington:: There is an election coming up.


Pauline Jewett: I am getting terribly worried about it. I agree, as does my Party, that the subject of the Bill should go to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs rather than the one that was originally mentioned, the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, although that Committee, come to think of it, will probably change if the reorganization Bill ever goes through, because trade will presumably come out of it. In any event, we do agree and are pleased that the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) introduced the Bill, but for different reasons.
1 have been listening to all the comments on the Bill so far, and people are supporting its subject matter going to committee for rather different reasons. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) supports its going so he will have a chance to make another speech about everything the Government does in his constituency through Canada Works or Summer Works or whatever.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Don't be cynical.


Pauline Jewett: Well, the Hon. Member may be cynical. That seems to be the main reason he wanted to speak to the Bill this afternoon and wants it to go to the Committee.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), on the other hand, wants it to go to the Committee in order that we can have the Government removed from intervention in society where he believes that voluntary organizations can do the job just as well.


Benno Friesen: Or better.


Pauline Jewett: The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), on the other hand, was the one with whom I found the closest affinity as far as his remarks were concerned.


Benno Friesen: Watch yourself!


Pauline Jewett: However, he did point out that we are now in a society of 1.5 million officially unemployed people. We have countless hundreds of thousands living below the poverty line. The implication of all his remarks was certainly not that the voluntary sector could look after all those people. It cannot. Therefore, I think we would all have to emphasize the need for a very comprehensive and shared approach, perhaps one might say, but certainly with governments having to take the initiative; a very comprehensive approach to the problems of unemployment and poverty.
Registered Charities
Back to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta for a moment.


Benno Friesen: Leave me alone.


Pauline Jewett: I could not honestly agree when he said that there was nothing in the Bill that brought the Government into the scene as far as the voluntary sector was concerned. As I read it, it is suggesting that the Commission to be established will bring the Government in-this is found in Clause 6-in the sense that the Government will provide the voluntary sector with use of Government communications facilities such as telephone lines and computer time in off-peak periods, special rates or unique designation on charter and excursion flights and rail travel within Canada, special postal rates for informational materials and publications, and the use of unused premises or meeting rooms, all of which seem to me to be very admirable.
As the Hon. Member for St. John's East said, perhaps the most significant thing the commission will do is have contributions to voluntary organizations treated the same as political contributions are now treated. 1 am sure no one would deny that these all concern Government involvement.
The voluntary sector is perhaps hampered to some extent in its work by some of the so-called short-term employment programs in which the present Government is indulging. I believe that is the case.
I also wanted to comment on what I believe to be a remarkable growth in one part of the voluntary sector that perhaps has more people contributing to it than has been the case up to now. I am speaking of the voluntary sector in fields like international development, peace and disarmament. There are a number of areas in which many people are becoming extremely involved in setting up voluntary organizations. While CUSO has existed for some time, churches, other groups and non-governmental organizations are becoming increasingly involved in Third World problems.
An organization in my constituency called Public Education for Peace is a voluntary group dedicated to the idea of greater education on issues of arms control and disarmament. I believe this is a very hopeful development when volunteers are becoming increasingly involved and volunteer organizations are becoming more involved in our relationships particularly with Third World countries. I believe this involvement has been even greater than at any other time in Canada's recent history.
I hope it does not detract from what we contribute to the many excellent domestic, charitable and educational organizations. Indeed, I would hope, since Canadians are showing an equal concern over these matters which I have just mentioned, that the Government would be even more encouraged to bring positive and explicit proposals to the committee for ways to assist domestic and internationally oriented voluntary and charitable organizations. I hope the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta is wrong when he states that he does not believe the Government will do this.

October 5, 1983
Registered Charities
Let me reiterate that a major assistance to these organizations would be to allow contributions to them to be deducted in a similar manner to contributions made in the democratic political process.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to say that a small step forward is about to be taken in the House this afternoon before six o'clock. It is a small step on behalf of non-governmental and voluntary organizations which play a crucial part in the life of our country and creation of our society which is enriched by the participation of so many individuals who express their active concern for the lives of their neighbours and others in our country.
I believe I should review the contents of this Bill which is about to be referred to the committee. It is an Act to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society. This Bill, which would establish a commission to examine the various aspects of the voluntary sector in our society, essentially says that the commission shall make recommendations on the need for legislation or any other action that may be required to encourage greater financial contributions through registered charities.
This addresses the basic issue that the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) has brought before the House in this Bill, and indeed that I brought before the House three years ago in an effort to improve the financial situation of charities and voluntary agencies, given their serious difficulties due to inflation and great competition from the work sector. We are being asked to consider helping the voluntary sector that already provides 175,000 jobs, which is more than the construction industry. They have an annual wage bill of $1.7 billion and total revenues of $5.6 billion. That amounts to fully 3 per cent of the Gross National Product.
The jobs that have been created in the voluntary sector are labour-intensive by nature, giving work to disadvantaged groups such as women, youth and part-timers. The voluntary sector can create one full-time position at a cost equal to one-third of that required for the federal Government to create a similar position. The Government must take these statistics into account during these hard economic times.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) brought down his budget last April he removed the $100 standard deduction in an effort to increase the revenues of the Government. He said he was giving the voluntary agencies half of what they asked for and denied the other half. The full proposal was called the give-and-take proposal in which the $100 standard deduction would be eliminated in return for a 50 per cent tax credit on what was given.
While this is not the proper time to argue the substance of the case, I want to say that the non-governmental organizations now have an opportunity to come before the appropriate parliamentary committee which will be examining this Bill and make their case before that committee that they have been denied before.
When Members of the House, including myself, tried to make the case that full implementation of give-and-take would actually save the Government money, the Government's spokesman at that time quoted statistics that were dredged up from the Finance Department and said that, to the contrary, it would cost the Government money. There is a dispute at the moment about whether the give-and-take proposal in its entirety will cost the Government or benefit it. It is my submission and that of the national voluntary organizations committee that the implementation of the give-and-take proposal in its entirety will benefit the Government financially.
I now challenge the non-governmental organizations that will be reading the account of today's debate and will take some heart for what is about to happen in a few moments, to get their facts together, update their statistics and make representations to the committee so that it can then turn to the Finance officials with figures to prove them right or wrong to us as Members of Parliament.
When the Finance Department is then challenged before the committee to refute the argument that has been made time and again by the non-governmental organizations and the voluntary sector, I believe we will see some progress. It is, however, one thing to make proposals in the House and for a committee to approve them. As the Hon. Member said, a proposal could be before the House for three years without being fully implemented. Nevertheless, the rising pressure from the voluntary sector-47,000 registered charities could benefit from this-could put a lot of pressure on the Government once the facts are clearly determined. I am now pleading with the voluntary sector to make the appropriate representation before the committee.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge and thank the Parliamentary Secretary and my colleague from St-John's East (Mr. McGrath) for their collaboration and suggestion that this matter be referred now to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for further study. I believe this is at least a measure of hope to the voluntary sector in Canada which has been looking for some action in this area for some 15 years.
I want in the moments left before we take action on this Bill to make an observation on the comment of the Parliamentary Secretary about the response from the charitable organizations to the discussion paper put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). He will know that the Department had been deluged and that these was a clear misunderstanding on the part of the authors of the paper as to the difference between charitable organizations and charitable foundations. Surely it would have been appropriate before ever altering such a paper to begin to talk with the people concerned.
Now that we have dealt with it as the cart before the horse, we are now beginning to move back to the point where normal people would suggest that you hear from the people affected and begin somehow to design a procedure that will be of some help to them. We look forward to their discussion and to the
October 5, 1983

many proposals alluded to by my colleagues in terms of the definition of a charity, tax incentives and the operations that will be of help.
I have in mind that this discussion has been going on since the Government in the 1970s commissioned the "People in Action" report through to consultation in 1981 when the then Secretary of State drew together the national voluntary agencies. In the last year the present Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) promised a task force. This was shot down in the budget by the Minister of Finance. Maybe now that we are moving from the Department of the Secretary of State into the Department of Finance we will begin to have this matter addressed in a serious way.
Since 1 introduced this matter on June 5, 1981 1 have been pursuing the issue in committee as critic for the Secretary of State, and in this House. Everywhere people say: "Yes, it is a motherhood issue, but it might cost us". The interesting matter is that the Government affirms that it has not been prepared to set up any Cabinet committee or vehicle to co-ordinate somehow all of the effective policies on the voluntary sector. I have been advocating the creation of a Cabinet committee through which all policies and program proposals before the Government will be cleared in terms of their contributions and impacts in relation to the whole voluntary sector.
in concluding this debate, may I remind the House and those who may be following our discussions today of the importance of rehearsing again what is the impact on this sector. The financial impact is only slowly dawning on many of
us.
In a study released by the Secretary of State in January of this year entitled "Some Financial and Economic Dimensions of Registered Charities and Volunteer Activity in Canada", by David Ross, the impact is fully outlined. This paper surely ought to be before the Committee when it reviews the recommendations not only of the Finance Department's discussion paper on charities and foundations but as a context for deciding whether there is a cost benefit. In his report Mr. Ross talks about the revenue and finances of charitable organizations. He notes:
The total revenue received from ail sources by the 39,965 registered charities was $5.84 billion in 1980 (hospitals and teaching institutions were excluded in the financial survey). In comparative terms, this amount is equal to 11 per cent of federal government revenues.
Mr. Ross goes on to talk about the number of paid workers. He states:
-it is concluded an equivalent of about 142,000 full-time positions are generated in the charitable sector.
Then he talks about the number of volunteer workers:
-about 2.7 million Canadians donated an average 2.9 hours per week to organized volunteer work. This represents 15 per cent of the working-age population, and varies between 11 per cent and 27 per cent among the Provinces.
Registered Charities
He then deals with the expenditures of charitable organizations in terms of the economy of the nation. He writes:
One of the largest expenditure items is represented by wages and salaries- amounting to one-third of total expenses. Also comprising a one-third share are direct charitable disbursements (aid) to individuals and groups both at home and abroad. Administrative, conference, meeting and communication expenses, and expenditures to produce goods and services for sale, constitute the other one-third share.
When Mr. Ross focuses on the economic value of volunteer work, he says:
The figure has been placed at $2.0 billion, which is equivalent to 1.3 per cent of all wages and salaries paid to Canadian workers.
In summing it all up under the heading "The Economic Contribution of Registered Charities and Volunteer Workers", he writes:
Combining the economic contributions of registered charities and volunteer workers gives an estimate of the economic contribution of the "voluntary" sector. The value of this contribution is estimated at $4.5 billion, or 1.7 per cent of gross national product.
Surely these facts laid before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs are an indication that after 15 years of intentions concerning giving encouragement to this sector at a time when we are seeking economic growth and seeking to maintain a qualitative standard of life in a nation, at the same time bringing our costs into reality with today's financial climate, it is a most appropriate subject. I look to other Members in the House to encourage the presence of voluntary agency representatives to present the case more fully than we can and, therefore, encourage positive action by this Government and by this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It has been moved by Mr. McGrath, seconded by Mr. Fisher:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-233, an Act to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in
Canadian society, be not now read a second time but that the order be
discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the
Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill is withdrawn and the subject matter

October 5, 1983
Registered C harities
thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Finance Affairs.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there a disposition to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.57 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 6, 1983