1985-02-13

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent unemployment statistics it is clear that the plight of unemployed Canadians is no better since the Government promise to create "jobs, jobs, jobs". Indeed, there are 167,000 more Canadians out of work now than there were last month.
Atlantic Canadians were hit with the news from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council that the growth of the Atlantic economy will slow down this year and that unemployment levels will remain rather frightening. In addition to this distressing news, we are advised by Statistics Canada that the number of full time jobs fell by 48,000; employment declined by an estimated 6,000 in Newfoundland, by 4,000 in Nova Scotia, and by 11,000 in Alberta; 23,000 jobs were lost in the construction industry, and 26,000 jobs were lost in the trade sector.
A glance at the unemployment rates for some of our major cities shows devastating increases; St. John's, Newfoundland 17.1; Sudbury, Ontario, 16.5; Hamilton, Ontario, 10.4; and, yes, Mr. Speaker, in my own riding, the town of Glace Bay, it is in excess of 55 per cent. I would urge the Government, Mr. Speaker, to take its responsibilities seriously and put into effect job-creation programs now which will affect and assist the unemployed in creating meaningful jobs.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, last evening members of the United Auto Workers Local 1075 ratified a collective agreement with Can-Car Rail of Thunder Bay, a subsidiary of the provincially owned Urban Transportation Development Corporation. The vote signalled an end to a 12-week strike which has been devastating for the workers and their families, and which was drawn out by the company's
attempts to reduce the work force drastically through contracting-out provisions in the collective agreement.
I am happy to say that the workers were able to prevent such job losses, and were also able to win, among other things, improvements to their pensions. In a community with over 19 per cent unemployment, it is a relief to all of us to see an equitable settlement to this problem. It is now important that all levels of Government get behind the company and the workers to ensure a long-term future for the plant.
During negotiations, UTDC withdrew a $60-million contract to build equipment for the City of Boston. This means at least 100 jobs over the next two years for this company and its workers. I call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to contact the President of UTDC immediately to encourage it to re-award this contract to the Thunder Bay plant.
I also call on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to meet with officials of UTDC to negotiate a sizable order for double decker rail cars as a replacement for VIA's ancient rolling stock. Can-Car is the only Canadian company with experience in the production of such cars.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time we read and hear about our correctional institutions. Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of accompanying the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) on a tour of the Elbow Lake work camp institution located in my constituency. I must say that I was very impressed with this institution's philosophy and physical lay-out. Elbow Lake is a minimum security S-2 institution, with a population of 50 inmates and 27 staff. It is located in the rural community area of Harrison Mills.
It seems that this institution's major philosophy is to instill a strong work ethic in the inmates. This is accomplished by allowing the inmates to participate in the institution's forestry program.
The forestry program which Elbow Lake employs is vertically integrated, in that every phase of logging, sawmilling, and stand treatment is involved to some degree. It is equipped to train men in the basic skills required in outside industry. An inmate should have readily marketable skills in tree stand treatment, logging, and sawmilling. Its client, the B.C. Forest Service, offers substantive employment to its inmates, creating

February 13, 1985
a valuable contribution to the community, while maintaining the aims and objectives of the Correctional Service of Canada.
This institution enjoys a very good working relationship with the Citizens Advisory Committee, which is composed of prominent area residents who have adopted a position of advocacy on behalf of Elbow Lake with various agencies in the community. I think this is truly an admirable model for the Correctional Service to follow. As a prisoner from this institution said in his letter to me, and I quote: "A work camp like this one is a God-send. I will go back into society with none of the bitterness usually fostered on inmates in regular prisons".


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, my comments are directed to Hon. Members of the Liberal Opposition and concern the latest unemployment statistics and the charge that the present Government is responsible for them.
Mr. Speaker, may I remind opposition members that they are the ones that brought about the present situation, and as someone once said: Canada is like a patient-and I think most of my colleagues in this House will agree-who has been neglected, even worse, slowly poisoned for nearly twenty years. And who is responsible for this criminal negligence, if you will pardon the expression, with respect to the Canadian economy? None other than our Liberal friends who were in power for nearly twenty years.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand, and so will our Liberal friends if they are capable of doing so, that it is scientifically impossible and metaphysically unthinkable to rebuild in six months what this country has lost over the last twenty years. At the very least, the present Governnment has introduced policies and mechanisms that will need time to prove their effectiveness and put an end to the state of chronic financial anemia we inherited from our predecessors.
Mr. Speaker, with respect I would ask our Liberal neighbours to consider their own burden of guilt before pointing an accusing finger at the Progressive Conservatives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) gave the go-ahead to Panarctic Oils Ltd. to proceed with its Bent Horn project. The Bent Horn field is located on Cameron Island in the Canadian High Arctic. While this is a small scale pilot project, it is significant and symbolic in that, for the first time, crude oil produced in the High Arctic will be shipped by tanker through the Northwest Passage to southern markets. This project will begin this summer, Mr. Speaker.
Of greater importance, however, is the standard of the ship which will be used to transport this oil. This House should be aware that the vessel scheduled to carry the oil south from Cameron Island this summer, the M.V. Arctic, does not meet the safety regulations of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. While conversion work will begin on the ship during the winter, it will not be brought up to standard in time for this summer's planned activity. The Government, therefore, will be breaking existing safety regulations if it permits the M.V. Arctic to carry oil south from Cameron Island this summer.
To get around this problem, the ship's operator, Canarctic, is in the process of applying to Transport Canada for an exemption from the regulations. I think the Government ought to clarify its intentions immediately. It must respect the existing legislation and regulations. There must not be a shipping free-for-all in the High Arctic.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops released a document entitled Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis. The controversy it generated over the moral implications of government economic policies which left 1.5 million Canadians unemployed goes on today. The Catholic bishops have today been joined by the United Church of Canada which, in a statement released in Regina yesterday, condemned government policies which do not give first priority to our number one problem, unemployment.
The United Church has proposed a five-point program to solve the moral crisis of the Canadian economy. First is a fairer tax system that would see an end to the free lunches given to many upper income Canadians and corporations who pay no income tax. They also propose increasing the levels of social assistance so that no Canadian lives below the poverty line. They propose the Government undertake a serious full employment program as Sweden, Norway, Austria, and the
February 13, 1985

Province of Manitoba have done. They propose the Government reverse the policy of eliminating social programs to reduce the deficit. They also propose that we pursue a lower interest rate policy in Canada.
I am proud to say that each of these proposals has found a voice in this House through the New Democratic Party. Unless we heed these words of wisdom from the spiritual leaders of our country, our moral crisis will only worsen and Canada will become a less humane place in which to live.


COURAGE OF HON. MEMBER FOR CUMBERLAND-COLCHESTER (MR. COATES)
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, twenty-four hours after the Minister of National Defence resigned, I can still hear the word resignation echoing in my junior politician's ears. I found February 12, 1985, the most difficult day of my short political career. I was deeply affected because Mr. Coates is indeed a man of honour. Whatever the circumstances, a decision of this kind requires a great deal of courage, and 1 could not but be impressed. That is why my admiration for the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) remains unchanged, and I wish to inform the House that it was a great pleasure for me to work with the Minister in my capacity of Vice-Chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, congratulations to VIA Rail for coming to the rescue of hundreds of passengers unable to fly from Metro-Toronto to Ottawa yesterday because weather closed the airport. Personnel at these stations and on the trains looked after the extra numbers with confidence, concern, and courtesy. But I have to ask what can be done to make these extra numbers be regular numbers for the railway? Obviously VIA has to be faster and more frequent in its service to compete with the airlines, but that raises the question of what we can provide to help it do that.
We need to give rail passenger service between major population centres far more priority than we have been prepared to do in the past. Metro-Toronto could not have its high quality transit service without a large provincial subsidy. The universally acclaimed GO train service, serving commuters from Pickering to Hamilton, could not operate without provincial aid. Giving VIA the same priority, in the Montreal-Toronto-Ottawa triangle it serves, would help not only one out of every
three people in Canada, it would also contribute positively to coping with the energy challenge of the future. That challenge does not confront us immediately because of the oil glut, but it will return and we now have to plan for that time and improve railway service between major population centres.
* *
*


AIRPORTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Purolator Courier Service of Canada has announced its intention to locate its eastern Canada national and international sorting-


Some Hon. Members:: Louder.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that Members are hurting today. I wish they would listen to this because it involves jobs for Hamiltonians.
The company's plans call for immediate construction of a new facility for the sorting of millions of parcels, and a new Canada customs quarters to service the large volume of international traffic which is expected. In addition to the creation of dozens of new construction jobs, the plan calls for 70 permanent jobs in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. Future expansion will create many new jobs and bring new development to an area which is currently suffering an unemployment rate of more than 10 per cent. This plan has received the enthusiastic support of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.
Unfortunately, the federal Ministry of Transport is blocking this application. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) will have an opportunity today to meet with the mayor of Hamilton and officials of the city who will be putting their case forward. I would urge the Minsiter to overturn the misguided decision of his officials denying Purolator Courier service the right to locate its service at the Hamilton International Civic Airport because this means jobs for Hamiltonians, and it may be a start of the fulfilment of some of the government promises which have yet to see fruition in Hamilton.

February 13, 1985
2298______________________________________
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that there is no excuse today for the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Where is he?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In their absence I want to address my question to the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where is Mr. Turner?


An Hon. Member:: We want Joe Clark.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. Time belongs to Members. 1 rose because I could not hear the question of the Hon. Member because of the noise. May I ask eveyrone in the House to allow Members to put their questions, and Ministers to answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, for your benefit, I will repeat that-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -I consider it disgraceful that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are absent today. I want to direct my questions to the Minister of Justice.
My Party has been pointing to the evidence of special treatment of Premier Hatfield during the marijuana investigation which has been raised in the House. This morning Premier Hatfield himself informed his province that he has been the victim of an alleged conspiracy against him. One can only conclude that he sincerely believes that a member or members of the RCMP are out to get him and have lied under oath about informing Pat Ryan about the drug bust, and that Justice officials have violated their duties in the timing of laying charges and in the conduct of that aspect of the prosecution.
The Minister cannot tell the House that those allegations made by the Premier are wrong. I therefore ask him to do the only thing that can be done to clear the air in this case, that is, to announce that an open, judicial inquiry will be conducted into this whole affair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will respond in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is on his way to Regina where a very important conference starts tomorrow-


Mr. Axworthy:: Is he taking VIA Rail?


John Carnell Crosbie: -and in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As the Hon. Member mentioned, the Liberal Opposition has been alleging for weeks, untruly, that there has been bias displayed in connection with the Hatfield case in favour of Premier Hatfield. Today Premier Hatfield alleges that bias has been displayed against him, which shows conclusively how we have trod the right line so that everyone is blaming us of being biased against them. What more proof could we have?
With respect to the call for an inquiry, there is no reason to call for an inquiry simply because the Opposition wants to dream up spurious allegations in connection with this matter. There is nothing to be investigated. I am satisfied that proper procedures have been in effect all along the way.
An internal investigation is under way by the RCMP with reference to any possible leak which may have occurred in that Force. Everything is being done to ensure that the system of justice remains untarnished, except for the wild accusations of the gentlemen opposite.


NEW BRUNSWICK PREMIER'S ALLEGATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in that case I would like to know whether the Prime Minister rejects the allegations made by Premier Hatfield, allegations that concern not only the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-where an inquiry is indeed being held, but an internal inquiry-but also those allegations that concern the Minister's own officials.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have no information that any officials from the Department of Justice did anything improper in this matter. There was one official of the Department of Justice who, unwisely, took a phone call from a Liberal MP. The official was sandbagged by that MP, while treating him in an honourable fashion. He gave him no information that that Liberal Member of Parliament did not already have, and then saw his name in the press.
That is the only unwise action of which I am aware from the Department of Justice. However, if any evidence is supplied by
February 13, 1985

Premier Hatfield, any concrete facts that show that somebody in the Department of Justice, or acting for the Department of Justice, leaked information, believe me that the full weight of the arm of the Minister of Justice will descend on the offender.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We will look forward to that.


DECISION NOT TO APPEAL VERDICT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister about the way the question of appeal in the Hatfield case was decided. He told us yesterday that there would be no appeal in the Hatfield case and that he was acting strictly on the advice of the prosecutor in New Brunswick, and of his officials.
Today we read the prosecutor saying that the appeal was still under active consideration as currently as yesterday- yesterday, after the Minister's statement. The Minister muddied the waters in this case by telling us that he did not have an independent mind and that he could not make the decision about appeal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is that a direct quote?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How does the Minister explain this contradiction? Did he mislead the House about the question of how the appeal decision was made?


An Hon. Member:: Cover up.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the information I gave to the House yesterday was based on information that was given to me by my officials-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Now he is blaming the officials.


John Carnell Crosbie: -who, from the beginning, were instructed by me that they were to proceed as they would in every case of any Canadian that might be involved, forgetting that it was a premier or prominent politician. There would be no political interference, and there hasn't been.
Based on information that they gave me yesterday, I advised the House of what had happened with respect to the appeal, and what happened is exactly what I said yesterday.
On the day that the trial concluded there was a discussion between Mr. David Hughes, Q.C., to whom I have never spoken in my life, whom I do not know, and with whom I have never had a word on the telephone-


An Hon. Member:: Whom you appointed.


John Carnell Crosbie: -who was appointed by the Deputy Minister of Justice because I told him to find a lawyer, to make sure he was good, and that he was someone independent of politics. He was appointed by my officials without my interference.
Oral Questions
After the trial was over and the case was dismissed, officials in my Department were advised by Mr. Hughes against any appeal. They agreed with him. Two days later they gave me a memorandum saying "No thought has been given to an appeal." This is all fact. After a transcript of the evidence was received, they gave me the same advice.
I now have a telex in my hand-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: I know that I am taking a bit of time, but there are serious allegations that I misinformed the House. Permit me to read this telex from C. David Hughes, Q.C., to the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Gauthier:: Table it.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the sheep will stop bleating.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The telex reads:
This is to clarify any possible misunderstanding relating to the question of an appeal in the case of Richard B. Hatfield. It has been and remains my view that no appeal is warranted in the circumstances. An opinion to this effect was conveyed to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General on January 29, 1985, the day the trial concluded. My opinion remains unaltered notwithstanding a review of the trial transcript, prepared at the request of the defence which was made available to me last week.
The signature is C. David Hughes. That should put the matter in its proper context.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, statements made this morning by the Prime Minister about the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence are almost beyond belief. I wish he were here, but in his absence I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: Whoever that may be.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Prime Minister said he first learned about the allegations on January 22. Why did the Prime Minister not act until yesterday after a press report, and what on earth does he mean when he said this morning in a quote from the Canadian Press that other "security inquiries of an on-going nature had been undertaken at his request". With what did those other inquiries deal? Were there more than one going on at the same time?

February 13, 1985
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada made it abundantly clear that immediately upon being advised of rumours on January 22 he caused a security investigation to be undertaken, which had the result of proving conclusively that there was at no time any breach of Canadian security.
With regard to the Member's second question, he should know, and if he does not know, his leader, the former Prime Minister of Canada, will tell him, that it is the normal practice of Prime Ministers when they are appointing Ministers to Cabinet, or are contemplating other sensitive considerations, to ask for security checks and security clearances. That is a normal part of the practice of Canada carried out by this Prime Minister as by others.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Acting Prime Minister today is not telling us that the security checks were being taken months after the Minister had been appointed.


INVESTIGATION INQUIRIES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, in order to determine the depth of the investigation which the Prime Minister undertook regarding the allegations that appeared in the press, will he state what Canadian investigative authorities were involved, whether any investigative agencies among our allies were involved or made contributions to that investigation, and how much time passed from the time the Prime Minister initiated the investigation until he, in fact, had the final report in his hand?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the investigations were carried out as all these investigations are, by the Canadian authorities established for those purposes. They were carried out by Canadian authorities as is the normal case.
The Prime Minister first became aware of rumours on January 22. Within minutes he caused a security investigation to commence. There was a preliminary report that indicated there was no security risk to the country. The Prime Minister, not satisfied with that, asked for more intense security reports. Those were carried on. A final report came into his possession at mid-day yesterday.


Lloyd Axworthy: Coincidence, sheer coincidence.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. On January 10, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, General Theriault, learned for the first time of American plans to deploy nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Last month a senior U.S. official, through our embassy in
Washington, advised us that there are no current plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Canada. We learned today there are current plans. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would take this opportunity, through this House, to advise the United States that, under no circumstances, will we accept the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear on several occasions in this House, and I am pleased to make it clear again, that there are no plans which would involve the stationing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, and that any contingency plans that might be developed in the event of a crisis or an emergency could take effect only with the concurrence of Canada. I have made that abundantly clear before. I am pleased to do it again, and I am pleased to repeat, as I have in the past, that insofar as this Government is concerned, if there were a request to station nuclear arms here, we would clearly reserve the right to refuse the stationing of nuclear arms on Canadian soil.


REQUEST THAT UNITED STATES BE INFORMED
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Acting Prime Minister understands the point I am making. On January 21 the former Minister of National Defence said in the House, and I quote, "there are no such plans" to place nuclear weapons in Canada. We have clearly been lied to by the United States in terms of the plans. It was made abundantly clear to our officials last month in Washington that there were no plans. We learn today that there are current plans in the United States to deploy nuclear weapons in Canada. Would the Acting Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear, first, that we are dismayed that the United States would lie to us about this and, second, that under no circumstances would U.S. nuclear weapons be deployed in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have not been lied to by the United States. I want to stay strictly within the rules of Parliament in what I am about to say. I would hope that no Member of the House of Commons would attempt to mislead Canadians into fear about the possibility of nuclear weapons being stationed on Canadian soil. There are no plans of that kind. Any plans which might develop in the event of a crisis would allow the Government of Canada to refuse the stationing of nuclear weapons on this soil. This Government would exercise that option to refuse that stationing if we determined that that was in the Canadian interest. It is a Canadian decision, not an American decision. At least so far as this Party and this Government are concerned, it is Canadians who decide Canadian policy, not someone else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 13, 1985


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS IN CANADA AND CANADIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is acting for the Prime Minister today in the House. I would like to point out, as my colleague did earlier, that considering the problems being discussed in the House today, it is rather surprising and indeed extraordinary that the Prime Minister was not in the House Monday, is not in the House today and that he is not... I am sorry-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: Maybe John Turner isn't your Leader.


Mr. Siddon:: Who is your Leader over there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Maybe Members now know why it is, in Beauchesne, regarded as an unparliamentary matter to refer to the presence or absence of any particular Member. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The fact remains that there are a number of questions that should be answered at this time, either by the Prime Minister or even the Deputy Prime Minister, neither of whom are here. I therefore wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a subject other than the one 1 would have liked to raise, and that because of the absence of the Prime Minister.
1 therefore wish to ask the Minister, in connection with the question raised by the Member for the New Democratic Party a few minutes ago, why, considering the supposedly good relations we have today with the Americans, we are seeing daily articles in the American press according to which the U.S. Defense Department and the U.S. Department of the Secretary of State are making plans regarding the installation of nuclear facilities in Canada, and why even today, before this House, the Minister maintains there is no plan although all U.S. journalists are aware of them. When is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to find out what is going on in our international relations with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister and former Liberal leadership candidate almost asked me why I am not informed on federal-provincial relations, and I can inform him that it is because we respect federal-provincial relations, and today, the Prime Minister of Canada is meeting with the provincial Premiers to fulfil our obligations as federalists.
Regarding the question he has just raised again in the House, 1 can inform the Hon. Member that he would be better off keeping up with Canadian developments by reading the Montreal Gazette instead of the New York Times, because the
Oral Questions
article published in the New York Times was identical to an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette a month ago.


INQUIRY RESPECTING WHEN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WILL BE INFORMED OF CANADIAN POSITION ON &quot;STAR WARS&quot;
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Federal-provincial relations have nothing to do with it. The meeting starts tomorrow. There are Government planes that can get you there fast, as the Conservatives well know.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to ask a question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not mention federal-provincial relations. The Minister did.
I would like to know when the Minister is going to inform the U.S. Government that only a few months ago, this House unanimously declared its opposition to "Star Wars" and that it has clearly said many times that we do not want any nuclear arms in Canada. The Americans better get our message pretty soon!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member is much fiercer in the Opposition than he was as a Member of Cabinet.
For the information of the Hon. Member, the first meeting of the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial Premiers will be held this afternoon in Regina, and that is why the Prime Minister is there.
As far as the second part of his question is concerned, I can inform the Hon. Member that I have indicated previously here in the House-and the opposition parties were able to respond-the Government of Canada's opposition to the so-called Star Wars project.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As I understand the Government's position with regard to the former Minister of National Defence, it is that he did nothing illegal and that whatever actions he undertook did not create a national security problem. Was it, then, a matter of his judgment with regard to the exercise of his responsibility that requested or demanded of the Prime Minister that he ask for his resignation?

February 13, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just so that the facts might be absolutely clear, the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence was offered by that Member of Parliament. If the Hon. Member will read the eloquent and honourable statement made in the House yesterday by my colleague, the former Minister of National Defence, he will know that the former Minister offered his resignation because he believed that public allegations impaired his ability to carry out his sensitive responsibilities in the extremely sensitive and important portfolio of Minister of National Defence, and because he believed those allegations impeded his freedom to pursue an action in the courts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PMO EMPLOYEES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Acting Prime Minister realizes that everyone feels a great degree of sorrow over what happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is true.


Ian Deans: It is true. It is true. But, nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the circumstances clearly. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether in fact the statements attributed to employees in the Prime Minister's Office are incorrect, inasmuch as they indicated that the Prime Minister asked for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will understand, that is a matter he will have to raise with the Prime Minister. It is my understanding that the resignation was offered by the Minister of National Defence and accepted by the Prime Minister.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister on another matter somewhat related, but different. Given that we have had a significant amount of exchange in the House of Commons over the meeting between the Solicitor General and a person-it is a question of judgment-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I have a feeling that this question is not at all supplementary. Does the Member have a supplementary question?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am asking about a matter of judgment, the judgment of Cabinet Ministers. Given that there has been a significant amount of exchange over the appropriateness of the meeting that took place between the present Solicitor General and an individual who was under investigation by the RCMP at the time of the meeting, and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the investigation, does the Acting Prime Minister feel that the Government ought to set out clearly what its policy is with regard to meetings of that type being held, and with whom those meeting can be held in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, the supplementary question is a long way away from the original purpose of supplementaries. May I use this occasion to say that I do not regard that question as a supplementary. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Acting Minister of National Defence, because the question involves all of those capacities. He just said that the Defence Minister resigned because he could not carry out his duties.
We now know that during the time when we were going through very delicate negotiations with the United States concerning the question of the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada that it was the Defence Minister who was conducting those negotiations. Considering that much of the information given to the House at that time was not correct and that there are active contingency plans, would it not be the proper course of action for the Government to go back with the United States and undertake new negotiations concerning what are the conditions, if any, under which nuclear weapons would be used, and that we should follow Lord Carrington's advice and have a major ministerial meeting of NATO to determine what are the procedures and how we get involved in the planning of those contingency plans, not in their use during an emergency?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will try, and I am sure you will encourage me not to take the whole Question Period trying to unscramble and answer the several questions involved. Just quickly, the answer that I gave with regard to the former Minister of National Defence was that he felt that the public allegations impeded his ability. It was his view which led to his decision. Second, there are no active plans of the kind described by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Third, Lord Carrington suggested no such thing.
February 13, 1985


REQUEST FOR NEW DISCUSSIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is wrong. The fact is there are active contingency plans and they so state in today's New York Times-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I cannot help it if The New York Times has better information than the Government of Canada about what is going on in our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a question?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would again ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Government is prepared to undertake new discussions and negotiations with the United States to determine under what circumstances they have plans to deploy nuclear weapons. Also, are there plans to use Canadian air force bases for SAC bombers during a time of emergency?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice approves of the Hon. Member for Fort Garry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not surprising.
The position, as I have stated several times in this House of Commons, is that there is, as there was when the Hon. Member was a member of the Government of Canada, a protection for Canada against the stationing of nuclear arms, against the application of any contingency plans, in that we have the right to refuse those arms. I do not know what the Government of which he was a member would have done, presented with that situation, but I know that if this Government is presented with that situation, we reserve the right to say no to nuclear arms on Canadian soil. That is as clear as can be.
I have raised on earlier occasions, as has Lord Carrington, the value of finding some mechanism by which there can be a discussion of the parameters within which the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States might better define the circumstances of crisis or of emergency. We are actively pursuing those discussions.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly more friendly question to address to the Minister of Communications. I recently spoke in this House on the cancellation of a truly wholesome, non-violent, indigenous Canadian children's program. Last Thursday the President of the CBC,
Oral Questions
in a good speech to the Canadian Club in Winnipeg, said "CBC English television is not Canadian enough". Why is the truly Canadian children's program The Friendly Giant being phased out, and will it be reinstated?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and I should be happy to raise the matter with the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as soon as possible.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. With reference to the investigation and subsequent charging of the Premier of New Brunswick, the Attorney General indicated that he gave specific instructions that this matter was to be treated as if this were an ordinary citizen. He said: "Forget it is a Premier in your treatment of this matter." Does the Attorney General believe that that standard which he applied in his Ministry should be adopted and accepted by other Ministers, including the Solicitor General?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that everybody in this House would adopt the same course of conduct as Ido.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONDUCT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Solicitor General who has said he does not accept that standard. In view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians come under investigation each year by the RCMP for a variety of possible charges, does the Solicitor General intend to meet in the future with individuals who come under investigation by the RCMP, and under what circumstances does he intend to have such meetings?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Hon. Member that that question is in some respects manifestly absurd. I could not possibly meet with all the people to whom the Hon. Member refers. I would have to consider every matter very carefully, as I did the one to which he refers.

February 13, 1985
Presence in Gallery GOVERNMENT OF CANADA


RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Acting Prime Minister. I understood him to tell the House that the Minister of National Defence did not resign because of a breach of security. If that is the case, can he tell the House why the Minister of National Defence did not announce his resignation immediately after the Prime Minister said he learned of the matter three weeks ago and shortly after he informed the Prime Minister about his side of the story?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): First, Mr. Speaker, I presume that is a question that could only be answered by the former Minister of National Defence. I presume from reading the statement that was made by the Minister of National Defence yesterday that he believed that his ability to function in the very sensitive position of Minister of that portfolio was impeded by the public allegations, and that he also thought that his freedom to pursue an action in the courts was impeded by those public allegations.


NEWSPAPER REPORT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, can I take it from what the Acting Prime Minister said that the Minister of National Defence would never have resigned and he would still be a Minister if this matter had not been reported in The Citizen? What an admission.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what I am pleased to confirm is that there was no breach of security involved in the activities of the former Minister of National Defence. I think it is a reasonable interpretation that he felt that his ability to carry out his very sensitive responsibilities, and his ability to pursue actions in law as a result of that publication, were limited by the allegations made and publicized, not only in that newspaper but also picked up and caused to become a matter of current and constant debate in the House of Commons.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DR. MAVIS GILMOUR, MINISTER OF EDUCATION FOR JAMAICA
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings briefly to advise Members of the presence in our gallery of Dr. Mavis Gilmour, Minister of Education for Jamaica.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has just said that while he could not possibly meet with every person who was under investigation by the RCMP in the course of a year, that he would, however, consider the possibility of meeting with any individual very carefully. Therefore, he is saying that it is appropriate to meet with an individual who is under investigation, in certain circumstances.
My question is this. Would it be appropriate for the chief of police of a Canadian city to meet with a prominent citizen, such as the mayor of that city, if the mayor is under investigation for a criminal offence and wants to discuss the alleged offence?


Some Hon. Members:: That's a hypothetical question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that a question like that, in my respectful opinion, is hypothetical, and, unlike the Department of National Revenue, I do not give advance rulings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY DIRECTED TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Attorney General, who is the senior law officer for the Crown, and who is responsible for giving guidance with respect to the integrity of the justice system.
Suppose the mayor of a Canadian city, who was under investigation by police for a marijuana offence-


Some Hon. Members:: Suppose!


Michael Morris Cassidy: -sought to meet with the Chief of police in that particular city to discuss-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I allowed the first question because I presumed that it might be all right. However, there is a very clear tradition in the House that hypothetical questions are not put.


PREMIER'S TRIAL-LAYING OF CHARGE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member for Snakeville.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having a great deal of trouble hearing Members who are asking questions. May I please be allowed to hear the question?
February 13, 1985


An Hon. Member:: It's Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: I know it is Wednesday. It is perfectly obvious that it is Wednesday. But, in fairness to the Hon. Member, I should be allowed, if that is all right, to hear his question.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. What is at stake in the Richard Hatfield case is the integrity of our criminal justice system. What has happened over the last number of days tears at the very fabric of our criminal justice system.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: We in the Liberal Party want to ensure that in this particular case justice was served.
Last Thursday, on February 7, the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I did ask the House to allow me to hear the Member's question. Could the Member now ask it, so I can hear it?


John V. Nunziata: On February 7 the Minister stated in the House:
The RCMP was not instructed by the Department of Justice to do anything.
I have an affidavit which was sworn by Mr. Richard Waller, who is an inspector with the RCMP. In the affidavit, which was sworn on December 10, he stated:
-that at a meeting held at the Justice Building in the City of Ottawa, Province of Ontario on the 24th day of October 1984, I was instructed to lay a charge against Richard B. Hatfield under Section 3(2) of the Narcotic Control Act;
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice who is being honest-He or Inspector Waller.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the integrity of the Canadian justice system is under attack today because of the hon. gentleman opposite and his spurious allegations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As I said before, the RCMP, or any prosecuting people who are within federal jurisdiction, are entitled to ask Department of Justice legal officers for advice and guidance; which they did. When Inspector Waller says that he was instructed to lay a charge, presumably Department of Justice officials said yes, that a charge should be laid and that all the legal elements were there for a charge to be laid. So, Inspector Waller said that he was instructed.
But Commissioner Simmonds made it plain by his statements in the press today that the independence of the RCMP is so well established that the case would have continued even if the Solicitor General had tried to call them off; which he did not. The Hon. Member does not understand the relationship between the RCMP and the law officers of the Crown. We do not give the RCMP instructions, it asks for advice. No one instructed. Yes, they were advised that charges should be laid,
Oral Questions
in the legal opinion of the Department of Justice. So, justice was done. So, Premier Hatfield was not favoured. It is the direct opposite of all the nonsense the Hon. Member has been getting on with for the last two weeks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WORDING OF CHARGE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Inspector Waller swore under oath that not only was he instructed to lay a charge but, further, that the wording of the charge was prepared by lawyers in the Department of Justice. Why will the Minister of Justice not come clean with the House of Commons and tell the House the truth? Is he or is he not being dishonest with Canadians and the House of Commons?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot get any more indignant than I have already. I am beyond indignation. Naturally, lawyers of the Department of Justice formulate charges. They are there to give independent legal advice when the police ask for it. It does not matter whether it concerns premiers, potentates, or whomever it is, as long as I am here they are going to lay the charges, and I will see that the charges are properly laid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Caucuses today must have been absolutely fascinating. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to hear.
I also would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General said in the House a few minutes ago that under certain circumstances it would be appropriate for him to meet with people who are under investigation by the RCMP. My specific question to the Solicitor General is: Under what circumstances does he intend to meet with people who are under investigation by the RCMP?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the Hon. Member opposite that he appears, like a lot of other Members, to have absolutely no real understanding of what the role of the Solicitor General is.
I will make my point by saying this. The former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre, said on Global-TV the Solicitor General can say, "take that case-see if you can get the goods on this person, that can give directions like that"-he suggested that was the kind of Solicitor General who met with Premier Hatfield. I do not know what his idea is of what a Solicitor General does, but I can tell you that this Solicitor General does not have that perception.
2306

February 13, 1985
Petitions


MEETING WITH PREMIER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Solicitor General. Does he accept the position of the Minister of Justice, namely, that no special treatment should be accorded to a Premier? If he accepts that position, then what led him to have a meeting with Premier Hatfield?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I accept the position of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice. As I said earlier, I give every consideration to whatever situation arises in exercising my discretion as to what I should or should not do.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In listening to his answers, he told us that on January 22 the Prime Minister became aware of incidents which happened, according to the newspaper report, on November 29. Notwithstanding that delay, within minutes, if I may quote him, he "flew into action", to ask for an investigation of these events.
Would the Minister tell the House whether there are any other incidents of a security nature of which he is aware, or which may have been brought to his attention, either before or since he assumed his role as Acting Minister of National Defence, which might have caused the Prime Minister to act in such a fashion, other than incidents reported in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on his fishing expedition. The answer is a categoric no.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, February 12, 1985 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give a brief interim report on the Canadian response to the crisis of famine in Africa. Since November, nearly 500,000 individual Canadians have personally contributed money to African famine relief. The average individual donation has been $65 per person which, Sir, is double the amount normally contributed to non-governmental organizations. We are witnessing an unprecedented humanitarian response which continues in intensity and is made more remarkable by the difficult economic conditions in our own country.
Acting in that spirit, with unanimous support of Parliament I announced a special $50 million fund for Africa in November. The Government committed part of that fund to match the money donated by Canadians. Originally, it was projected that the matching portion of the fund would be limited to between $15 million and $20 million. As a result of the overwhelming public response, I am announcing today the Government's decision to increase the limit on matching by providing an additional contribution to the fund for Africa of $15 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The system of matching was an important catalyst in mobilizing contributions by Canadian citizens and encouraging the co-operation of non-governmental organizations, and I am confident that a high level of contributions will continue, even though a firm limit has been now set on the matching portion of the fund for Africa.
The Hon. David MacDonald was appointed the Special Co-ordinator for the African Crisis. He will complete his original mandate on March 31 and is preparing a detailed report. That will be submitted in March to the Government and then to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I have expressed to the Chairman of that Committee my hope that Mr. MacDonald's report could be considered as a high priority so the Government can have the recommendations of both the Committee and Mr. MacDonald when we consider any further special steps Canada might take in response to the crisis in Africa, including measures to encourage the continuing direct involvement of individual Canadians.
I want to advise the House of some of the initiatives Canada has taken so far.

Food products valued at $6.5 million have been shipped to Ethiopa through the World Food Program.
February 13, 1985

In the next few weeks, additional food shipments worth $11 million will be sent to the three Sahel countries-Mali, Niger and Chad.
Additional grants of $6 million have been given to the Canadian Food Grains Bank to finance the shipment of 30,000 tonnes of food to the region of the Horn of Africa-including Ethiopia-and Sahel.

A grant of $3 million for UNICEF is targeted specifically at health care for mothers and children and the development of long-term nutritional and sanitary service measures.
I want to stress that this is in addition to CIDA's regular Africa program which this year totals almost $300 million. Most of that money is directed to CIDA's programs that have longer-term objectives, aiming to assist African countries to become self-sustaining, particularly in agriculture. This is in keeping with the Canadian people's expectation that their generous contributions to African relief will be part of a lasting solution to these terrible recurrent tragedies that have been so wasteful of human life.

Keeping that objective in mind, I am pleased to announce that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has advised the president of the World Bank that, over the next four years, Canada will contribute $100 million to the World Bank's special voluntary contribution mechanism for sub-Saharan Africa. This new World Bank initiative will complement its regular program in Africa and is designed to help African countries make the necessary political and institutional reforms to boost their own production. To date, donor countries, including Canada, are committed to give about $1 billion in direct and additional contributions,

The heartening response by Canadians has been a lesson about sacrifice and generosity to all of us. This Parliament can be proud of its quick response to unparalleled suffering, but we should be more proud of and gratified with the response of thousands of individuals and groups across this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The suffering in Africa is far from over, and I look forward to continuing to work with other Hon. Members of this House in developing means to express our continuing concern and commitment to bring relief to that devastated region.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister for his speech.
When we discussed this problem in similar circumstances in the fall, I said that this was a situation that did not lend itself to political controversy, and that we would have to work together with the government authorities. I am very proud to see that Canadians have responded so generously to the appeal
Famine Relief
for a contribution from the private sector, and that their response was so overwhelming. I would like to join the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in congratulating Canadians on their generosity and their sense of duty. I am, however, a little disappointed that the Government was unable to meet the commitment made at the time to match contributions made by the private sector. I understand the problem, but it is still disappointing that the Government failed to keep its promise.

I would like to point out as well that we all agree that it is a very important situation, and I am proud that we work together this way in the House of Commons. I am pleased to see that the Minister has many times recognized that the previous administration was the best of all of the nations in the world in recognizing the danger in Ethiopia, and in relation to the GNP we were the largest contributor of funds and, in real terms, the second largest. I think we should all be proud of that.
On the other hand, despite the unanimity and agreement I am showing today, I would not like the public to be under the wrong impression. It is very nice to have money at this time, Mr. Speaker, but we have to keep in mind that CIDA's budget was cut by hundreds of millions of dollars by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he made his economic statement. To reinstate some of that money looks pretty good at this time, but we should not lose sight of the fact there were some cuts brought about at that time. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will be able to persuade his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to restore the level of commitment we had before.
The goal of Canadians in foreign aid is to achieve as early as possible the 0.7 per cent of GNP Aid level. I think the Minister, in his policies, has postponed that goal and I do not know if we will ever reach it if we keep postponing it. I hope he will be as successful with the Minister of Finance as his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who managed to keep universality, and as successful as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), who has managed to bring back a limited program for student employment. Then it would not just be foreign aid which is cut by the Minister of Finance.
The Minister has travelled the world and so have I. Despite the problems we are having in Canada, we realize that we do not have problems here really. Sometimes we tend to exaggerate a bit the situation here, and that is normal in political debate; but we have to tell Canadians that we are a very fortunate nation and that foreign aid is not only a good thing to do, it is an obligation for fortunate nations like Canada. Canadians have responded with their money and I think the Minister should keep on fighting to restore the aid level which existed before. He will have in that endeavour the support of this critic who sometimes finds he is not criticizing enough. I receive hell from the Whip at times that I am not tough enough with you. It is a problem but I do not want to be

February 13, 1985
Famine Relief
political on that. I think this amount of money should be restored and that we have to match the generosity of Canadians. It is the desire of Canadians that we have to carry on our policies there.
I would like to go back to that point because I did not criticize the Minister last week when he named Roy McMurt-ry as High Commissioner to London. There is one man who was in this House for years talking about hunger in the world and food development around the world. I refer to the former Minister of Agriculture who I appointed to the FAO because he was the best and most knowledgeable person for the job. That was confirmed by documents tabled not long ago. It was not an idea of mine to find a cozy spot for my friend, Gene Whelan; it was because there is a need at the FAO for a strong hand.
Many of the problems that exist today exist because the FAO is not being managed well enough. A long time ago an official of the Department of External Affairs said we need somebody there who can have clout. I am telling you that you can change your mind and I will not blame you, but if you were to change your mind and put back Gene Whelan in the FAO, I think all Members of the House would recognize that there is a strong man there. He will go to these international bureaucrats who overlooked the Ethiopian situation when he was the Minister of Agriculture of the day and was telling them that Ethiopia was the area of crisis. If Gene Whelan were to go there with his green hat, these guys would listen and the best interests of Canada and the best interests of food management in the world will be well served. I advise the Minister to reconsider his decision on that appointment.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the statement by the Right Hon. Minister. First of all, we welcome the increase in the matching funds being made available. I think some clarifications are needed about the announcement and I want to ask a few questions.
Certainly Canadians have responded generously and I wonder why some arbitrary ceiling would be put on this generosity. It seems to me the Minister might consider that Canadians vote with their pocket-books. In so far as they are prepared to give, the Government ought to respond to that by removing this arbitrary ceiling.
I would like to ask very specifically about the $15 million. Is this a new $15 million which is being added, or is it being recycled from somewhere else? The previous speaker from the Liberal Party noted there were cut-backs in CIDA funding and IDRC funding. Is the Minister prepared to have those cuts restored? Some of those moneys taken out of one pocket and put into another pocket for emergency funding were otherwise destined to be spent in Africa on the very problem they have been diverted to. So it is not entirely new money, and if we want to talk about the generous response we are able to provide, we should be talking about new money, not just recycled money.
I would like to correct the impression given by the previous speaker that Canada has been the greatest per capita contributor. This is simply not the case. A number of western European countries have higher per capita donations, such countries as Holland, Norway and Sweden. I note with a certain amount of shame that Ethiopia was excluded from external aid by the previous Liberal Government for a number of years. This generosity is now making up for some neglect over a number of years.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to respond to the very precise list of needs compiled by Mr. Jansson, the UN co-ordinator for Ethiopia. Specifically, he asked for 1.3 million metric tonnes of food for this year. I suggest that a reasonable response for Canada would be in the order of 200,000 metric tonnes of grain. This is the area we have been asked to contribute to. There are other items on the list which Mr. Jansson has forwarded, but they can be provided by other countries. As a grain-growing country, this is certainly the contribution we ought to be making. I note that India last year provided 100,000 metric tonnes of grain, so when I suggest a figure of 200,000 tonnes it is not an unbelieveable figure. If a poor country which has experienced famine itself can be generous to the tune of 100,000 tonnes, why can we not afford 200,000? I would like to see a response in very precise terms on that, as well as on the question of restoring the funding which has been redirected to CIDA and IDRC.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions?


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity as well to comment on the interim report by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I want to welcome, as other Members have, this announcement today of an additional $15 million to be used to provide relief to famine victims in Ethiopia. I assume that applies to famine victims in the sub-Sahel of Africa generally. I think the Minister, in appointing Mr. David MacDonald as his Canadian African famine co-ordinator, wisely put emphasis on the several dozen nations of Africa which are severely affected, not just on Ethiopia.
Some time ago in this House questions were raised as a result of a CBC documentary about the way in which Canadian aid or aid generally was being used in Ethiopia. I am sure the Minister noted it was not a persistent series of-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker. I thought, given the nature of the matter-I guess 1 was sadly mistaken-that this House was able to-


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect, I will take no time out of this to explain the situation. I have several Members who wish to put questions. The purpose of this period is for questioning the Minister. The Hon. Member takes the subject seriously and I know he does. He may have a statement he wishes to make at the appropriate time tomorrow. That is his privilege. I have a number of Members waiting to ask questions so I presume he would like to come to his.
February 13, 1985


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Canada cut $180 million out of our CIDA program in the fiscal year 1985-86. The concern has been expressed by many of those involved in the aid business that nations of the western world make a serious mistake in simply channelling long-term development funds into short-term emergency assistance. In order to prevent further crises down the road in Ethiopia and many other nations, will the Minister undertake a restoration of the longterm aid dollars necessary to prevent the type of African famine we have seen to date? Will he undertake to make that representation to his Cabinet?


Charles Joseph Clark: I will begin by thanking the Hon. Member for his consistent support for the efforts of Canada in this regard. He was one of the Members of Parliament who travelled with Mr. MacDonald to Africa. If I may say so, he made a signal and positive contribution to the activities of that commission.
I could enter into an argument with the Member and the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) over who cut what from CIDA, because there were cuts in the summer of 1984 when the Member for Saint-Maurice was the Minister. There were also some changes in the CIDA budget announced in the statement by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I think that is really partisanship and is not appropriate to the approach we have taken to this question.
I believe, as he does, that we face two urgent requirements. One is to do what we can to help the starving. The other, which in the long run is far more important, is to put money and, perhaps more importantly than that, Canadian talent into helping several countries of Africa put their agriculture and economies on a sustaining basis. CIDA will be doing that. I hope that during the discussions when Mr. MacDonald appears before the standing committee there will be an opportunity to discuss concrete ways in which Canada can do that. I met yesterday with Mr. Brad Morse, the director of the United Nations special projects regarding Africa, to discuss how we can co-operate with the United Nations to do that.
I will continue my efforts to find and direct as much money as we can in our current economic circumstances to those purposes. I welcome the continuing support of the Hon. Member and his colleagues.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask five short questions of the Minister concerning his report. Would the Minister confirm that all the warehouse space in Ethiopia is being bought up by the Government and that that is creating problems in terms of slowing distribution and the possibility of diverting? Would the Minister confirm that the Government is not providing land support, that once food is dropped at the port there is no money to move it to distribution staging areas? As one example, it cost $5,000 to move 20 tonnes of food from port to distribution areas. There are no trucks and no infrastructure.
Famine Relief
My third question is with regard to a Canadian organized airlift in which the East Germans, the Libyans and Interflug had to supply the aircraft. There is no Canadian aircraft there even though we have enormous expertise in this country. The food was moved from port to staging area a month ago and is still sitting in the staging area because there is no distribution.
Fourth, Canada's aid was channelled through a tripartite agreement between the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission of Ethiopia and Canada, which was signed in Geneva many months ago. The United Nations Commission in Ethiopia has failed to deliver on the infrastructure to help Canadian organizations communicate and deliver their material.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I will get to the Hon. Member's fifth question if we have time. There are several Members who wish to ask questions. The Hon. Minister may wish to respond to the first four.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I cannot answer in detail because I do not have the information at hand. It is precisely because I do not have that detailed information that I have made such a point of suggesting that Mr. MacDonald's report go to committee and that there be detailed discussion there.
I can confirm generally, as I have throughout, that the Government and authorities of Ethiopia have given us and the non-governmental organizations on the ground their undertaking to expedite delivery of aid to the starving as much as possible. Obviously, that will not happen perfectly. If there is something other than natural imperfection, in other words, if there is government policy in Ethiopia at issue, we would want to use such influence as we have to ensure that the Government of Ethiopia is doing what it can to deliver aid to those in need.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I asked a number of questions which have not been responded to by the Minister. I wonder if I could have answers to them. They are not technical questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have made note of at least two of the questions. With regard to new funds, these are not new funds; some of the funds are transferred. I would like to be able to give the Member a precise breakdown of how much of the $15 million is new to our envelope but I cannot. I can say that in the neighbourhood of $6 million to $7 million, which is slightly less than half, is new to our envelope. The Hon. Member was concerned that some of the transfers may have been from other funds available to Africa. That is not the case. They have come from other aspects of the External Affairs envelope.
The Hon. Member suggested that there should be no limit on matching. In a perfect world I would agree that there should be no limit on matching. The Government is operating under very serious economic restraints. It is our judgment, which I believe is broadly concurred in by the non-governmental organizations, that the period of matching grants as a

February 13, 1985
Famine Relief
catalyst may well be past. We may well be in a situation in which Canadians are prepared to contribute without the catalyst of matching grants. That will mean that such money as the Government of Canada has available for these purposes will be available to be directed to other purposes, including longer range development.
With regard to the list of proposals by Mr. Jansson, I request that the Hon. Member direct that question to Mr. MacDonald when he appears before the standing committee. I am afraid I do not have the answer to that at hand.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, the questions which I would like to ask arise from the conference which the Minister was deeply involved in in January with respect to longer term development prospects for Africa after the crisis in Ethiopia has been resolved. 1 would like to raise two particular points that were important in the discussions at that conference.
The first has to do with the policy which the Canadian Government has followed. It has not considered certain African countries to be targets for concentrated aid. This was sometimes for political reasons, as was the case with Ethiopia during the 1978 to 1983 period. The country which was particularly stressed at that conference was Mozambique, which itself is facing-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a question, please?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes. In fact, the question-


Mr. Speaker:: It is just like Question Period. Is there a question?


Steven W. Langdon: Is the Government now able to announce that Mozambique specifically will be a possible recipient? Is the Government also prepared to announce that it is now going to move on another recommendation from that conference that, for an experimental period at least, we consider untying CIDA funds with respect to rural development projects within Africa? That tying has been a major impediment in the underlying building of infrastructure to try to help avoid these crises in the future.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth drawing to the attention of the House that all of the Members who have asked questions today have been involved in one way or another very directly in the program of response to Ethiopia. Three of them have been in Africa as part of the Government's program. The Hon. Member who just put a question was a very active member of a very productive seminar at the beginning of the year. I am most interested in maintaining that multipartisan approach to this issue. It seems to me that one of the best instruments to do that is the standing committee.
I will not pretend that the only reason I am not in a position to answer the two questions put by the Hon. Member is because I want them to be considered by the standing committee. We have simply not been able to address some of the those questions in the department yet. I say absolutely sincerely that
I look for guidance from the standing committee, once Mr. MacDonald's report is before it, as to what we should be doing.
There have been seminars which have been helpful. There have been visits which have been helpful. I think the lesson we have learned is that part of the reason for the unprecedented interest of Canadians in the response to this crisis is that it has not been affected by partisanship. I want to maintain that momentum and I think discussion of questions of the kind raised by the Hon. Member at the standing committee and then Government action on those recommendations is the best way to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Last question, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). There are repeated news reports that the Marxist-Leninist Government that governs Ethiopia is armed to the teeth. Is the Marxist-Leninist Government buying these weapons or are they being provided free? What is the purpose of a country like Ethiopia being armed to the teeth?
If the Minister does not have all of the information, could the committee provide some information about that? I think the Canadian people would like to be informed about why that Marxist-Leninist Government in Ethiopia is so armed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are arms in Ethiopia. There is a civil war in Ethiopia. That is part of the problem we are facing. I presume that some of the arms are purchased and that some come by other means.
If I may tell the House, my daughter was among the thousands of Canadians who agreed to the contribution of the family allowance cheque to which she has a claim to the funds of Ethiopia. She spent an evening with a great aunt of hers and came home the other day, accusing me that her money for Ethiopia had been sent to the market, by which the meant the Byward Market. She was very concerned about that. It turned out that she or her great aunt were confused between the market and the Marxist. I assured her that whatever difficulties may arise-I can offer this assurance to Canadians-the great majority of the contributions we are making are getting through to people in need in Ethiopia.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister. I wonder if I may obtain the unanimous support of the House to put the questions to the Minister, because they are very pertinent.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully respect that they are pertinent questions, but I am sorry, there are traditions about the length of the question period after a Minister's statement. The reason I rose earlier was to suggest to Members that their questions be shorter in order to accommodate more Members. In my judgment, I am afraid that the appropriate time has expired.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On a point of order-
February 13, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: In my judgment, the appropriate time has expired.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you clarify for me, as a Member, that another Member in the House cannot rise and ask for the unanimous consent of Members to do something?


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Orders are absolutely clear about when the question period after a Minister's statement ends. It ends when the Speaker deems that it ends.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I was asking for consent to put a question to the Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Orders say that the question period ends when the Speaker says that it ends. There is no point of order appeal from that decision.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We are really discriminated against.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member says that I am discriminating. I recognized no one but Opposition questioners until the end, when I recognized the one Government Member. On two separate occasions I appealed to members of both Opposition Parties to be short so that more Members could ask questions.
With due respect to the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), 1 find the suggestion, sotto voce or not sotto voce, that I am discriminating is unfair. I must limit the time according to my judgment because the tradition has been very clearly-the Member has been here long enough to know it-that the collective period of time does not generally exceed the collective total amount of time taken for the statement, unless there is a very good reason. In fact, we have exceeded that time today because I knew Members wished to put questions. I went beyond the normal time, but at some point I must end it in order to get to the day's business. I have exercised that judgment from which there is no appeal.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, without disrespect to the Speaker, for future guidance-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Raymond John Skelly: The point of order is that in guiding the House-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order, please? I think I have been utterly clear on this matter.


Raymond John Skelly: The point of order is that in a matter-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Raymond John Skelly: I will come to my point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me. I am asking that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whether, in future cases concerning matters of high interest and serious
Petitions
non-partisan concern in the House, it is possible that the previous traditions would not be rigidly held so that there would be some flexibility on all parts, recognizing the pressing concern. I simply ask if that is a possibility.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept that the Hon. Member's concern is serious. That is why I indicated that I went beyond what is normal in the House in this case. I granted more time and more questions than usual. That is precisely why I asked the Hon. Member to restrict himself from five to four in order to allow others to speak in the limited time that is available.
If there was enough time I would have come back to the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River so he could put more questions. However, given the number of people who wished to raise questions, I exercised my judgment in a way that I thought was appropriate. I thought the subject was important and I let the questions continue for longer than normal. I thought that was appropriate in the circumstances. Petitions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege just to clarify the points made by the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We are on petitions. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) raised a question of privilege. I think he should have the floor before me.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not intervene very often with questions of privilege. I rise because of a statement that I want to be clarified. If I understood you correctly, you said that even with unanimous consent of the House you would not allow more questions. That affects my privilege because it is the House that can decide unanimously what to do.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Speaker is required by the Standing Orders to make a judgment at some point as to when the appropriate question period is over. That is not appealable. There is no such thing as an appeal on that matter in the House.
The Member is attempting to resort to unanimous consent apparently to change the decision of the Speaker. It cannot be done. There is no provision to allow it. I must make a judgment at some point and that is what the Standing Order obligates me to do. With due respect, that is the end of it. The Hon. Member for Shefford.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of the undersigned residents of

February 13, 1985
Introduction of Bills
Canada who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged right to present a common grievance, with the assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy.
They humbly sheweth that:
The inordinate amount of time taken by payment centre officials to forward unemployment insurance cheques is unacceptable; and that the labour dispute between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and payment centre officials do not concern recipients who do not have the means or are not in a position to wait for their benefits for months on end.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to intervene in this case so as to set things straight as soon as possible.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of approximately 5,000 citizens of my riding in central Newfoundland calling on the Government to establish immediately a minimum-medium security penitentiary in the Town of Windsor.
Whereas there is no such penitentiary in Newfoundland, and never has been, this petition calls on the Government now to keep the commitment of the former administration and establish that penitentiary in Windsor, Newfoundland.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the title indicates, the purpose of the Bill is to make an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to impose a death sentence in all cases of first degree murder.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be
answered today: Nos. 88, 93, 155 and 213.


Mr. Blenkarn: Is the Minister of Public Works contemplating passing regulations with respect to those who would like to set up camps on Parliament Hill to protest government activity?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: All regulations concerning the use of all government-owned property in Canada are now under review.
February 13, 1985


Mr. Blenkarn: Will a fee be charged to those setting up protest camps on Parliament Hill and, if so, will the Government provide a schedule of these fees?


Roch La Salle: The
charging of fees to those setting up protest camps on Parliament Hill is not being considered at the present time.


Mr. Orlikow: Has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cut any projects in its science and technology programs in order to absorb the reduction in its expenditures required by the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on November 8, 1984 and, if so, what are they and what are the projected costs?


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Among the program changes within the Department resulting from the expenditure reductions announced on November 8, 1984, were certain activities of a scientific and technological nature. In deciding on these reductions, special importance was attached to maintaining the Department's scientific capacity. Consequently, these reductions were chosen so as not to hamper the Department in carrying out its mandate of improving our knowledge of the fisheries resource base, of providing information to ocean-based industries, or of studying long-term ocean-related science issues.
The specific program reductions	are as follows:		
Expenditure Reductions	1985/86	$000 1986/87	1987/88OSS remote-sensing program (termination of program)	600	500	Terminate use of Coast Guard icebreakers for data collection	50	50	50Arctic Biological Station-Ste. Anne de Bellevue (closure)	750	350	350Technology Laboratory (Pacific) Vancouver (closure)	1,038	1,038	1,038Ellerslie Fisheries Station (relocation of research section to the station at Miminegash)	40	40	40Northern oil and gas action plan1 (program reduction)	4,500	4,500	4,500Office of Energy Research and Development2 (program reduction)	1,794	1,794	1,794
1 Funding to DFO is provided under a national program coordinated by DIAND. Final interdepartmental allocation decisions have not as yet been made. The resources indicated are approximations.
2 Funding to DFO is provided under a national program coordinated by EM&R.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 112, what are the names of the individuals or companies who were awarded four contracts by the Department of Public Works, originating in whole or in part, from the constituency of Manicouagan?
2.	In each case what was the value of the contract?
Point of Order-Ms. Mitchell Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works): 1 and 2.
The names of the four contractors from the constituency of Manicouagan and the value of each contract awarded by Public Works Canada are as follows:
Name	Contract Amount
Entreprises C.V.S. Enr., Port-Cartier, Quebec	$ 6,720
Construction G. Desrosiers, Sept-iles, Quebec	$23,302
M. Roland Doyle, Havre-St. Pierre, Quebec	$11,799
Construction A. Parisee Inc., Sept-iles, Quebec	$58,670
[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to table a document entitled "Child Benefit Reform, a New Democratic Option" and to ask that this document be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs as part of the consultation process which the Government has requested.
I have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and also to the three House Leaders. I have also consulted with the Government House Leader about this matter. I hope that these documents could be tabled today.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that even by unanimous consent a Private Member may not table a document in the House of Commons. I am sure the Hon. Member did not know that when she rose to seek unanimous consent. With respect, it cannot be done.

February 13, 1985
CRTC Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 11, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-20, an Act to Amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as someone who grew up in the television and telecommunications age, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the very interesting subject before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, television has had a considerable influence on the lives of all Canadians, especially those who were born in the 50|s and after. 1 know there are a few in the House, not many on the Government side but there are a few.
Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that television is starting to influence the lives of all Canadians more and more. For instance, did you know that Canadians now spend half their leisure time watching television? This means twenty-three hours a week watching television. The average Canadian will spend a total of nine years and his or her life watching television. It is also a fact that television as an instrument of social policy is very important for Canada, especially, Mr. Speaker, because of our geographical location along the American border, and the fact that 75 per cent of the television programs we receive in Canada are American.
Even now, with our national CBC channel, we are in a situation where our national culture is threatened by the fact that every day, Canadians are confronted with 75 per cent American content on television.
Mr. Speaker, before passing this Bill, we must ask ourselves: Is television a right that belongs to the Canadian people or is it a right that belongs to government and especially the Government in power in this Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that television is not the property of any government, either the former Liberal Government or the present Conservative Government. We are not here to exercise control over television. Television belongs to all Canadians, and Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, quote a former Canadian Prime Minister, a Conservative Prime Minister, who said that public television was very important for Canada.

I would like to point out to the House that a former Prime Minister, one whom I am sure Members on the government side of the House will well remember, R. B. Bennett, when introducing the Broadcasting Act into the House of Commons, stated that this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources free from
foreign interference or influence. He was unequivocal about the method. I think this is important in this new tone of private sector involvement which has come forth from this Government, and as well is the very real fear expressed by the Canadian people that if this particular motion is allowed to pass we may see public ownership of our public air waves being threatened as it never was before.
When Prime Minister Bennett introduced the Broadcasting Act, he told the Canadian people that no other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of broadcasting. 1 do not think any government would be warranted in leaving the air to private exploitation instead of reserving it for the use of the people. That was the position taken by a former Conservative Government, and it was supported in later developments with respect to broadcasting when we heard from-
[ Translation]
-the Hon. Lionel Chevrier who is well known, particularly in Quebec, and who said: The main reason for promoting public television in Canada is that we would like to have popular and cultural programs produced in Canada, by Canadians and about Canada. We have nothing against American programs, but we do not want them to be in a position to monopolize our broadcasting time.

Lionel Chevrier felt that public television was important enough that American programming should not be allowed to dominate the Canadian air waves. We see in 1985 a situation where 75 per cent of our television, of which the average Canadian will spend nine years of his or her life watching, happens to be non-Canadian; in fact, American programming.


Mr. de Jong:: That is what happened under the Liberal Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is clear that this motion before us to allow the Government to take control, indirectly or directly, over the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will further exacerbate a situation which is already unacceptable and which has been further threatened by the Government's decision to cut back on funding to that instrument of national, cultural and public policy, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
We have in past governments, dating since the inception of television, made a commitment in this House and to the people of Canada that public broadcasting is an essential component, as integral and important as our railway system which links east to west. I had the opportunity of waking up Monday morning in Halifax to the tones of the same radio program which I would have had an opportunity to hear in Hamilton or out in Vancouver. It was radio programming by our public broadcasting corporation, CBC. It has been a link in Canadian lives across the country. The Government suggests that a
February 13, 1985

cut-back of a few million here and there will not affect Canadian culture, which I think has been a bonus for all of us and has helped to fight in some small measure the onslaught of Americanism on our public air waves.
Another myth is that Canadians are not interested in watching Canadian broadcasting. I should like to look at some of the regular programs of the CBC. On a regular basis, 1.8 million Canadians watch The National, 1.6 million Canadians watch The Journal, over 1.5 million Canadians watch The Fifth Estate; and 1.6 million Canadians watch Fraggle Rock. We heard our friend on the government side of the House speaking about the benefits of The Friendly Giant. Fraggle Rock is being watched by 1.6 million Canadian adults and children across the country. What about The Tommy Hunter Show? I am sure my friends in the Maritimes would hate to see that go down the tubes; 1.5 million Canadians watch that variety program.


Iain Francis Angus: What about Don Messer's Jubilee?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, what about Don Messer's Jubilee? It was a very good example of a variety program which really was a link across the country. Those of us who have had an opportunity to see theatre recently will know that Don Messer's Jubilee was a part of the times. When I grew up, it was my first link with the Maritimes. I would really hate to see The Tommy Hunter Show, The Beachcombers and Hockey Night in Canada go the way of Don Messer's Jubilee. Hockey Night in Canada is probably watched more by Liberals than by Conservatives because we happen to be the best hockey players in the House. The audience for Hockey Night in Canada amounts to between two million and three million Canadians. Approximately 1.25 million Canadians watch The Nature of Things.
There has been a suggestion by government Members that the cut-backs thrust upon the CBC will not affect the kind of Canadian culture and programming we have come to enjoy. However, I would suggest that programs like Chautauqua Girl, which in fact was watched by 2.6 million Canadians, would not have been produced under a Conservative regime imposing millions of dollars of cuts upon CBC. What about The Grey Fox, another great Canadian production? Over two million people watched it. Gentle Sinners drew 2.26 million viewers. We may find it hard to believe, in this new notion of privatization thrust upon us by the Government, that CBC television produces 90 per cent of Canadian television drama. The thrust of this particular Bill, as well as the thrust of the cut-backs which have been forced upon the CBC by the Government, tells Canadians that not only will the Government impose cuts on the CBC, not only does it want to take over direct control of the CRTC, but it has formed its own committee to tell CBC where in fact to make its cuts.
Canadians will have to ask themselves whether, when they voted for the Government in unprecedented numbers on September 4, they voted for the abolition of the one cultural link
CRTC Act
which has kept the country together. Did they vote for the abolishment of an instrument which is doing something, in its own small way, to battle the statistic that 75 per cent of television is American programming? Did Canadians vote to abolish Fraggle Rock and The Friendly Giant? Or did they expect that the Government would live up to its promise to ensure that these vehicles of cultural development would be part of the sacred trust about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke?
Canadians supported the Government en masse, not to make cut-backs but because they actually believed the promises of the Prime Minister and his Government when they said that they were committed to universality and to the cultural heritage of organizations such as the CBC. Unlike Members on the government side of the House, the Liberal Party believes that Canadians believe in Canadian culture and in encouraging Canadian drama. In fact, public attitude to the arts reflects our position on this particular Bill. I should like to indicate that 82 per cent of Canadians feel it is important to encourage, promote and develop talent and artistic activities, that 78 per cent of Canadians believe that the Government should support distinctively Canadian films, and that 75 per cent of Canadians feel that the CRTC should concentrate on improving the quality of programming.
Another issue is that somehow, if we support publicly funded television and radio, a public vehicle for cultural appreciation across the country, it will cost Canadian jobs. There is a notion on the government side of the House that all things American lead to job creation when the facts show otherwise. In terms of government expenditures in the arts and in the arts as an industry, the arts is one of the top 20 manufacturing industries in Canada. The arts is a job-creation vehicle as well as a cultural link from coast to coast. It is the largest manufacturing industry in terms of employment in the country. It is the sixth largest in terms of salaries and wages. Artists are not living off the fat of the land. Even though they are the greatest in number, they are only the sixth largest in salaries. It is the eleventh largest vehicle in terms of revenues; that is, a revenue-producing manufacturing industry. The arts-related workforce comprises 4 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Approximately 414,000 individuals made their way in the arts in fiscal year 1982-83. Between 1971 and 1981, under a Liberal Government, the arts labour force increased by 74 per cent. It is fair to say that one of the reasons for that expansion was a clear commitment to Canadianize not only the content of our public air waves but to ensure that the arts and theatre had a very strong and leading role to play in society.
When we talk about attending a Canadian play or watching a Canadian movie, of every revenue dollar earned in other manufacturing industries, only 20 cents is spent on salaries and wages; but the arts happens to be one of the most labour-intensive industries in the country. For every dollar spent to see a Canadian production, play or film, 66 per cent goes to salaries and wages. Even given that figure, average wages in the performing arts are less than half those in other

February 13, 1985
CRTC Act
manufacturing industries. Artists are not making themselves rich at the expense of taxpayers; they are creating a very labour-intensive, revenue-producing industry which creates jobs for Canadians. In fact, these jobs would not otherwise be available if we sold off our public air waves, as is being suggested by the Government.
I think government Members should use this opportunity to clear up the confusion surrounding the actual role of CBC in 1985. Also they should clear up the undercurrent of concern which has been expressed not only at the level of the arts community but by the public at large. That concern is specifically directed toward discussions, concerns and rumours, certainly published rumours, that private companies are looking to put together a package to purchase organizations such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has gone beyond the realm of simply being the private fantasies of certain government Members because in fact we have seen published reports that private companies are developing plans and programs which could potentially look at something like the purchase of the CBC.
It is certainly the position of this Party, and I think it should be the reiterated position of the Government, that any private consortium or corporation, either with background in the broadcasting field or without, should keep its hands off the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because the CBC and Radio-Canada have been instruments and tools through which all Canadians can voice some kind of a national identity.
[ Translation)
Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian who was brought up with television, I think that a few members in this House remember very well the time when radio was our only link between the Atlantic and the Pacific. I belong to the generation of youngsters who saw the advent of television. A good many of you who have young children are aware that television has a growing influence on them.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Government would, once and for all, give Canadians the assurance and guarantee that the CBC will never be affected or sold, never bought by any private companies, with or without experience in radio and TV broadcasting. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, our CBC network is much like our railways-it links all Canadians, and whether I am in Montreal, Hamilton or Vancouver, I will always be able to listen to the CBC news, I will always be able to watch the program Le point.
Mr. Speaker, as introduced by this Government, the Bill is a clear indication that TV broadcasting and communications will no longer be the prerogative and right of all Canadian men and women, but that they will depend on the political whim and power of the state.
I am not here as a Canadian only to uphold the rights of the Government, I am here to defend the right of all Canadians, men and women alike, to have ready access to our airwaves
without interference from any political faction or any Government. We are now seeing the CRTC give up direct responsibility over our airwaves. In my opinion, considering that we are being inundated by American TV programs, the situation is becoming intolerable for all Canadians, especially those who would like to keep our Canadian culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments?


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a brief comment. I listened with great interest to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). There are many points that she made with which I cannot disagree. However, I would not want the hon. lady to mislead the House, unintentionally, by suggesting that public television is in danger as a result of Bill C-20. I do not think we can let her get away with the remark that there is anything in this Bill that threatens the existence of public television. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made it very clear that the CBC is not for sale.
I for one stand up for the integrity of the CBC. Most if not all Members on this side of the House do the same. I would like the hon. lady to point out any section of the Bill which threatens public broadcasting.
If the Hon. Member is talking about the cut-backs that have recently been announced for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that is not outlined in this Bill. It is true that many Hon. Members have bootlegged the CBC cut-backs as part of the debate on Bill C-20.1 would also point out to the hon. lady from Hamilton East that this Bill is deeply rooted in Liberal Government thinking from the previous administration, as it was originally presented by the Hon. Francis Fox. This is basically the same Bill that we are asking to be sent to committee for detailed examination.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) for his intervention. I know of his long-standing history in the broadcasting business. Our great Channel 11 television station in Hamilton, although private, is good.
I am not sure whether the Hon. Member caught the whole gist of what I was trying to say. The comments I made were directed specifically to this Bill in the sense that the CRTC will now be giving up its ultimate authority, in terms of decision-making relating to both public and private broadcasting stations, to Parliament, specifically to the Cabinet of this Government. In that decision to move the power away from the CRTC, an independent, non-political, quasi-judicial body, and into the House of Commons, I feel that Canadian people are giving up the right to have the kind of independent control exclusive of Cabinet or political affiliation which existed under the previous legislation.
My comments relating to the CBC were to ask the Government to take this opportunity to clear up, not only rumours which have been circulating in the cultural community, but
February 13, 1985

also published reports of private consortiums that are looking at putting together a package for the possible purchase of the CBC. It was my intention in the context of this Bill to allow the Government to clear up once and for all the confusion. Naturally Canadians are confused when they see that one of the first acts of this Government is the slicing of the CBC budget by millions of dollars.
1 might add that, notwithstanding the alleged promise of the Prime Minister never to sell the CBC, the Prime Minister also said that he would never take away baby bonuses from families earning $35,000 a year. We know that is currently under consideration. The Prime Minister also said that he would never, either in the short term or long term, take away tax exemptions from families with children, and we know that is under consideration.
I do not believe we want to get into a debate on what the Prime Minister has said or has not said in the past or will say or will not say in the future. Believe me, that could become very convoluted. I hope the Government will use this opportunity to clear for the record, once and for all, the status, present and future, of the CBC, so that Canadians can rest assured that this tool of national unity for Canadians will remain preserved and will continue to flourish.
Mir. Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's comments. The suggestion has been made by some people regarding the removal of commercials from the CBC television network, much in the same way that commercials were removed from the CBC radio arm. Does the Hon. Member agree with that approach? Also, does she agree with the suggestion that all of the American programs should be dumped from CBC television in favour of rerunning a number of very good specials which she mentioned in her speech?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not a programming expert. I would not suggest that all American programming be dumped. Certainly, there is programming on both sides of the border that is worth keeping. I would not want to see an over-all, unanimous decision not to allow any kind of foreign programming on our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation airwaves. Certainly the radio broadcasting service has been extremely well served by having a non-commercial access to Canadians.
With respect to the actual television revenues, obviously when you are looking at the revenue statement of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation you have to take into account whether the Government is prepared to replace those lost revenues with further revenues. In light of the Government's decision to cut back on the budget, it might place the CBC in a very detrimental position if the Government were to impose a cut-back on commercials without a corresponding increase in revenues.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that even with the significant reduction of about $75 million from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation budget, the subsidy to the CBC is about $32 for every man, woman and child
CRTC Act
in this country. That cut was only about $3 for every man, woman and child in this country. Bearing in mind that the country is running at least a $35 billion deficit, does the Hon. Member not feel that there should be some paring back in some of our costs to the Government?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) missed the point of my intervention. The point was that the arts community is one of the top employers in the country. I realize that the Hon. Member can only look at things in terms of the blinded deficit reduction mentality which has characterized most of his interventions in the House. But I think that the arts community is the largest manufacturing employer in the country. I would not want to go back to my riding, which has over a 10 per cent unemployment rate, and tell the artists, who are barely scraping up a living wage above the poverty line, that their programming and their occupations are going to be reduced as a result of government cut-backs.
The Hon. Member does not seem to realize that the impact of the CBC cut-backs will be directly felt in terms of lost jobs for artists across Canada. There are 414,000 Canadians-4 per cent of the Canadian workforce-who are directly or indirectly working in arts-related fields. That $75 million cut-back will have a very direct effect on jobs, if we consider that 66 cents out of every dollar which is spent in the arts goes to salaries. I consider that cut-back a direct attack on jobs for Canadians. I understood when the Government was elected that its first priority was not deficit reduction but jobs.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this subsidy addresses itself to one form of the cultural community. The Member was talking about the entire cultural community. Is it her belief that we are being fair to the cultural community in pouring the massive amount of money we do into one Crown corporation, and not perhaps treating sculpture and other forms of dramatic arts with anything like the generosity which is accorded to that corporation? If she is really interested in jobs, would it not be more sensible to assist the arts in general, rather than this one specific and rather large Crown corporation?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what kind of involvement the Hon. Member has with the arts community, but he should know that the CBC, certainly in terms of television arts and drama, has produced 90 per cent of the dramatic programming across the country. Therefore, it indirectly and directly employs thousands of those artists about whom he spoke.
I would also add that I find it somewhat confusing that the Member would suggest that moneys should be taken from the CBC and given to other members of the arts community, when he knows full well that in his own Government's financial statement the cut-backs were not restricted to the CBC. In fact, they were levied across the arts community at large. That is why there are people such as Pierre Burton, June Callwood and David Suzuki crying out against government cut-backs to

February 13, 1985
CRTC Act
the arts community in general. I do not think the Government can be very proud of its reputation with the arts community at large. Therefore, he should not suggest that we should take from one in order to give to the other because, in fact, the Government has taken from both in order to give transfer payments to provincial Governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. On debate, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the previous speaker, with the exception of one point. I am not sure that the people of Canada voted for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because they thought he would keep his promises. I think the people of Canada voted for the Prime Minister in unprecedented numbers because he was not a Liberal.
With respect to the Bill, I suggest that sometimes we forget that communications is a service for which the Government has a responsibility. Therefore, if we consider that our responsibility as a Government, then we should provide a minimum service which would be available to all people. When we are talking about communications-radio, television and telephone services-we should ensure that those services are available to as many people as possible and, as well, that they should be affordable to the general population.
In our wisdom, or lack of it, we in Canada have allowed a large portion of the communications system to be privately owned and operated for a profit. Profit is the aim of the operation. We have found it necessary in the past, and I am sure we will in the future, to regulate the industry in order to ensure that the services are available to all people at a minimum cost.
One of the great uniting factors in Canada has been the CBC, as was stated by the previous speaker. Other national systems have also contributed in the areas of radio and television, as has our well integrated and developed telephone system. My concern, which is shared by many Canadians, is that with the trend toward deregulation and the projection of a profit motive in the industry, we will be reducing the number of Canadians who have access to some of the services which have previously been available to them.
If we approach these national services in the way which is being suggested by the Government-not necessarily in this Bill, but generally in its philosophy-we will be making the communications services available at a cost which will make the profit more important than the service.
I would like to deal with three services which have been reduced because of the policies of this Government and the previous Government. The first area deals with services to the hard of hearing and profoundly deaf. The second area deals with the use and licensing of satellite dishes for television reception in remote areas, and the third area deals with the
suggested deregulation of long distance service with the introduction of CNCP into the market.
I would like to speak First on the hard of hearing and the profoundly deaf. Technology is in place for the hard of hearing to be able to use telephones. Telephone companies have suggested that it would be quite possible to make the required technology a part of every telephone in the country. That would make it possible for a person who is hard of hearing to use any telephone which is at their disposal. However, the CRTC decided that it would not make this technology available and that it would not force all producers of telephones in Canada to include it in the manufacturing of the instrument. We need to keep the kind of regulations in place which would ensure this kind of equality and allow hard of hearing people to be able to use the phone anywhere. Perhaps we should review this decision. Perhaps it should be looked at again.
Profoundly deaf people are able to use an instrument called the TDY to communicate over long distance, but it is a typing operation and is slower. It takes a lot more telephone time than an ordinary telephone call. Some telephone companies have recognized the extra burden of cost this would be to the profoundly deaf individual and have given these individuals a break in the area of cost, but others have not. The local telephone companies here in Ontario-although some low-cost break is given-do not provide the extra time for the profoundly deaf to use the telephone. Perhaps we should require that the telephone companies do that, but we can only do it by extended regulating by the CRTC.
I think we should recognize that in order to have a good communications service, it must be available to all people. For example, the areas of Canada which have been unable to access a lot of radio and TV programs are the remote areas of this country, the far north, parts of northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, northern British Columbia and northern Ontario. Because these radio and TV programs are not available to the people in those areas, many communities and individuals have sought to deal with this broadcasting disparity by purchasing and installing their own receiving equipment and rebroadcasting or otherwise distributing the signals on an unregulated basis. This seems like a very acceptable entrepreneurial solution to providing this service and I hope this Bill will seek to clarify the definition of such rebroadcasting facilities which are sometimes found in large apartment blocks and hotels. This Bill, I understand, will bring them all under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. However, for many communities in remote areas which have satellite reception and equipment and are not licensed, this legislation will cause problems.
Some Hon. Members of this House, including government Members, have made commitments to their communities that they would help these communities gain access to these television programs without intervention by the RCMP, as is happening now. In the case of remote areas and under-served communities, these problems are now being addressed-and I give the Government credit for this-by the task force on the
February 13, 1985

distribution in under-served Canadian communities of satellite received broadcasting services. This task force was supposed to report on February 11.
We in this Party support this Bill on the understanding that the Government will act quickly on the recommendations of the task force and that options will be implemented for increasing the level of service and reducing the cost to these under-served communities. We feel that the extension of regulations is important in ensuring the viability of the Canadian broadcasting environment.
We would recommend that two or three basic principles be included. First is the guaranteeing of availability of Canadian information and cultural programming across the country. That should be a standard we do not move away from but should increase where it is presently deficient.
Second, we should ensure that new measures are found to fill the needs of those in remote areas who are now discriminated against. That is the approach I think we should take. I hope the Government, in giving these powers to the CRTC, will recognize that the Bill as it now reads will cause problems for those remote communities which are presently using satellites to receive services which they otherwise would not.
The third area of concern, Mr. Speaker, is the possible results of deregulation of long distance rates. The possibilities of what might happen if we deregulate the cost of long distance rates have been well documented across Canada. We have a living example in the States where the increases have been substantial. If CNCP Telecommunications services is allowed to compete freely, it will decrease the long distance cost somewhat for people using the service.
It will decrease the cost of long distance telephone service, but who uses the long distance telephone service? The large corporations, a few individuals and businesses across Canada are the major users of long distance services. The deregulation of rates will mostly affect the greatest number of users. These are people who use the phone daily for communication with their family and so on. Local service will be increased greatly by the deregulation of the long distance rate. This has been well documented and put before the CRTC. There are some of us who believe the CRTC has no right to rule in this particular area, but that is another matter.
Deregulation in Canada is estimated likely to raise the local rates for telephone service between 70 per cent and 125 per cent depending on which province you live in. Ninety-eight per cent of Canadian households have telephones. Of these people, 25 per cent to 30 per cent live at close to the poverty level or below the poverty line. That means, Mr. Speaker, if we proceed with deregulation as requested by CNCP Telecommunications, 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the persons presently using their telephones may not be able to continue to do so because they will not be able to afford it. That makes the communications system of Canada no longer a service. It then becomes a profit-oriented operation which is not available to everyone in the country because of cost. As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, there are many of us who are not at all
CRTC Act
sure that the CRTC has the right to make a decision on this issue.
My last and final area of concern is that although the CRTC is a responsible body, the responsible organization for regulation of the telephone and broadcasting services, this country does not have in place a really viable communications policy. Therefore, there is no doubt that Canada needs a clear and articulated communications policy established by government. The CRTC should operate within that policy and make sure the service is provided to all Canadians.
In the last number of years, because the communications industry has grown like topsy, the CRTC has been forced to make decisions in areas where it has not made decisions in the past. This was done in the absence of policy from the former Government. I hope this Government recognizes that and brings forward a comprehensive communications policy within which the regulatory body, the CRTC, can work. If these changes have a tendency to increase the Government's tendency to privatization, then I think policy should be stated in terms which will protect people in remote areas and the lower level of income earners. These policies that I suggest the Government should place before this House should be made in light of fairness and service to all Canadians. We could support the Government in that kind of change in policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? Debate.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act. Over the past month I have received many calls of concern on the issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse). Some of these issues are dealt with in the Bill, others I hope will be dealt with in the very near future. The Department of Communications has certainly been receiving more than its usual share of attention in the past few months. Of course, the cut-backs to the CBC and to Canada Council are of great concern to the people of Canada and certainly to the people of Prince Edward Island. I feel certain that the Minister of Communications will continue to receive representations on this matter from the people of Canada in the months to come.
With reference to the Bill before us, I received representations from cable operators concerned about the effect unauthorized foreign satellite signals originating from unlicenced operators will have on their operations which are licenced by the CRTC. These companies cannot compete with these signals without breaking the terms of their agreement. Few communities in my riding have access to cable services. In the more remote areas, satellite receivers are becoming a very popular item as more and more Prince Edward Islanders attempt to bring a wider variety of entertainment into their homes. Of course, I do not want to see that privilege taken

February 13, 1985
CRTC Act
away from them, but at the same time I have some concerns over the quality of programming coming across on some of those unauthorized signals. In the interests of the future of our cable companies and the quality of programming received by satellite receiver owners, I am happy to see that this legislation is introduced once again to the House of Commons.
As I mentioned before, there are areas of my riding which are somewhat remote, there are very few sources of entertainment locally, so television and radio are very important to the people of my riding. There are farmers and fishermen who rely heavily on television and radio for their communications because of the local farm and fishing broadcasts which keep them up to date on weather conditions, market prices and general happenings in their industries. The CBC is one of the most important sources of this information in both television and radio formats. Basically, all the homes in Prince Edward Island listen to the Radio Noon program. It brings them reports on the prices of produce, fish, on research and development in those industries, and reports on developments which may affect their livelihood. Radio Noon is one of the major sources of information for these people, one that cannot easily be replaced. The local noon program in Prince Edward Island was eliminated with the Radio Noon broadcast from Halifax being substituted. Years ago we used to receive Halifax Radio Noon broadcast, but ratings in P.E.I. showed that only 5 per cent of the population listened to that program. However, when the program was moved to Charlottetown, ratings rose to 30 per cent. I was talking to some CBC employees just today on that very program and they say that in the last year or so the ratings have been up more than that. So I think the Islanders want to hear about their own industry and local events. It is difficult, of course, to get all the information locally, but Radio Noon, when it is returned to Halifax on April 1, will mean that a very valuable information source for all Prince Edward Islanders will be gone.
Window on Resources is of course another local television program covering the Island's primary industries, and that was eliminated in December. The primary industries of agriculture and the fishery are the very backbone of the P.E.I. economy. They deserve good local coverage. Soundings, which provides information to the fishing industry, has an uncertain future. Since part of the program is heard on Radio Noon, I am concerned about whether this program will report in the future.
Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with one of the major farmers' organizations in the Province of P.E.I., the National Farmers' Union. Its members presented a brief on a number of issues pertaining to the agricultural community in P.E.I. The first item on the agenda was the cut-backs in programming and how it affected them. They made the point that these programs have done so much for their agricultural community. The Prince Edward Island Women's Institute is concerned about it because that was a vehicle for programming to get their message across. They were able to show what activities the Institute is carrying out on its own. Organizations such as the Maritime Fishermen's Union used that as an
information vehicle to get sound advice to the rural people. Mr. Wayne Easter, President of the National Farmers Union noted in this brief that nationally the CBC cuts will not be felt as greatly by farmers as they will be in the Atlantic region, and especially in Prince Edward Island. He pointed out that the amount of $75 million was a political decision. We must understand that it was within the Government's jurisdiction to make that decision. The CBC must decide how the cuts are to be exercised.
Other speakers here today mentioned some of the artistic programs that are involved, such as The Tommy Hunter Show and Don Messer's Jubilee which originated from Prince Edward Island. Those shows are part of our Canadian heritage. Almost every home in Atlantic Canada was taking full advantage of those shows. Another program which will go by the wayside is called Sounds of the Island. That is a winter program which is on once a week and which features local talent. There is nothing more attractive to rural Canadians than seeing someone from their own community perform. They feel good about that. They believe, and rightly so, that there is a lot of good quality entertainment which needs exposure through local programming.
When pay-television was introduced to Prince Edward Island, I received hundreds of letters from Islanders who were concerned about the quality of programming that could come into their homes and the effect it could have on their children and on all of society. Over the years, television programs have become more and more violent and more sexually explicit. With satellite dishes, cable television, and video recorders, television is becoming a centre of family life. Television has become a tool of education, and the characters portrayed on television have become role models to Canadians. When young people watch Hockey Night in Canada, they watch for the Wayne Gretzkys of hockey. When they watch Canadian football, they watch for the stars. In many cases young people pattern their lives after the so-called stars. In Canada we have some excellent sports figures. Every superstar, no matter what facet of life they represent or what occupation they pursue, becomes an idol to someone.
I am happy to see that this Bill addresses, to some degree, the quality of programming. The Bill states that:
-the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should respect and promote the equality and dignity of all individuals, groups or classes of individuals regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;
I am uncertain of how all of this will be achieved. I hope that Canadian programming will be maintained at a high standard without undue or unwarranted censorship. There is a very fine line between outright censorship and the protection that is outlined in this Bill. Further study of issues such as this will be required in committee in order to ensure that the rights of Canadians are not interfered with.
There is a significant Acadian population in my riding. I have received many letters from individuals and organizations who are very concerned about the effect that a 20 per cent
February 13, 1985

reduction in CBC's French operating budget will have on the future of French programming. It is difficult to maintain a minority language in a culture without significant support from communications sources such as radio and television. In the Acadian regions of my riding the French services provided by the CBC are the only French broadcasting services available. Any reductions in these services will have a very detrimental effect on the future of the French language and culture in Prince Edward Island.
On the local FM CBC station, La Maree de Vile provides an hour and a half of Prince Edward Island-directed programming five days a week. This program is relatively new and only came about because of pressures from the local francophone organizations, which have a great interest in the future of the French language and culture in Prince Edward Island. I hope to see programming such as this increased rather than eliminated.
I have received letters from individuals and groups concerned about the cut-backs to the Canada Council. These cut-backs will affect the future of culture in Prince Edward Island as well as in the rest of Canada. They will also affect the employment of a great many Canadians. The Canada Council is closing its regional office in Moncton, which is the only office in the Atlantic provinces. The cancellation of the toll free telephone line to the Canada Council office will further affect the contact that the East Coast will have with the Canada Council and with other writers and artists across the country. Artists will lose their access to free financing and marketing advice. The Arts Advisory Board, which consists of representatives from all regions of the country, has been abolished. The loss of programs such as this threatens the direction of the arts community in Canada. It is important that arts be maintained as an alternative source of entertainment and employment for Canadians. The arts is a very important industry in Canada.


Mr. McDermid:: Does the private sector support the arts?


George Roland Henderson: The private sector supports it in some way.


John Horton McDermid: Should it not support it more?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will come to questions and comments a little later.


George Roland Henderson: I will talk about the private sector in communications and the arts. As the Hon. Member across the way has mentioned, it may well support the arts in some regions. In areas of the country where there is not a great private sector and the business communities are small, it is not able to support the arts. As an example, there is some private funding involved in the Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown. However, it relied heavily on financing from the Government of Canada and the provincial government of Prince Edward Island. If the private sector had been charged with the total responsibility of financing the Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown, it would have been closed long ago. We all know the great service which the Centre of
CRTC Act
the Arts does for the arts community. The play Anne of Green Gables is very attractive to Canadians as well as many other people around the world. The Japanese are very interested in the story of Anne of Green Gables. It brings many tourists to Prince Edward Island. I have talked to people who have seen that play as often as five times. It is certainly renowned throughout Canada. Some of the musicals that are staged at Confederation Centre are very important. It is incumbent upon government to support those artistic performances in our country.
The Hon. Member may be correct in stating that the private sector may be able to contribute more than it is to the artistic endeavours in central Canada, but this means that if extra funding is available it could be given to rural regions of the country rather than to those areas which have a so-called private sector base.
Canadians rely heavily on services provided under the authority of the Minister of Communications. I hope the Minister will take steps to protect the CBC programming that is directed at children, our primary producers or the francophone community outside of Quebec, and to ensure the quality and Canadian content in that broadcasting. I believe we will benefit from greater Canadian content as we are already subject to much programming from the United States. I have visited the United States and watched their programs, some that come to Canada. I believe that those programs are not of the same quality as those produced by the CTV, the CBC, our radio and print news media. I believe we should protect and maintain the quality of our weekly journals and daily newspapers throughout the country because they understand and reflect the fabric of Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Hon. Member's speech, I realized that his area is very similar to northern Ontario. Both are removed from the gigantic metropolitan areas of the country.
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has made a drastic cut of some $75 million and an additional $10 million in technological advances for the CBC. I share many of the Hon. Member's views about the CBC.
A few years ago there was an extended coverage program in Canada that was designed to bring CBC Radio to approximately 98 per cent or 99 per cent of Canadians. That additional funding, which is a small percentage of those cuts which have taken place this year, has in fact extended the broadcasting to all areas of northern Ontario and many areas in the high Arctic, either through FM stations or low power relay transmitters. I believe this coverage is important to those areas in order to get greater information. While our locally owned and operated radio stations are important, I believe that national broadcasting corporation in our vast and diverse country is essential. The local stations tend to concentrate on local news as the CBC obviously has a distinct advantage in broadcasting international and national news. I believe that CBC news coverage is important, especially to smaller remote communi-

February 13, 1985
CRTCAct
ties like those in the Maritimes, the North and northern Ontario.
Let me comment on the public affairs and information programs. Since I live in a part of Ontario that is close to the United States, we receive public broadcasting information programs from that source. While they are valuable programs, I do not believe that they compare at all to the information explosion we get from CBC programs like Radio Noon, which is very important for resources, and This Country in the Morning, which ties the entire country together. There are other programs such as Fresh Air-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that this is a period in which we can ask questions of the previous speaker and make comments. The Hon. Member sounds as if he were making a full-fledged speech. Some of us want to ask questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure that the Hon. Member is coming to his question.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I was just getting to that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Hon. Member who comes from Prince Edward Island shares many of my views that the CBC plays a paramount role in providing a national network for national and international news. This is especially true for people in the smaller communities. The cuts being made are inappropriate and will be harmful if they begin to eliminate these major resource and information programs. I would be interested to hear the Hon. Member's comments about that.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the Hon. Member's comments. As I said in my remarks, one of the major farm organizations and the Federation of Agriculture in P.E.I. are also extremely concerned about cuts in local programming as it affects their industries. I am sure that this applies to the Hon. Member's area as well.
Many of the programs originated locally. I recall some of these programs which began years ago. I remember a documentary program about oyster culture. The commentators went to the source in that documentary film and spoke about the artificial breeding of oysters, including the rearing of larvae that were suspended in water tanks and the culture of flagellates and diatoms for the food chain. They showed the whole process, which is an extremely interesting process to those who are involved in the fishery. They showed the rearing of oysters in the rivers and estuaries, the harvesting of oysters, the cultivation in all aspects, the marketing, and how oysters are properly packaged. That is how those industries have grown over the years, Mr. Speaker. That is how the shell fish industry in Prince Edward Island has grown. It was as a result of the dissemination of information of great interest to the fishermen and to those involved in fish farming and aquaculture.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first I enjoyed the talk given by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). I always
enjoy listening to his speeches in the House. The cuts that are being made in the CBC, I think the Hon. Member will agree, are the decision of the president and the Board of Directors of the CBC and not of the Government.
Second, over the Christmas break I had the opportunity to watch CBC almost exclusively. It has some excellent programs and I agree with the Hon. Member about that. One program I want to mention especially entitled The Tin Flute was broadcast over three evenings. During those three evenings the only time I saw any commercials was on the Friday night. On Wednesday and Thursday nights there was promo after promo after promo for the same programs. These promos were shown until you were so sick of seeing them that you wanted to throw up.
Does the Hon. Member not think that the CBC could be more aggressive in marketing its very excellent products, such as The Tin Flute and seeking commercials? I am told that CBC salesmen sit on their butts. They wait for orders instead of aggressively seeking commercials for the excellent and widely-watched programs.
I am a former broadcaster. I have broadcast for a CBC affiliate and for the private sector. The private sector is very aggressive and gets commercials. This is not so for the CBC. Does the Hon. Member not think that the difference made in cuts of public expenditures could be made up by aggressive salesmanship for commercial programs?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot honestly say whether they can or cannot. I would hate to see the CBC become too commercialized. That is one of the problems you see south of the border with the independent networks. You get an awful lot of commercials. Whether there are ways for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to raise funds without ruining the intent of the program I do not know. I presume there are. If there are, why do we not ensure that that revenue is generated before making the cuts? The Hon. Member is correct. The Government made the $75 million cut. The administration of CBC and the program cuts are done within the CBC. No one is quarreling with that. I have difficulty with the decision made by the CBC because it is saying, when it makes those cuts, that the Government forced the CBC to make the cuts by cutting the budget. How that works out, I do not know.


John Horton McDermid: What about cuts in salary?


George Roland Henderson: That is the Hon. Member's suggestion. Everyone is entitled to suggestions. I am extremely concerned about the kinds of programming that the ordinary rural Canadian wants and needs to benefit not only his own personal entertainment but the kind of informational services that help small business. Cuts should not be made there.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have no argument with what the Hon. Member is saying. In this country we have a money-squeeze problem. One cannot go on spending $100 billion while taking in only $70 billion or $75 billion. Everybody has to pay his or her fair share. This is the fair share for the CBC. If the CBC wants to make up the difference, it has
February 13, 1985

the avenue to do so and should do so. The CBC has excellent programming. One prime time television we watch the same stupid promos over and over and over again. They are shown every five or six minutes and do not bring in one cent of revenue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has about 30 seconds for his question.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, I think his point is well made. This is the CRTC Bill. What we are looking for is some recourse to CBC cuts, such as the discontinuance of CBG Gander. We thought there would be a monitoring agency when the Minister announced the three-man committee and that it would monitor the cuts of the CBC. We are anxiously awaiting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott) who will be speaking in a few moments. We hope he will respond to these criticisms, and especially the closure of CBG in Gander, of particular interest to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) have a short question?


Mr. Taylor:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points. The Hon. Member mentioned the difficulty of audibility in certain areas of his province. I have a similar problem in the Lake Louise area, which is not in the far North but in the mountains. People have been trying and trying to get CBC to give them a signal that they can enjoy.
Does the Hon. Member have some way of contacting the CBC in which a government station or a station financed mostly by government money could be getting into those areas which private industry cannot reach?
One other point. When the Hon. Member talks about the CBC holding Canada together, one should remember that some of the one-sided programs the CBC has put out have hurt Confederation and will hurt it greatly if continued.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Hon. Member will be able to discuss the matter with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) after six o'clock this evening. We shall now resume debate.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be short. There are a few points, however, that I wish to put on the record.
First, it has dismayed me for some time how technological change forces governments to react. The legislation we have in front of us is a reaction. It was originally in most of its form introduced by the Liberals. That Bill was never passed, but now with some changes it has been reintroduced by the Conservative Government.
I am reminded of a committee meeting I attended around 1980. I was the critic for my Party on cultural events. I was relatively new to the ways of the House at that time. Illegal dishes were very much on everyone's mind. The then Minister
CRTC Act
in charge, Mr. Francis Fox, was threatening legal action. In this general setting, the committee met. I suggested to Minister Fox that technological changes were occurring that would greatly force changes in the objectives of our broadcasting legislation and the Broadcasting Act and that in no way was it possible for the Government to hold back and attempt to legislate technological change and innovation. I remember the Minister at the time pooh-poohed me. I suppose he was looking down at me who was then a new Member. He suggested that I did not know what I was talking about, that dishes were selling for around $100,000, were of a cumbersome size, and that outside of a few instances where they were being used, he saw no immediate danger of their being used on a massive scale. In fact, he suggested that it would take several decades before we would have to look at that problem. It has been less than five years and the size of dishes has indeed come down. They are much more attractive now. They are much smaller. The price of dishes is also coming down. I suggest that in the next number of years their size will further decrease, there will be greater mass production of them, and they will become cheaper and accessible to more and more people.
There are changes in technology. This is what broadcasting is all about or what was envisaged in broadcasting by the men and women who originally drafted the Broadcasting Act. It now gives Canadians access to channels from all over the world. The original intent of the Broadcasting Act to preserve a Canadian broadcasting system in order to maintain a Canadian cultural identity is now being threatened, not by any ideology or act of Parliament but by the technology which is becoming available. Unfortunately in this situation, as well as in many others, we have a technological imperative, which is that all governments do essentially is to react-they allow the change to occur, the crisis to be created, and then they try to fill up the holes with pieces of legislation.
When I was a new Member sitting for the first time on the committee dealing with communications and cultural events, I suggested that we really needed a new Broadcasting Act, that we had to rethink our whole notion of what is broadcasting, that we had to begin to anticipate the newer technologies which were being invented and innovated, and that we had to sit down with our political agenda to maintain a Canadian cultural identity in terms of what it meant, given the new technologies. I believe that what I called for in 1980 at that committee meeting is still very valid today. We need a new Broadcasting Act. We need some new definitions of what is broadcasting. The present legislation does not really cover it. All we have are CRTC decisions, which in essence have become policy decisions because there is a legislative vacuum and we have legislation which is inappropriate to contemporary realities.
I wish to reaffirm-and I believe most Members of the House feel the same way-that in order to maintain a unique Canadian identity, Parliament has a responsibility. First, it is in the national interest, as well as in our economic, social and cultural interests, to maintain a Canadian identity. We should

February 13, 1985
CRTCAct
not be swallowed up in the mass broadcasting cultural milieu which is being created south of the border. In order to withstand that very powerful magnetism, we need collective action as a nation. We need clear and distinct government policies which ensure a Canadian cultural identity supported by the arts and institutions such as the Canadian Arts Council and the CBC. These are essential instruments in maintaining our cultural identity.
Of course there will be a price to pay for this. There is no doubt about it. Some of the decisions the Government and Parliament will have to make are: How much are we prepared to pay, or how important is it for us to maintain that cultural identity? I believe that it is very important. Without a cultural identity we will eventually begin to lose our political and economic identity, as well as our economic and political freedoms. Cultural identity is just as important as economic and political freedoms. I am prepared to pay a price for that, whether it be $35, $40 or $50 a year because it is that important to me.
I agree with many government Members who were quick to point out some of the shortcomings within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC needs a bit of a shake-up. It has become like an old mother hen. There are folks in there whose creative energies have long gone. It needs some new excitement, some innovation and some new creative impulses. That Corporation needs some new blood, but cutting is not injecting new blood; it is just bleeding. We have to inject new blood. This does not mean that we should take blood out, because that weakens an important instrument which maintains our Canadian cultural identity. I do not believe the Government knows what it is doing. It has to sit down and rethink the nature of broadcasting and the meaning of technological change. It should rethink how it can best act in these changes to ensure the maintenance of the Canadian cultural identity and what it can do to change the CBC to make it more effective and attractive to the Canadian viewing audience so that it can maintain its audiences, not lose them to American programming.
These are not easy questions to answer. I am not saying that they are. This is why I reacted with horror to the simplistic solution of the Government to hack away at the CBC and somehow or other it would be able to set its house in order. That is irresponsible behaviour.
I am hoping for some wisdom on the part of the Government and some realization that CBC is important as a cultural institution, that the Canadian cultural identity is important, and that these matters should be handled with care and great consideration.
I do not dispute that our scarce resources, especially taxpayers' money, should be husbanded and managed carefully. I was as horrified as members of the Conservative Party when we saw the waste of previous Liberal Governments, but I find the Tory solution just as repugnant. Husbanding and preserving means that things should be done with a lot of consideration and care. I think what we have seen is blind chopping away rather than careful husbanding and preserving.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member dwelt for some time on the way in which the CBC was created. Could he tell us whether some of the cuts he mentioned in his speech will affect regional programming or jobs in the area which he represents?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. We in western Canada have always fought to have more regional broadcasting in Saskatchewan. That occurred under the Liberal administration as well. There was a tremendous push toward greater centralization out of the major offices in Toronto and Montreal. I know people in Regina within the CBC who had to fight tooth and nail to preserve some of the turf, so to speak, in western Canada.
They have had to cut programs. Some of those cuts were occurring because of the policies of the previous administration. The Tories have made a bad situation even worse. We are going to have even less local and regional broadcasting and programs than before.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to consult my colleague for his opinion on the effect of these cut-backs. He knows that investigative journalism within the CBC was cut with the encouragement of the previous administration, and, I presume, the management of the CBC. Investigative journalism groups, especially in CBC Radio, were instrumental in changing the face of Canada to some degree. A small group attached to CBC Sunday Morning was able to get spruce bud worm spraying cut in half in New Brunswick after doing detailed research into it. This investigative journalism research presented on CBC Sunday Morning over a period of three years won a battle for the atomic veterans of Canada. It is now understood that most of this money-and maybe my colleague can verify this-for investigative journalism within the CBC was drawn off into that big toothy grin of the program The Journal. Many of the programs have suffered. Now the whole CBC will be called into question. It is probably one of the finest organizations in Canada. The cut-backs will gut that organization to the bottom.
I know the Hon. Member is from a rural area. In many areas of this country, there is still no television. The only sort of intellectual stimulation and quality programming comes from CBC Radio. In my area, we receive radio signals from the United States such as Los Angeles much better than we do the CBC. Is it fair that the Conservative Government should encourage these kinds of deep cut-backs that would destroy the kind of quality produced by the CBC, especially the loss of investigative journalism as one example, and the failure to provide decent radio communication, in particular in the rural areas of Canada?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed. I deeply regret the cuts, particularly in the area of investigative journalism. The CBC in Saskatchewan has played an important role, as part of the fifth estate, of being able to develop stories, develop issues and do the important job that good investigative journalism is
February 13, 1985

all about. The CBC in Saskatchewan has also had its scoops, so to speak, and has contributed to the well-being of the public as a whole in doing so.
As well, the cuts will affect rural areas, particularly areas in northern Saskatchewan. Native programming and northern programs are all under the axe. These are areas that are on the fringe, at least geographically, of mainstream Canadian society. These are the areas that really constitute the vast majority, in terms of geography, of this country. If we want to keep this country together, one of the essential threads in keeping that fabric together is the CBC.
When you start cutting out that thread, what you do is to increase the sense of isolation and the sense of alienation the different geographical sectors of this country will feel. Instead of helping to create a quilt of the many different parts that constitute Canada, you will loosen those ties which contribute to the sense of cohesion that we need in Canada in order to survive as a country and as a national entity.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments on the very perceptive observations of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). He points out quite rightly that legislation lags behind technology. He points to the day when you will be able to buy for $25 a little instrument about the size of a cigarette package that you can stick on your windowsill which will enable you to tune in to any one of 250 satellites.
What this is going to bring to Canadians is freedom of choice. The Government in its wisdom, or lack thereof, will no longer be able to say, "There are four broadcasters operating in this area. We will insist that you carry so much Canadian content. We will tell you which programs you can broadcast and which ones you cannot". At that time, and the circumstances apply very much today in many areas, people will be able to turn off or tune in to whatever they want.
This will bring freedom of choice to Canadians. It means that the Government will not be able to dictate what people listen to or look at over television. If the Government or the people of Canada think it is important that there be Canadian content, the only way that will be possible will be to have programs that the people themselves want to listen to or watch.
I wonder whether there is a better way of ensuring that this happens than by putting a billion dollars or thereabout of public funds into the CBC to produce a broadcasting system which people very often choose not to listen to or look at. In the city I come from, the CBC spends a lot of money. The little local broadcasting station will pick up about 85 per cent of the listening audience on CBC. Might it not be possible to reallocate some of that billion dollars of public funds into some other mechanism whereby programs can be picked up by private broadcasters, the public funds can be used better, and proper Canadian content is ensured?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I generally have no objection to the comments and suggestions made by the Hon. Member. I think we need new and creative approaches. I entirely agree that making it illegal to receive signals from all over the world
CRTC Act
just will not work. It is like King Canute telling the ocean waves to stand back. You can do that until doomsday, but it just will not happen.
We have to create programs that people want to watch. That means many new approaches. For example, some things prevented the CBC from airing National Film Board films. That was stupid. Some of the private production houses in this country have produced some really good material.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Questions and comments have now terminated.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today and take this opportunity to address myself to Bill C-20. I will begin by telling the Hon. Member who sat down just a few moments ago that I appreciated very much his comments with respect to this matter, as indeed I have taken a great deal of interest in the comments of many Members in this House.
When one separates the wheat from the chaff in the discussion that has occurred in this debate and separates the partisan comments where Members find themselves in the position of either defending or denouncing government measures and cut-backs, one discovers that throughout the debate in the comments of every Member of Parliament who has spoken there is an abiding appreciation of the important place that the CBC, the National Film Board, the Canadian film and Video Certification Offices, the Canada Council and many other cultural organizations and mass media organizations play-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If hon. gentlemen would like to carry on a conversation, they can go behind the curtain or into the lobby. I would like to hear the speech of the Hon. Member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, one has no trouble realizing that the role which these various institutions play within Canada is appreciated by all Members of the House. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) indicated to two Members of the House that he wants to ensure that Canadians have freedom of choice. He wants to see an end to the day when the Minister of Communications, or another Minister of the Government of Canada, can dictate to Canadians what they should watch. I think it is fair to say that 85 per cent of the population of this country has complete freedom of choice, or as much freedom as can reasonably be expected, with respect to viewing television channels or listening to radio stations.
I am a bit worried, if the Hon. Member is suggesting that cutting back the CBC, funds to the National Film Board or the National Arts Centre to make those institutions more competitive and having the CBC compete against other networks will somehow improve the means of communication in Canada. In a very large chunk of the country, including the area which I represent-the west coast of Newfoundland and the great northern peninsula of Newfoudland and the western Arctic from which the Hon. Member hails as well as parts of

February 13, 1985
CRTC Act
western Canada, the citizens in many communities have no other communication option but the CBC. When we talk about the billion dollar budget of the CBC and make comparisons between the CBC needs for that money to provide the nation with a national network and CTV or Global-TV being able to do it for less, we are forgetting that there is only one communications network in the country that has a mandate, responsibility and obligation to provide television in every community which has over 500 people from one end of Canada to the other. CBC is also the only radio network that has the obligation and responsibility to provide programming from one end of Canada to the other.
It is a bit short-sighted and nefarious to say that, because the CBC is approaching a billion dollars in spending, it must necessarily be fat. The CTV is not providing programming in the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, the Port au Port Peninsula of Newfoundland, the south coast of Newfoundland or the Bay of Islands of Newfoundland. In fact, a large number of rural regions in Canada do not receive programming from CTV, Global-TV or private radio networks. The reason is simple. The private networks are licensed and regulated by the CRTC, but they are quite rightly in the business of making a buck. If there are not advertising dollars to justify providing television signals across 500 miles of rugged coastline on the northern peninsula to 30,000 people, then those networks will not be there. But the CBC, with its so-called fat budget, is there because it has to be there. It does not make money providing a signal to Labrador, to the great northern peninsula, the Port au Port Peninsula, the Gaspe, northern New Brunswick or the western Arctic. But it is there. It is the only network in the country which ensures that Canadians, no matter where they live, can be assured of a basic service. Therefore, it is a fundamental mistake to stand in the House and talk about the CBC in terms of its efficiency versus that of the private networks. It is in a totally different business.
I have had the pleasure and the honour of working for both the CTV and the CBC networks. There is no question that in some regions CBC is better outfitted, that its equipment is more modern and its facilities are up to date. However, when I worked for CTV in the Province of Newfoundland, with the budget we had, we tried to put on the best news casts we could provide. We were not concerned about whether or not St. Anthony had a reporter or whether any of the reporters ever saw St. Anthony, Newfoundland. In fact, the CTV network today, in a province as rural as Newfoundland, including Labrador, has one team of reporters in the capital city of St. John's. By contrast, CBC has stations in St. John's, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Labrador City and Goose Bay. Members may not appreciate that, but I am attempting to point out that on a per capita basis CBC spends much more money in providing the service to the people of Newfoundland. Everybody in Newfoundland receives equal service, which is not the case when a private network is involved.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic suggested that if CBC wants to maintain its share of the market it must
compete on an entertainment basis and that it must provide an equal entertainment value for people to make a choice. When Canadians are given the choice between Canadian-produced programs and American produced programs, they respond dramatically and watch the Canadian-produced programs. The national news reaches 1.8 million people in the country on most week nights. The Journal reaches 4 million Canadians per week, with almost 1.6 million people watching every night. The Fifth Estate reaches 1.5 million people. Fraggle Rock reaches 1,600,000 Canadians. Canadians are responding to Canadian-produced programs. But if we think that we are going to change CBC, the Canadian film industry or the National Film Board, or enhance Canadian culture without first doing an analysis of what is required within the industry, and understanding the ramifications of cutting dollars to the Canadian film industry and how those dollars ripple down through what is still a very fragile industry, then I am sorry because that is not the way to do it.
We should not forget that we share a border with a fascinating neighbour to the south which has a population of 250 million people. The United States has very well established and well oiled broadcasting film and entertainment industries. In Canada we have only begun to make headway in recent years. If we think that by cutting back we will make the Canadian industry more competitive, then I am sorry. I share with Members opposite the concern that we must ensure that we get a better bang for our buck with respect to the current budget of the CBC. I also share the belief that we can get much better value for our dollars from the CBC. I believe as well that it is not being irresponsible to suggest that there is fat within the CBC to be cut, particularly on the administration side, but I do not think that having the Minister, one month after the election, start by arbitrarily picking $85 million out of the air and having a panic reaction as to where cuts should be made within the organization, is doing any kind of service to the people of our country.
My riding has a population of 90,000 people. My constituency has 500 miles of coastline, and over 50 per cent of its communities have a population of under 1,000 people. It is difficult enough to try to service that area and ensure that those Canadians living along the 500 miles of coastline have their right to be heard, and have not only their problems aired but their aspirations reported, not only in their own home province but across this nation. The CBC has one station in the City of Corner Brook. But when these cut-backs were announced, arbitrarily and without proper consultation, what happened, Mr. Speaker? We were told that that station will have five personnel wiped out. If the 90,000 people in my riding lived in four city blocks, I would not be upset, but they do not, they live along 500 miles of coastline. That one station is now left with a handful of reporters who are trying to give decent coverage and representation to people who live all the way from Burgeo on the south coast to St. Anthony and southern Labrador in the northern peninsula. That is an impossible task, Mr. Speaker. For most Canadians who live in
February 13, 1985

urban settings and high-density population areas, access to media can be had as quickly as it takes to make a telephone call or to call a press conference. That is not the case for the people on the great northern peninsula, whose aspirations and problems are as legitimate as the aspirations and problems of someone living in Toronto, Vancouver or St. John's, Newfoundland. For my constituents to take advantage of their broadcasting system and their right to be heard, it requires making an appointment. In other words, if someone lives in St. Anthony, and if a newsworthy event happens, it gets reported a week later. If someone is anticipating something newsworthy occurring, an appointment has to be made with the CBC. That kind of situation can only worsen.
When I tell this kind of story about the CBC's mandate and the incredible cost of providing coverage to those areas, I am not speaking just about Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe or just about Newfoundland. The same is true in northern British Columbia, the northern provinces of western Canada and, indeed, in some parts of northern Ontario and Quebec. Canadians who live in my part of the country and resign themselves nightly to only one choice when watching television, namely the CBC, very often engage in a favourite pastime. It is called "cursing the CBC" My friend, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic smiles. But it needs to be said, Mr. Speaker, that even though they must watch the same programs night after night, the CBC is there providing the signal. The other private networks are not. Although these people get tired of watching the same channel, the programming nature of the CBC, whether it be regionally developed entertainment or news programs, at least makes it possible to see a reflection of themselves, their communities, their aspirations and, indeed, the problems they confront on a day-to-day basis. There is a very deep and abiding appreciation of the value of having the CBC, be it radio or television, in the northern areas.
When we look at the breakdown of the $85 million cuts being proposed for the CBC, we find the figures rather interesting. We see $30 million being cut from administration. I cannot comment on that. I do not think anyone in this House can properly comment on that. It seems a good area at which to target a cut-back because there has not been a proper debate or an impartial investigation. The Minister appointed loggers, axemen, to decide where the cut-backs are to be made. We see $15.5 million being cut from network programming, Mr. Speaker. What does that mean? It means that in the areas where Canadians can avail themselves of a dozen TV channels, there is a $15.5 million cut across the board. We see a $10.4 million cut from regional programming. What does that mean? It means that in those parts of this country where people cannot avail themselves of a dozen or two dozen different stations or channels, in those parts of the country where the only available network is CBC Radio or television, $10.4 million is slashed.
In the case of the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), it does not mean that they are going to lose two or three jobs at CBG Gander; it
CRTCAct
means CBG Gander is closing outright. It means that the people who live in the great community of Gander in the area of Notre Dame Bay, the fishermen who depend upon the CBC to be heard, to get weather forecasts, cannot do so any longer. On the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the great historic fishing area of Newfoundland, the people no longer have access, except by long distance telephone, to any means of communication with people outside of their own rural-and I emphasize "isolated"-communities. That is what it means, Mr. Speaker. The $10.4 million cut means that for the people of Labrador West in the Towns of Labrador City and Wabush, where the Iron Ore Co. of Canada is located-which used to be run by a gentleman who has now gained a new distinction in this country-jobs have been lost. The towns are flat on their back and the local economy has been crushed. It means they have not only lost the Iron Ore Co. of Canada they have not only seen a devastating blow struck at Wabush Mines, they have not only lost their jobs and their hope and dignity, but they cannot tell anyone about it anymore. And I am talking about the area where the former President of IOCC, Mr. Mulroney, used to-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) used to manage affairs, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He didn't manage them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mismanaged or managed affairs, Mr. Speaker. But these people can no longer be heard. I do not want to be partisan, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You wouldn't know how to be partisan.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I really think those Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, should stop and appreciate the fact that in a province of 500,000 souls, a province about to embark on new prosperity- as the Prime Minister and the Premier told us a few days ago-and which is about to explode into the 20th century, into the mainstream of Canadian society, we in Newfoundland have seen dramatic cut-backs in regional programming, dramatic cut-backs in our ability to express ourselves to our fellow Canadians, and we are concerned that we may not be able to share the message, the dream and the success story which is about to unfold-if we believe the Premier of Newfoundland, God forbid. These cut-backs should not go ahead without proper consultation, without proper consideration here in the richness of Parliament Hill and the splendour of the House of Commons, without knowing how the cut-backs will impact on the loneliest fisherman on the bill of Cape St. George on the Port-au-Port Peninsula.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?

February 13, 1985
CRTC Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as all Members know, certainly we on this side of the House have no intention of being partisan in the questions we ask. The Hon. Member has outlined very succinctly the difficulties with respect to the isolation faced by the fishermen of Newfoundland and how important it is for them to get signals from the outside. However, as an Ontarian who has often enjoyed the political commentary that we hear from Newfoundland on CBC Radio, I wonder if the Hon. Member could elaborate on what role the CBC has played, not only in getting information to Newfoundland but in getting the message of Newfoundland politicians out to the country at large.
I have often enjoyed the turn of phrase which has been utilized by my hon. colleague here today. I think this is a hallmark of debate and discussion in the legislature in Newfoundland. Certainly having had the pleasure in the past of hearing one of the great orators of all time in the person of Joey Smallwood, I think that kind of message has been disseminated largely through the radio programs of the CBC. Could the Hon. Member comment on whether he feels the CBC has played any role in getting Newfoundland's message out to other Canadians?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her questions. They are most appropriate. There are two stories to be told. Not only has the CBC allowed Newfoundlanders the opportunity, which opportunity they have of course taken advantage of, to ensure that the threads which make up the Canadian mosaic include Newfoundland threads, but it has also allowed us to provide our own unique and distinctive flavour to this mosaic. As well, Newfoundlanders, because of the CBC facilities, have had a chance to communicate with each other on the Island. I think we often forget that until 1965 the people of Newfoundland were not even connected by highway. Until 15 years ago there were still large parts of the northeastern coast which had no road connections. In my own riding, the great northern peninsula has been accessible by road only in the last 15 years. So the role of the CBC has been important in terms of sharing our thoughts and views with our fellow Canadians, as well as those other things which make us distinct and unique and, I hope, interesting.
The CBC has also provided Newfoundlanders with the chance to talk to each other. Some great and very popular cultural organizations have grown out of the facilities provided by the CBC. I think of the wonderful Grand Band in Newfoundland and some theatre groups like Codco and Rising Tide Theatre, one of which was here just a few years ago with the play Joey which sold out at the National Arts Centre. Incidentally, this is another organization subjected to severe cut-backs as outlined by the current Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse).
I said earlier that as a Newfoundlander I am not inward looking about the effects of these cut-backs on my province only. I know the story which can be told about the cut-backs in Newfoundland, the effect on fishermen and people in the forest industry, as well as the thousands of fishermen on boats at sea who depend upon the fishermen's broadcast every night
to stay in touch with their families, receive messages and find out what the weather is going to be. I know that story can be told all across this country and I do not think we have taken a sufficiently serious and hard look at what the impact will be before we rush ahead with simply cutting dollars. We have also wrongly been comparing CBC service with that being provided by private networks. The private networks are wonderful, God bless them, but they are not in St. Anthony, not on the bill of Cape St. George, and they are not in the Western Arctic. CBC has that mandate and it is expensive programming to provide.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I also wish the Hon. Member, our communications critic, would elaborate on the role of the CBC. During the debate on the Constitution, and the decision by Nova Scotia, and the support given by the former Prime Minister . .. Newfoundland's decision and the support shown by the former Liberal Minister ... and I think we should remember here in the House that it was always the Progressive Conservative Party that was against Newfoundland joining Confederation.
Could the Hon. Member be more specific and say whether the CBC has played a role since Newfoundland decided to join Confederation with the support of our former Premier, Mr. Smallwood and the Liberal Party in Newfoundland? Was the CBC instrumental in enhancing the feeling of the people of Newfoundland that they are still part of Canada, this great country of ours? And will this feeling be affected by the Conservative Government's decision to make cuts in the CBC's budget?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the CBC has been there with respect to any historical event. It has provided as wide and diverse news coverage as possible. The CBC has served as a vehicle for national unity in this country, and in fact within provincial boundaries. However, I would not want to give the impression, because I have been the defender of the CBC today, that I have always been happy with the CBC. It would have been an amazing thing to have applied to my arm two or three days before the last federal election something to check my blood pressure while I was watching the CBC polls being broadcast across this country. As a Liberal candidate in the great riding of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, it is a very disconcerting thing to see your demise forecast even before the grand event took place. I would not want to suggest in any way, shape or form that I am a blind advocate of everything the CBC has ever said or done and that they have always been right. Of course they have been wrong on occasion and I am here to prove it.
Unlike the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), Mr. Speaker, whose only interest in the CBC seems to be to save the jobs of highly paid management people-at least that was one of the messages I took from his comments a
February 13, 1985

few minutes ago-I am more concerned about the real benefits-


Raymond John Skelly: A point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member's remarks are not only inaccurate and completely outrageous but he has misled the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that that is not a point of order, it is debate. The Hon. Member has 30 seconds in which to complete his comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I gave you that in the 30 seconds.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, one minute. I started-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Horton McDermid: Are you questioning the Speaker?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, I am not questioning-I have the greatest respect for this particular Speaker. In fact, there is no gentleman I respect more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to say the Hon. Member has 15 seconds.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if I only have 15 seconds, let me say that another reason for the existence of the CBC and a benefit of the CBC is that it can show all Canadians the fairness, great eloquence and articulation of one of the finest
CRTC Act
men who ever sat in the Chair in this House of Commons, namely, Mr. Speaker!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the time for questions and comments has been terminated. It is now debate and I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker... First of all, could I have the Chair's attention? Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member to realize that according to the Standing Orders all speeches will now be of 10 minutes' duration.
Would the House like to call it six o'clock?


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that, whenever the Government decides to call Bill C-20 again, the Hon. Member will have the floor first and he will be allowed a full 10 minutes, since he has not spoken yet?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, the Hon. Member is correct.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 14, 1985