1985-02-01

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Hamilton and all those concerned with the Canadian steel industry, to express my regret over the Government's inaction with respect to the United States Trade and Tariff Act (1984). If this law goes into effect, steel products entering the United States will be required to have their country of origin stamped on them. This new, non-tariff barrier will cost the Canadian industry millions of dollars to comply with, and risk those markets where unmarked steel is required. This will end up costing Canadians steel jobs.
There was a presentation made last week at the Canadian Embassy to U.S. Customs officials about the implications of these new regulations. The Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) was visibly absent from this presentation. If the Government is at all concerned about this issue, then the very least it could do is to have the Minister personally lead the lobby to protect Canadian jobs. I might add that in the document presented this week discussing international trade, the whole steel question was left completely untouched, another indication of the Government's disinterest and lack of commitment on this issue.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) claims the Government is approaching the issue with vigour, but its actions fall far short. I believe the Canadian Government should start to take a tougher stand with the U.S. Government on this issue and stop the smoke and mirrors approach which has been taken to date, before thousands of steel jobs in Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie, Nova Scotia, and across the country are lost.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on his decision regarding metric conversion.
As a defender of consumer interests and as someone who, as former President of the Association des services de l'automo-bile du Quebec, has been involved for many years in these issues, I think this is a real victory for the small retailer. It is the first time any Minister has shown so much consideration for the interests of small retail businesses. I therefore wish to thank the Minister on behalf of all small retailers in Quebec and across Canada.
The Minister, in his wisdom, has been careful to consider the interests and wishes of the majority of intervenors in this controversial issue. This will be an opportunity for small retailers to better identify with consumer needs without having to ask the permission of the multinationals first. From now on, they will be free of this obligation.


THE LATE FRANK SCOTT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday our country lost a truly magnificent human being. Frank Scott, poet, professor of constitutional law, champion of civil rights, and a social democrat, died at his home in Westmount.
This "rebel without a pause" took on and defeated Maurice Duplessis in a historic civil rights battle that we now know as the Padlock case.
In the words of Tommy Douglas, he was the Canadian intellectual stimulus of the 1930s and 1940s.
His friend and associate, Charles Taylor, describes Frank Scott in these words: "He was this very strange and wonderful mixture of very high social and political aspiration with this streak of clear eyed perception of human failings, all with a sense of humour."
He was the two-time winner of the Governor General's award for literature, and by his actions and deeds he influenced the course of history. As fellow poet Louis Dudek said: "I feel he is going to rise to mythical greatness."
February 1, 1985

In Frank Scott's own words:
From those condemned to labour For profit of another We take our new endeavour.
For sect and class and pattern Through whom the strata harden We sharpen now the weapon.
Till power is brought to pooling And outcasts share in ruling There will not be an ending Nor any peace for spending.
On behalf of my colleagues, and I hope on behalf of the House of Commons and the people of Canada, we express to his wife Marian, and his son Peter, our condolences, and a grateful thanks for the inspiration that he was.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEED TO RECEIVE TELEVISED NEWSCASTS FROM ALL REGIONS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to express our appreciation for the excellent television facilities available to each Member of Parliament on the Hill. However, I think the service should be expanded. As it is now, we can view the news on television stations from Ottawa, Hull, Kingston, Toronto, and Montreal. This kind of coverage is adequate when you want to know what is happening in central Canada, but what are the news and views in the West, the Maritimes or on the Prairies?
I am sure the technology is available to make the information available, at minimal cost to the Canadian taxpayer. In fact it is a simple and practical way for Canadians to keep their Members of Parliament informed on local opinion.
Canada stretches from sea to sea.
[ Translation]
This House represents Canadians "A mari usque ad mare". [English]
We came to Ottawa to represent our ridings, Mr. Speaker, not to be excommunicated from them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, very soon the Government of Canada will reach an agreement with Newfoundland on the offshore. We expect the agreement will be signed this month. We know that the companies will require a deal which stands up for the long
term and cannot be changed, before they will be prepared to invest. But still we have many unanswered questions.
Will there be, as we hear, a fund of $500 million in new money for Newfoundland from the Government of Canada, which will be used for infrastructure, for example, to build highways such as the TransLabrador Highway? Will that fund be there, and how much will it cover? Who will set the royalties, and what will they be? Will there be a special component for the training of young people in Newfoundland so they can take jobs in the offshore?
The Minister should now instruct Mobil Oil to release its environmental impact study, which she has received, so we can begin that debate with full knowledge of what the future holds for us in my province, because this will affect our lives so greatly.
[DOT] (mo)
The Minister should give assurance that when this deal is concluded, and before it is signed, we will have an opportunity to judge, on the contents of that deal, whether or not it is good for us. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, never have so many known so little about a matter that affects them so greatly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Monday, February 4 will begin the fortieth anniversary of the Yalta Conference. In 1945, at that Crimean centre, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Marshal Stalin met for eight days to plan what would follow victory. Yalta was one of the most significant summit meetings in the 20th century. It led to the bifurcation of Europe by that iron curtain which still shuts eastern Europe off from the West.
I speak of it in the House of Commons because of all the Canadians who trace their heritage back to those countries still dominated by the Red Army. Many of these Canadians are to be found in Scarborough, as they are in most of our communities. In the past 17 years many people have wondered where the Canadian Government stood on the Soviet threat to their homelands. In 1985, the fortieth anniversary of Yalta, let there be no doubt that Canada still looks for that time when the Red Star will not fill the sky over eastern Europe.


FINANCE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, one of the main themes of last summer's election was the issue of fair taxation. Specifically at issue was the level of tax loopholes and opportunities for tax deferrals which were allowed for large corporations in the mistaken belief that they would
February 1, 1985

trickle down to provide jobs for ordinary Canadians. In response to this agenda, which was set by the New Democratic Party, the then Minister of Finance was quoted as saying that a thorough review of tax breaks for private industry was needed "to determine where the system is being abused". To my knowledge this report has yet to be released.
An example I could draw to the Minister's attention would be that of the iron ore mine in the community of Ear Falls, owned by Stelco, which recently announced large lay-offs, to be followed by a complete closure of the mine in April, 1986. The statements of this company show $390 million in accumulated deferred taxes. The Minister of Finance should send a clear message to the corporate taxpayers of the country that the Government of Canada will no longer allow tax breaks for corporations that cut back significantly on the number of workers they employ. This message must be reflected in the Budget this spring.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of importance to the people of my riding of Niagara Falls, and to the people of this country, that is, the practice of publishing the names of individuals who are charged with Criminal Code offences. We are all aware of the devastating effects this can have, not only on the individual, but on the friends and relatives of the accused as well. In the public's eye the presumption of innocence may be lost. It is little comfort that the accused may establish his innocence at some point in the future. The damage has been done.
Recently in the city of St. Catharines, 32 individuals were charged with the commission of sexual offences. Their names were immediately made public. The loss of reputation and the anguish are a high price to pay. I would suggest it is too high a price without a conviction.
It is pointed out that there may be a restriction of the public's right to know, or of the freedom of the press. Those are important rights that should never be treated lightly. However, there is the right of the individual, and his protection should be paramount. Therefore, I would urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), my colleagues on the Justice Committee, and other Members of the House to consider amendments to the Criminal Code that would prohibit the publication of an accused's name unless there is a conviction.
[ Translation]


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government continues to keep Canadians confused by allowing a return to the old system of imperial measures. Quite obviously, the Government will always have double standards, yet most Canadians had already accepted the metric system, which happens to be the most widely used worldwide. This return to the past is one of the few election promises honoured by the Progressive Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, one might wonder whether this change has been made to bail out the gas station operated by 37 Conservative Members who seemed to have trouble competing against metric service stations.
[English)
It is becoming increasingly obvious, Mr. Speaker, that returning to the imperial system is a pretty "Domm" idea.


RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern with respect to the future of the Baha i faith in Iran. The 300,000 members of the Baha'i faith have been denied recognition under the Iranian constitution, and are now being persecuted as an entire community.
Unless their problem receives recognition, the Baha'is could eventually cease to exist as a distinct entity and face the same fate which the Falasha Jews almost encountered in Ethiopia.
The Toronto Star reported on January 30 that Iran has become the first country to denounce the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, effectively shutting off current United Nations investigations into any claims.
The Baha'is are expressly forbidden by their religion to take part in politics, and are commanded to obey civilian authorities, thus posing no threat to Iran.
On behalf of the Baha'i community in Toronto, Canada, and the rest of the world, I urge the Government of Canada to take initiatives in the international community to ensure that the Baha'is are not discriminated against in Iran.

February 1, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday was a sad day. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted to protect all Canadians, however humble, weak, and unpopular, from abusive legislation and from oppressive, unfair Government policies.
Yesterday, with a phony consultation proposal, the Government dealt a blow to fairness and justice in Canada. A normally courageous Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)-I say that kindly-is guilty of a cynical and cowardly act, using consultation to avoid the responsibility of Government. He has championed the cause-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have finished the period for statements. I must ask the Hon. Member to come to a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Will he reconsider the decision he made yesterday to champion popular causes but to abandon the weak to consultation? Will he reconsider that, and bring forward legislation required by the Charter to eliminate the abuses in existing legislation and policies of this Parliament and of the Government?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, one can hardly take the hon. gentleman seriously. His Government had two years and a number of months to do something on this issue. Since the time the Charter of Rights was adopted and when they left office last September, where were they? What had been done? What was the state of preparation? The Hon. Member should be on his knees thanking me for having made so much progress in five months, compared to the wasted two years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Minister knows that the former Government had directed officials to prepare legislation to review and correct all of the statutes that needed correction. There was no suggestion that in dealing with the unpopular, the weak, and oppressed, there would be a consultation paper. Will the Minister look at these causes, take the legal advice which he has been given and bring the legislation forward?
What is the point of having consultation when the Charter is already established as the law of the land? What is achieved by forcing the weak and the oppressed to come forward to Parliament once again, and also to go to court, to plead for a justice that the Minister is denying them?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman reminds one of the weak and the oppressed by the mean spirited way that he is approaching this whole situation. The legislation was introduced to the House yesterday in order to amend over 50 statutes. A discussion paper has been tabled in the House so that the public will have a chance to express their views on how certain very important issues that are not clear can be determined.
Public policy choices must be made. We want the Canadian people to be involved in this process, not just some little secret coterie of Liberals, scuttling around in a dark basement somewhere, deciding our destiny. We want the Canadian people, through a committee of the House, and we want Members of the House, to help us in this process, rather than a secret group in some subterranean basement, such as the hon. gentleman would prefer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Minister knows that he is violating the spirit of the Charter. He is subjecting these groups to the very fate from which the Charter was meant to protect them, from the whims of public opinion, and the possible tyranny of the majority.


LEGAL OPINIONS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has legal opinions telling him what he is required to do and what changes are required to be made. Will he table those legal opinions so that the Canadian people can see the very things he is refusing to take the courage to do?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer a question that does not have any specificity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh;


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know to which legal opinions the hon. gentleman is referring. I have tabled in this House an interesting document entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law that raises serious questions. On our side of the House there are 211 Members who want to discuss them and want to consult with the public, and involve the public in the process. On that side of the House there are 70 scared people who do not want to discuss this with the public and make recommendations. The Hon. Member ought to put himself on the line, if he is on the committee, and let us know what he thinks of these issues. Do not be afraid of the job. Get on with it, and report as soon as possible to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 1, 1985


MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Earlier this week Pierre Marc Johnson, the Quebec Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, stated that Article 23 of the Charter of Rights would be part of the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa. As the Prime Minister knows, Article 23 deals with minority language rights, and last July the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canada Clause in Article 23 would take precedence over the Quebec Clause in Bill 101.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether in fact minority language rights, the Canada Clause, will be part of those negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa? If so, will he assure this House that nothing will be done to weaken the application of the Canada Clause in Quebec?
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no request from the Government of Quebec and certainly not the specific kind of request mentioned today by the Hon. Member. I assume he spoke in good faith, and while I am prepared to listen to his claims and views, I think I should refrain from commenting on speculation by the media. However, I think I can inform the Hon. Member that my personal position and that of my colleagues has always been clearly in favour of protecting our language minorities, wherever they may be.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has stated that he is in favour of minority language rights but he has failed to give the House the assurance that nothing will be done to weaken the application of the full Canada Clause in Quebec. I want that assurance.
May I ask, if language rights are part of negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa, will the Prime Minister raise two other matters in those discussions? First, will he try to have Quebec apply the full rights under Article 23 in accordance with Article 59 of the Charter, all those minority language rights in education which apply in the other provinces, so that they will also apply in Quebec? Will the Prime Minister do that?
Second, will the Prime Minister request the Quebec Government to stop its appeal against the McKenna judgment, the judgment of Judge Boudreault in the Superior Court of Quebec ruled that bilingual signs should be legal in Quebec? Will the Prime Minister try to get the Quebec Government to agree to the good sense in the Boudreault judgment as well as the full application of Article 23?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that my hon. friend would seriously want me
Oral Questions
to try to insinuate myself in the process involving provincial Governments and their rights to go to court, and our right either to oppose or approve such issues.
I want to tell my hon. friend that as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party I campaigned across the country, and in particular in the Province of Quebec, as someone who stood at all times for a united Canada where all minorities would be treated fairly. This Government will do nothing to diminish the rights of any Canadian with regard to his or her citizenship, and his or her right to be heard, to express himself or herself at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING OF LITIGATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I found it passing strange to hear the Liberal spokesperson talking about the weak, the unpopular, and the oppressed, given the failure of his Government to take any action whatsoever on that important question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (U25)


Svend Johannes Robinson: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, Canadian women and minorities-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Did you get that from the CIA, Svend?


Mr. Chretien:: You voted against it; you voted no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Penner:: This man is against the Charter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Burnaby on a question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yesterday, Canadian women and minorities, including the elderly, homosexuals, lesbians, and the disabled, were told that they must keep waiting for full equality before the law, equality they thought was guaranteed to them by the Charter of Rights. Since the Government's failure to amend federal legislation will force these groups into the courts to fight for full equality, is the Government prepared to establish a significant fund to assist these litigants in establishing their rights to full equality, or will these rights only be available to those who can afford a lawyer to advocate on their behalf?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we just had an example of the obnoxious shouting down of the weak and the oppressed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: With rspect to the hon. gentleman's question, no one is going to be forced into the courts, as he puts it. On April 17 the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will come into effect. At that time, whatever rights

February 1, 1985
Oral Questions
that establishes will be in full force and effect in Canada. The question will be: what is the meaning of the equality provisions of the Charter?
For the next 100 years Canadians will be discovering the full meaning of the Charter, just as in the United States of America they are still exploring what the Bill of Rights means. In the meantime we have a discussion paper which deals with very serious policy questions, where there are arguments on both sides. It is not clear that some of these particular matters at issue are contrary to the Charter. We will not know that, perhaps until the courts deal with the matters.
In the meantime, Members of the House, through the committee, will be able to take representations from the public, from women's groups and from the handicapped, as to their views on how these issues should be dealt with. The public of Canada will become involved and educated on these issues. The committee will report back to the House, and the Government will bring in further legislation later this year. What better, more democratic, fairer process could we properly use?


DEPARTMENTAL STUDIES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister might answer the question with respect to a fund to assist litigants to establish their rights.
Given the fact that the Minister has indicated that his Department has conducted extensive studies into the implications of the Charter for a whole range of federal statutes, will he undertake that the special committee, which will be established to review the issues raised in the discussion paper, will have available to it all studies and background information prepared by his Department on the important question of the implications of Section 15 for Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of funding, as the hon. gentleman knows, the only funding Government has provided to litigants has concerned the question of bilingualism, language questions. Whether or not there should be any extension of that beyond that particular issue will have to be decided. The Secretary of State, a man of broad, humanitarian principles, is also responsible for the status of women. He is a mighty volcano in Cabinet on that question, ready to explode at any moment. He is considering that issue together with the Department of Justice. When a decision is made it will be announced.
As to back-up material and assistance from the Department of Justice, there is a nine-person unit which has dealt with the issue of the Charter. They will certainly be available. Other Ministers and Departments involved will be available as well. We will assist the committee all we can. I hope the hon. gentleman will be on it because, with his indefatigable energy, I am sure he will make a very valuable contribution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


OVERRIDE PROVISION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister undertook that his Government, under no circumstances, would resort to the override provision of the Charter of Rights, the provision which effectively allows Governments to override fundamental rights and freedoms and equality rights. Will the Prime Minister give the same assurance to Canadians that his Government will not, under any circumstances, use the override provision of the Charter of Rights to subvert decisions made by the judiciary of the country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given me the nod to answer. The position is that this Government has not and does not contemplate using the override Clause with respect to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. I believe it would be most unwise to say that under no circumstances and no conditions would it ever be used. Certainly there is none in contemplation at the moment. We are intervening in matters that are before the courts to argue that the present use of that override Clause by the Province of Quebec is a misuse of that Clause. As the Hon. Member knows, they include it in all their legislation. I can give a commitment that it is not in contemplation, but no one can look into the future and say under no possible circumstance might it be used. Certainly they would have to be extraordinary beyond belief.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Last fall the Minister of Finance tabled a financial statement in the House making cuts in federal government expenditures across Canada. The study we have just completed shows that, even after backtracking on some of these cuts, they will take $877 million out of the Ontario economy in 1985-86 alone, adversely affecting at least 26,000 jobs. Will the Prime Minister, or his Minister of Finance, meet immediately with Premier-designate Miller of Ontario to discuss these cuts and what the Government will do to compensate Ontario for the damage these cuts are now doing, and will be doing, to the Ontario economy and some tens of thousands, at least 26,000 jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was quite alarmed at the numbers until I found out that they had been prepared by the Hon. Member. In point of fact, any objective observer would acknowledge that the document put out by my hon. friend is misleading and self serving.
February 1, 1985

The economic indicators for Ontario and elsewhere are moving ahead very substantially since this Government came in. Interest rates have gone down, in the neighbourhood of 100,000 jobs have been created, inflation is down to its lowest rate since 1971, and investment intentions have increased dramatically. I acknowledge that the situation is far from perfect, but there are major improvements thus far in the economy. I hope my hon. friend will look upon these with favour and say to the Government and the people of Ontario: "Improvement has been made. We will work with the Government to improve the lot of Canadians," rather than indulge in this criticism that constantly comes from the Liberals.
I will be meeting on Monday with the new Premier of the Province of Ontario. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will co-operate as closely with him as I did with his predecessor, with equally successful results.


REQUEST FOR COMPARISON OF STUDIES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House and the Canadian people will be pleased to see the endorsement that the Prime Minister has given to the benevolent effects of the policies of the previous Liberal Government on the Canadian and Ontario economies. What will the Prime Minister do to offset the adverse effects of his Government's policies on the Ontario economy? If he disagrees with the study that we have made, then I challenge him to present his studies and those of his Department of Finance so that they can be compared by the people of Canada. I challenge him to do that. So far, he and his Minister of Finance have not had the courage to do that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unduly argumentative, but I hope my hon. friend will look at the results for the last quarter of 1984. There were 100,000 new full-time jobs created. Interest rates have declined almost 3 per cent. This has a tremendously positive effect on small business, farmers, fishermen, and others across the country. Investment intentions are up very dramatically. I suppose my hon. friend could quite properly say that the results have not been overwhelming, but I believe he will acknowledge they have been very impressive in three short months. We plan to continue to work based on re-igniting the entrepreneurial spirit, freeing up the private sector, living within our means, and getting Canadians back to work. That is what we are going to do.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Justice on the question of equality. The Minister does not seem to realize that for the most part women cannot afford, nor should they have to, to take complaint cases on a case by case basis. How much longer
Oral Questions
do Canadian have to wait for full equality? The Minister knows they fought very hard to have that included in the Charter of Rights. Specifically, why will the Minister not act on the Abella report recommendations to legislate mandatory affirmative action and contract compliance, when his Government has had these recommendations for close to three months?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women do not have to wait to achieve equality. The Charter of Rights has been adopted. We all have to wait until April 17 of this year for it to come into full force and effect.
The women of Canada, and organized associations of women across Canada, received considerable assistance from the Department of Justice in their activities, and they will continue to do so in the future. They also received it from the Department of the Secretary of State, and will in the future. Because of some of the difficult issues involved, it cannot be decided overnight. It should allow involving the Canadian people. They will be able to come before a House of Commons committee and make their views known on how they believe these difficult policy issues should be decided. They will not have to go to court. This year further legislation will be introduced. You cannot change overnight these difficult problems that we are now grappling with for the first time in Canada.
With respect to the question of affirmative action and Judge Abella's report, I was talking to the Judge last night. Her report is now under active consideration by Cabinet. The matter is being moved forward by one of the great women of Canada, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and in the next couple of weeks an announcement will be made.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, the subjects are very interesting, but the answers are long.


AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister respond to the appeal of the Abella commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and legislate mandatory affirmative action before April 17, 1985? Will he do this?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, before April 17, 1985, the Prime Minister or other members of the Government will make clear the Government's position on the Abella report. I think it will be a position that will recommend itself to men and women, to everyone who lives in Canada.

February 1, 1985
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


UNITED STATES IMPORT QUOTAS ON SUGAR PRODUCTS
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister undoubtedly knows, the Government of the United States has recently imposed import quotas on certain sugar containing products. I have in my riding of Mississauga North a new firm which will be put out of business if these quota restrictions stand. There are many firms across the country which will also be affected. What can the Canadian Government do to assist our Canadian sugar-based retail packagers in countering the non tariff protectionist barrier put up by the United States on January 28?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in the subject and I share his concern. I believe it was last Monday the President of the United States signed a proclamation that put these restrictive measures into effect. They will have some serious consequences on the industry. Although I do not have the exact figure, I believe the quota does provide for a significant decrease in the amount of product that can be shipped from Canadian sources to U.S. markets. I would hope that our officials would be able to work out some solution that would help ease this problem.
I have been in conversation with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department's officials and the departmental officials of my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, will do everything possible to provide assistance and information to the Canadian industry.
* *
*


THE ECONOMY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the projected loss of over 26,000 jobs in Ontario in the years 1985-86, as a result of cuts announced in the November economic statement. We now have 1,300,000 Canadians out of work, and 56 per cent of Canadians say that unemployment is the most important problem facing Canada today. Under those circumstances, how can the Prime Minister justify going ahead with those cuts and threatening the economic stability of Canadian families?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Hon. Member, in mentioning that figure, was perhaps invoking it from the document that was released by the Hon. Member from Windsor. If that is the case, I simply want to state for the record that, of course, any reasonable analysis would cause that figure to be dismissed.
Because my hon. friend raises a very important matter, may I just say that unemployment is indeed our number one problem and concern. We inherited a very dismal record in this regard. I hope that my hon. friend takes pride and pleasure in the fact that of the 100,000 new full-time jobs created since the swearing in of this government, a very substantial proportion have been in the Province of Ontario. What we are trying to do is create these kinds of jobs across the country.


CONFIDENCE LEVEL
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, people are becoming increasingly worried, and the more recent surveys have shown that 66 per cent of Canadians fear that they, or their family breadwinners will lose their jobs in the foreseeable future. The Government talks of increasing confidence and of a consumer led recovery. How can that exist when people are so frightened that they are going to lose their jobs, and when the Government is constantly cutting jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to confidence, it is a very fragile commodity. It was badly damaged over the last number of years by a succession of events, and I point to two such events-the Budget introduced in the House in 1981 by the previous government, and the very damaging implications of the National Energy Program which inflicted so much harm on our national economy, and which inflicted so much damage to our reliability as a nation in which to invest.
According to the Conference Board survey, according to the analysis in this week's edition of The Financial Post, and according to all objective surveys, confidence is coming back to Canada, and that is vital to job creation, to lower interest rates, and to the creation, as my hon. friend quite properly points out, of new jobs, a matter which I share with her as our number one priority. We remain fully committed to that, and we will work closely with her to create those jobs for all Canadians.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Our action group on jobs has heard some fairly frightening stories this past week. I would like to ask the Prime Minister specifically about the problems of construction workers in the Province of Alberta who report a 70 per cent unemployment rate for themselves in that province. Did the Prime Minister meet, as these people have suggested to us, with representatives of the Alberta Building and Construction Trades Council in the period of time before the last election? Did he promise to them, as they say he did, that federally-funded building
February 1, 1985

projects in Alberta would use union labour under his Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about that to which the Hon. Member refers. Perhaps I can tell him this. I come from a unionized family. My father was not only unionized but was a union officer. I can tell the Hon. Member that, as far as we are concerned, trade unionism is a vital and indispensable part of our national economic development. We will do nothing inconsistent with that statement.


CANADA PLACE PROJECT IN EDMONTON
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Council involved indicated very specifically that it met with the Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister, and was given a specific promise that union labour would be used. Specifically with reference to Canada Place, the $200-million project planned for Edmonton, will the Prime Minister make a commitment that union labour will indeed be used on that project?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the interest shown by the Hon. Member for the problems besetting the construction industry. I am also very happy to inform the Hon. Member from Ontario that three weeks ago, in response to representations by Edmonton city authorities, I had the pleasure of signing the recommendation for the Canada Place project in Edmonton, which, I think, answers the Hon. Member's questions.


DISASTERS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and I ask this question very sincerely. In view of the disastrous situation in Glace Bay-Cape Breton, would the Prime Minister not think it only fair and reasonable, notwithstanding the discussions and consultations that are going on with the Premier of that province, to direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to provide additional moneys under the Canada Works Program, a program for which there are many unapproved applications, and also to lift the moratorium that he has placed on Special Initiatives Programs such as the Glace Bay recreation centre?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I, like my hon. friend, am deeply troubled by events that have occurred in Cape Breton, and most recently in Glace Bay. My hon. friend, the Minister of Employment and Immigra-
Oral Questions
tion, spoke with the mayor and other officers there. I think all Canadians would recognize that among the areas of our country that have not necessarily had a fair opportunity or a fair shake is, of course, industrial Cape Breton. I am very sensitive to and concerned about that. We hope to be making a statement within a few days that we believe and hope will be helpful to the longer-term economic development and renewal in Cape Breton Island.


COAL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I appreciate his concern, but I would tell him that there is a great urgency within that part of Canada. I would ask the Prime Minister to expedite the Cabinet process by directing the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to make good decisions with regard to coal development and a pre-retirement plan for older miners in Glace Bay. Would the Prime Minister undertake to do that forthwith, because of the urgency of the situation within that area?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that that degree of action has already been initiated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as well as by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I give the Hon. Member the assurance that it will not be paperwork, red tape, or administrative obstacles that will stand in the way of bringing forward what we hope will be helpful and constructive plans for Cape Breton.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I believe the Prime Minister recalls that, way back in 1976, the Liberal Government brought in a very Draconian move to impose a quota system designed to cut off unemployment insurance claimants. Can the Prime Minister say whether or not any officers at Canada Employment Centres are currently working under a quota system? The purpose of the quota system would be to cut off unemployment insurance claimants, a very similar system to that which was imposed by the former Trudeau Government back in 1976.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in 1976 I was very young, so I am not acquainted with the problem that was there at the time-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You were concentrating on Clark in 1976.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is that melodious voice again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 1, 1985

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Had I not heard it, I would have been sad all weekend. I want to thank my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. It makes our day, it really does.
My hon. friend raises a very important matter. I regret to tell him that I do not have a specific answer but I will communicate immediately with the Minister of Employment and Immigration and make sure that the answer is provided to the Hon. Member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps the Prime Minister was very young in 1976. I just hope he doesn't become a very old Tory and become too conservative on this issue.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Prime Minister, as the leader of the Government, categorically assure us that he has no intention of imposing a quota system on unemployment claimants as a way and means of saving money in the UI fund, at the expense of poor people? Can he give us his categorical assurance this morning that that will not be done?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any such program or intention. I would be happy to meet with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, which I shall at the earliest possible moment, and I will be in touch with my hon. friend.


EXTERNAL AID
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. Has the Minister, or the Government, protested to the Ethiopian Government that, according to a report in the Boston Globe yesterday, a Danish ship carrying Canadian and Australian food relief to Ethiopia has been forced to wait for unloading facilities since January 18 while a Soviet ship carrying military equipment has been unloaded?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the House and inform Hon. Members that our main collaborators are non-governmental organizations, and they have given us the assurance that food aid is being distributed. Nevertheless, our ambassador is trying to arrange a meeting with members of the food aid relief committee who are responsible for distribution, and as soon as we receive a reply which, I hope, will reassure Canadians and urge them to continue their assistance to this program, we shall certainly keep you informed.


NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT WITH NEWFOUNDLAND
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She is presently negotiating an offshore agreement with Newfoundland. She knows how important that agreement is to the province and the fact that, once it is concluded, it will not be changed for a long, long time. Can the Minister tell us when she expects that agreement to be reached?
Can she tell us as well if, after it has been agreed to, but before the agreement is signed, she will lay out the elements of that deal so that we can know that indeed it is a good deal for Newfoundland?
Specifically, will the Minister now say to Mobil that it should release the environmental impact study which it has presented, so that we can begin to examine what our future might be?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked so many questions in that one question from the Hon. Member that I hardly know where to start. I can assure him that negotiations are going very well on the agreement with Newfoundland. The negotiating teams met again this week. I expect to meet with the Minister responsible for energy in Newfoundland, Mr. Marshall, next week, and we hope to have an early conclusion to the agreement.
With respect to the Mobil agreement to which the Hon. Member has referred, I have consistently told this House that until such time as we agree on the mode of development-and those studies are taking place-it would not be appropriate to ask Newfoundland to change its position.


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am told that part of the agreement with Newfoundland will be a fund in the order of possibly half a billion dollars. Some of that fund may be used for infrastructure, such as highway construction, for example, the highway across Labrador from Goose Bay to Baie Comeau. Would the Prime Minister give an undertaking that, if that idea comes up, he will support it? And would he now agree to join me in the first vehicle which leaves Baie Comeau on its way to Goose Bay?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Or vice versa.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that we can accept that invitation at this time, but we can say that we are negotiating an agreement which escaped the former administration for 15 years, and that the underlying thrust of the
February 1, 1985

whole agreement is that Newfoundland and Labrador have to be the principal beneficiaries of the agreement, consistent with a strong and united Canada. That is what we are working towards.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WEST COAST EXPLORATION REVIEW
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it is in regard to the West Coast exploration review. I am sure the Minister is fully aware that, of the eight existing leaseholders off the British Columbia coast, there is not a single one any longer which is co-operating or participating in the panel review. Only Chevron Canada Limited, which is farmed in on some of Shell Canada Limited's acreage, is actually co-operating with the panel. How does the Minister determine what the impact of a development is going to be if we don't know what the companies plan to do?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question should be more properly addressed to the Minister of the Environment under whose Ministry this review process falls. I can only assure the Hon. Member that the reason the companies are not participating is because they plan to do nothing at this time. Part of the area is under a moratorium for oil and gas exploration, and there is no point in trying to review nothing.


REVIEW COSTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what the Minister has just said, that there is no point in reviewing something when nothing is going on and nothing is planned. Perhaps the Minister would explain to the people of Canada why her Government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in going on with a panel review of projects which are not planned?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out that this review process is not within my Ministry, so I cannot address that issue. I can also point out that it is being carried out in conjunction with the provinces. Perhaps the provinces know something we don't. Thank you.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I will have to give him a moment to return to his place.


Mr. Beatty:: He knows his place.
Oral Questions


B. Keith Penner: On Monday of this week the Minister issued a press release announcing a $75,000 contribution to the Canadian Council for Native Business. Attached to the press release was a list of 20 other projects under the Native Economic Development Program, totalling $11.5 million drawn from that $345 million program. The Minister, I am sure, knows he was being a bit foxy, because all of the projects in this document were approved by the previous Liberal administration-every one of them.
There are 34 applications now under the Native Economic Development Program which are sitting on the Minister's desk, or perhaps on the desk of his junior Minister, and I would like to know when these applications are going to be approved? While the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is on his feet, would he tell the House what the future of the Native Economic Development Program is? Or does it have any future at all under this Government?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for the Native Economic Development Program, I am very happy to answer the Hon. Member's question. This morning, I read and signed about thirty projects that were submitted by the committee. Many have been accepted, while a few others are still being considered because a number of details are missing.
About the project's future and the $345 million in funding, as far as I am concerned there is no problem, and the Advisory Committee will continue its work in all regions in this country and continue submitting projects which will be considered and approved as they are now.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK PROPOSAL
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister who answered may be responsible for the Native Economic Development Program, but it is the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who issued the press release. I want to come back to him again and ask him if he is aware that the Special Committee on Indian Self-government recommended that a native economic development bank be established? The advisory committee of the Native Economic Development Program was asked to look into that recommendation. It has done so, and it has prepared a report. Has the Minister read the report? What are his views on it? And will he undertake to refer that report to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that we can do an in-depth analysis of it?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the report mentioned by the Hon. Member. I will have to discuss the matter with other Ministers, because this development project would

February 1, 1985
Absence of Members
involve several million dollars, and at this stage, I am not ready to sign a commitment. However, within the next few weeks, after consultation with the other Ministers involved, the group will be receiving a reply.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, January 31, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: May I take this opportunity to remind Members of the citation in Beauchesne which requires us not to comment on the presence or absence of any other Member. We are creeping into a new tradition of commenting regularly on the presence or absence of another Member or Minister. It is clear from our practices and traditions that we should not do that. I thought it was appropriate now, since during today's Question Period several references were made to the presence or otherwise of Members, to bring that to the attention of Hon. Members because it is contrary to our practice. That is the only reason I raise it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify your ruling, are you suggesting that it is not appropriate when asking questions to say: "In the absence of the Minister of . .."?


Mr. Speaker:: It has been raised several times in several Parliaments by several Speakers. The practice has been that when it starts to happen Members perhaps need to be reminded that questions are in fact to the Ministry. The Ministry responds as the Ministry sees fit. Therefore it is not entirely within one's control whether a particular Minister responds or not.
There is a citation in Beauchesne which is very clear, for a very good reason, that one should not mention in the House the presence or absence of a particular Member. I raise that now only because I can see our moving towards a new practice. The same point was made in the last Parliament by the previous Speaker on this same issue.
With great respect, I am fully prepared to implement whatever rules the House wants implemented. If the Members want that rule changed, as has been said before, they have a way to deal with that.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Can I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: On a separate point of order?


George Albert Proud: On the same question. Would it be better to say: "In the absence of the Ministry . . ."?


David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get it clear from you that you do not wish us to say-


Mr. Speaker:: What I have tried to bring to the attention of Members is what Beauchesne says. That is all I have tried to do today. I am not sure what the Member is rising on. Is it a point of order? With respect, I am perfectly prepared to hear a point of order. Does the Hon. Member want to discuss with me what I think Beauchesne means?


David Charles Dingwall: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Beauchesne means what Beauchesne says.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: The tradition of asking questions beginning "In the absence of' has been in effect since I have been in the House of Commons. It was used by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) when he was in opposition. Questions were phrased in that way. If the Speaker does not wish us to phrase our questions in that way, I will abide by the wishes of the Speaker. But the tradition of phrasing questions in that way was established by the Government when they were in opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Hon. Member, I sat roughly in the seat he is sitting in and was called to order on precisely this point by Mr. Speaker Francis. I appreciate the position the Hon. Member is in and I understand why it is done, but I am required to apply the rules as they exist. I am confronted with a Beauchesne citation and a tradition of this House to the effect that it is improper to comment on the presence or non-presence of an Hon. Member. I brought this up today because I see that we are moving closer to creating a tradition or right to say those things. If the House wishes to do that, the House has the right to do that; but the House must make that decision. It should not be a change by happenstance, in my view.
I do not think it is appropriate at this time for the Hon. Member and I to have a conversation which he may wish to have with me in chambers. I will be perfectly happy to discuss it with him. As well, I have not made a ruling; I have simply reminded Hon. Members of what Beauchesne says.


David Charles Dingwall: I would like to remind the Speaker that, notwithstanding the fact he was taken to task by the former Speaker on this issue, the practice was continued by the Government when they were in opposition.


Mr. Dick:: That is wrong.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is what the Government did yesterday in the House of Commons.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You had a bad Speaker, then.
February 1, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, that is hardly helpful. The point I am trying to make to Members is that I find myself in some difficulty-


Mr. Rossi:: He should apologize to the previous Speaker. No respect for the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I mentioned the citation from Beau-chesne because six or seven Members today, whom I did not want to call to order during Question Period for obvious reasons, made reference to the presence or non-presence of another Member or Minister. Therefore I felt it was my obligation to remind Members of what Beauchesne says. I made no ruling, I simply reminded Members of what Beauchesne says. However, I am put in a difficult position because of what Beauchesne says and what the Members have been doing. Therefore I must advise Members that at some point I am going to have to reconcile those two facts. I am simply alerting Members to a problem that I see, given what has been happening. Does that answer the question of the Hon. Member?


Mr. de Corneille:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is a possible elucidation of the following point. I thought that Beauchesne might be referring to the possibility that you do not point out that someone else is not in the House for pejorative or other reasons but that as a courtesy, when you are trying to direct a question to a Minister, you have to give an explanation-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Member may wish information on this point and I suggest he may want to seek it either from Journals, the Clerks, his House Leader or procedural experts. If I allow further discussion on a matter which I simply introduced by way of trying to be helpful, then I create a precedent in one of two ways: That the Speaker's suggestions or points of order are debatable, and I cannot allow that; or secondly, if Members are going to use something that I say in trying to be helpful as an opportunity to create debate on that point, then the Hon. Member is suggesting that I should never say anything that may be helpful.
I suggest that if the Hon. Member has any questions he wishes to raise regarding procedural matters, he has other routes to pursue.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, world peace is a matter of concern to many of our fellow citizens. Not so
Introduction of Bills
long ago, young people in my constituency organized a week of activities designed to make their community aware of this problem which concerns everyone of us. At the time, they asked to sign a petition asking the Canadian Government to publicly announce arms export licences as soon as they are issued. They are also asking the Canadian Government to take the initiative in setting up an international arms register at the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, it is this petition I have the honour of presenting on their behalf to this Honourable House.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce my first Bill in the House today.
Under this Bill, people enrolling in a course or training program of their choice, at their own expense, will be eligible to receive benefits as provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, subject to approval by the Commission. Unlike those people who take a course at the Commission's expense, this group, under the present legislation, is denied the privilege of receiving unemployment insurance benefits because they are considered not available for employment.
Furthermore, the Bill provides that a person whose appeal to the board of referees is maintained may receive unemployment insurance benefits from the date of his initial application to the Commission. This means we will be able to eliminate the discrimination created by the previous Government against people who want to improve their situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 1, 1985
Order Paper Questions



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to table, on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the study to which he referred during Question Period, namely, the effect of the economy statement in Ontario. Would Your Honour ask the House whether there is unanimous consent to table the document?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of rulings handed down by previous Speakers, we are not allowed to table fiction.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it unanimous consent has not been granted. I should point out to the Hon. Member that there have been a number of occasions when tablings by Private Members have been sought. The ruling has been consistent that there is no such provision available to the House. Other provisions are available to the Hon. Member for Windsor West for distributing the document.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. House Leader introduced what I think is a new concept in the House of Commons rules. I wonder if you, Sir, would care to take this under advisement. If it be true that it is not proper to table fiction in the House of Commons, how then would the Government get its Throne Speech before the House?


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 179 and 196.


Mr. Stackhouse: In (a) 1982 (b) 1983 (c) 1984 to date, how many individuals did declare bankruptcy in (i) Canada (ii) each province (iii) Scarborough, Ontario?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Consumer Bankruptcies1
		(a)1982	(b)1983	(c) 1984
				(At Nov. 30)
(i)	Canada	30,643	26,822	20,575
(ii)	Province			
Newfoundland	339	371	259Nova Scotia	911	928	688Prince Edward Island	35	30	33New Brunswick	335	273	277Quebec	8,878	7,561	5,851Ontario	14,301	10,973	7,715Manitoba	1,114	1,027	613Saskatchewan	507	587	475Alberta	2,123	2,411	2,190British Columbia	2,085	2,652	2,466Northwest Territories	3	3	6Yukon	12	6	2(iii)	Scarborough, Ont.2	601	503	356Bankruptcy statistics are maintained on	the bases of '	'consumer" a	nd "business"
bankruptcies. A "consumer" bankruptcy is identified as one where an individual has not incurred liabilities as a result of a business venture, or where liabilities attributable to a business venture constitute less than 50 per cent of the total liabilities.
2 In order to identify consumer bankruptcies filed in Scarborough, the first three characters of the bankrupts' postal code have been used, i.e., M1B to M1X.


Mr. Stackhouse: In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983, what was the total sales of seal skin and its by-products to the European Community?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
Figures for exports of undressed seal skins for the years 1979 to 1983 are shown on the tables below. Data covering by-products (e.g. dressed seal skins, apparel and appareil accessories) are not captured separately in the export statistics program of Statistics Canada.
Domestic Exports of Seal Skins to the European Economic Community
1979	1980	1981	1982	1983Country	No.	Value $000's	No.	Value $000's	No.	Value $000's	No.	Value $000's	No.	Value $000'sUnited Kingdom	16,473	226	22,748	722	19,565	500	15,817	471	1,025	22Denmark	1,241	33	-	-	-	-	-	-	192	5France	1,593	78	3,649	192	3,252	157	612	31	-	-West Germany	11,064	387	13,294	304	9,725	213	563	18	-	-Italy	6	1	-	-	121	4	140	6	-	-Total	30,377	725	39,691	1,218	32,663	874	17,132	526	1,217	27
Economic European Community
February 1, 1985


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 31, 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.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today on this Bill which deals with the Broadcasting Act and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Thanks to the electors in my riding, I represent the constituency of Calgary West in the House. That riding disappeared for many years through the process of redistribution and came back into being in 1979. I have had the pleasure of representing it since that time. A previous incumbent of that riding was the Hon. Prime Minister R. B. Bennett. It was a Conservative Government and that particular Prime Minister who in 1932 brought forward the concept that the Canadian air waves should be regulated. That was an important feature of the Canadian identity. Through the regulation of those air waves we had an opportunity to develop something distinctly Canadian. It is certainly important to those of us who are fortunate enough to live in this country.
I want to pay tribute to that event of 52 years ago. In 1984 the riding of Calgary West is as concerned about the development of a Canadian identity and culture as it was in 1932 when R. B. Bennett had the honour of representing the people of that region.
As I sat here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I become more and more distraught about the consistency with which Members of both opposition Parties used the debate on this Bill to discuss the issue of budgetary cuts and specifically those applying to the CBC. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the Bill
CRTC Act
knows that it has nothing to do with those cuts. Yet the House was abused by those who chose to drag that red herring into this debate.
The piece of legislation before us is important and should be moved forward with dispatch. Unfortunately, Members of the Opposition left this Chamber, and perhaps some people in the country, with a false impression about the cuts.
I would like to take a minute or two to remind Members of the Opposition and Canadians that the Government was changed on September 4, 1984 partly because the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party refused to deal with the financial reality of this country. They refused to recognize that if you take in $400 every couple of weeks and spend $600, you are running a deficit. The Canadian deficit is in that ratio. We are taking in two-thirds of what we spend. We are spending one-third more than we take in. If a family took in $400 a week and spent $600 a week, in four weeks' time it would be $800 in debt. Every four weeks it would be $800 more in debt and would have to pay the interest on that debt.
When I was elected in 1979, Mr. Speaker, 83 cents of every tax dollar collected could be spent for good purpose and 17 cents was spent on interest. After five and one-half years of bad economic management only 65 cents of every tax dollar collected can be spent for useful purposes. The difference is the interest payments.
Who suffers because of that massive deficit which no one seems to have the political will to control? The unemployed who have no income are prejudiced by the deficit. The senior citizens and others on fixed incomes are prejudiced by the deficit. When a government borrows to the extent that the Liberals were borrowing, interest rates go up, the cost of living goes up, inflation runs away and people on fixed income are hurt. Furthermore, our children are the ones who will have to pay for that borrowing. Our children are having their future income cut because this debt is passed on to them.
I hope the opposition Parties have heard the message that the Canadian voters have given to them. Canadians understand that there is no free lunch and that all of the activities of the Government must be reviewed in order to determine what services are essential and where cuts could be applied. I will stand in the Chamber as often as necessary to urge the Government to make those cuts where necessary, but to do so with sensitivity and compassion in order to bring the fiscal affairs of this country back to a reasonable state. We can no longer spend more than we receive.
The CBC is a specific example of such overspending. It is wrong to believe that that corporation is not wasteful in its operations. While I do not believe anyone knows how much waste there is, a reasonable government would require the corporation to find that waste and eliminate it. That is what this Government is doing.
I also suggest that the CBC cuts have been in the Government subsidy. The Government cuts the subsidy, not the CBC's budget. I suggest that the CBC has additional income

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
opportunities which it can find if it is aggressive. It can maintain its budget by increasing its current income. If the corporation can produce its own quality English or French programming it can penetrate other markets around the world and thereby generate its own revenue. Moreover, the programming will meet our cultural goals. Furthermore, the CBC should be aggressively looking for increased sponsorship. It cannot always depend on the will of the taxpayers of this country to meet all of its requests.
In effect, I am saying that I believe the cuts to the CBC are necessary and have been managed sensitively. I believe the corporation has alternative ways to meet its mandate and I want the record to be clear that I support the direction taken by the Government in regard to the cuts.
Let me move now to the legislation.


Don Boudria: I was going to ask about that.


An Hon. Member:: In French!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: French or English, it is the same thing. [English]
This piece of legislation is a classical example that shows the difference between how the opposition parties operated and the way the Conservative Government said it would operate. Bill C-20 deals with the CRTC and broadcasting generally. It does not mention the Film Development Corporation, the CBC or Bell Canada. While new Members may not notice that difference, it is apparent to me because the former Liberal Government continually introduced legislation in the form of omnibus Bills. It brought forward a package of measures similar to what we are dealing with today which not only dealt with broadcasting but with the CBC, Bell Telephone and the Canadian Film Development Corporation. The Liberal Government would then ask Members of the House to cast a single vote on the principle of such a Bill.
I suggest that those are four separate topics for which there indeed may be four separate principles. It is not possible to cast a single vote for such omnibus legislation, and one of the reasons the Liberals are in opposition today is that they continually attempted to deny Parliament the basic principles of democracy. They introduced omnibus legislation that did not address a specific principle. The bells rang for 17 days and they were defeated in an election on the basic principle of whether or not democracy was being served.
When the debate on second reading of this Bill is finished, we will be able to vote on the principle of its benefit to broadcasting generally while not dealing with Bell Telephone, CBC or the Film Development Corporation. I congratulate the Government for fulfilling that commitment.
How does this legislation differ from the previous Act? I believe its most fundamental principle would provide Parliament with the ultimate authority to direct the policy of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Without such a principle the CRTC consists of a group of
appointed people who can set national policy. Once they are appointed they are accountable to no one and cannot be recalled. I believe it was a mistake to establish such a principle originally and I want to commend the Government for so carefully enshrining in these changes the basic principle that those who are accountable to the voters of the country will be responsible for determining the policy. We, as the elected representatives of the people, will be able to advise that appointed body about how to proceed.
I believe this basic principle is even more important today, given the explosion of technology. It may be necessary in the next four years of this Parliament to use that principle as we move through the VCR revolution, the satellite dish revolution and so on. There may be continued need to update and amend the policy so that Canadian culture is enhanced and the Canadian identity is strengthened through proper utilization of new technology as it comes on stream. That is the first principle and the most important one.
There is a second principle which I commend to the Opposition. The Opposition may have a knee-jerk reaction to it, but I ask opposition Members to pause. The second important principle of this Bill is that it changes the legislation in a manner that will ensure the Commission does not have to regulate new situations where a competitive market exists. The CRTC can get out of the business of regulating.
Think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about the costs that are always inherent in the regulatory process. For instance, appearing before hearings and the costs that are always inherent in meeting the conditions that come about through regulation. If there is a saving of 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 10 per cent or whatever that currently goes into paperwork, that can be eliminated, and the money saved used for programming, then this nation will be the better for it. I am really pleased to see that principle in this legislation. I anticipate seeing a similar principle in many pieces of legislation that will be brought before this Parliament.
We have been too long governed by a political philosophy and a political party that believed it knew best, that put in place increased numbers of regulatory bodies and increased numbers of regulations that have become a drain on the national economy and national will. They are too expensive in economic terms and too expensive in psychological terms because of the impact they have on the spirit of people. I am pleased to be able to stand in this place today and support that portion of the Bill that allows us not to regulate. It is a sad commentary that we have to have wording like that. It really speaks to the underlying philosophical persuasion which has governed our affairs in previous times, and it will be changed.
I am also pleased to see that those who become licensees will be granted a seven-year period rather than a five-year period. If I am critical at all, maybe it should be 10 years. Maybe it should be forever with a mechanism that allows it to be revoked when it is abused. Certainly seven years is better than five years. People can plan with confidence, they can be more
February 1, 1985

efficient and more effective. They will only have to use money to make application every seven years instead of five years. Even that saving can be put into programming. I hope the Government with the passage of time will consider going further.
There is another principle which is in accord with the Charter of Rights and the will of the people of this House. I think as a group we might have unanimity here. None of us wants to see the air waves used for abusive purposes, for purposes which degrade women, children, men, different racial groups, different religions and different ethnic groups. The air waves should not be used for abusive purposes and I am pleased to see that the Government is providing a mechanism to control the situation. I encourage the committee to study the wording of the Bill carefully. We want no denial of the freedom of speech; we simply want to be sure that the wording provides the mechanism necessary to stop that abuse.


Mr. Benjamin:: That includes the commercials?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In short, I urge Members to support this Bill, to get it through the House, into committee and into law as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the comment of my good friend from Calgary when he said that a major difference between his Party in government and when we were in government is that his Party did not believe in omnibus Bills and we did. I found that rather strange. I wonder whether he read the Bill yesterday that was tabled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) which amends 50 statutes. Bill C-27 amends 50 Acts of Parliament.
Is the Hon. Member also not aware of the Bill that is now before the Justice Committee which deals with about 30 different issues? I could reel off a whole string of other Bills. I do not criticize the Government for that but when the Hon. Member stands up and says that the clear difference between my Party and the opposition Parties is that they do not believe in omnibus Bills he is just not correct.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are running into what I was disturbed about. Hon. Members over there do not understand what an omnibus Bill is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The basic principle of this House is that a second reading debate shall take place on the principle of the Bill. If the House approves the principle it goes to committee for detailed study. In the Bill brought forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) there is one principle and one principle only. Do we want legislation in this country changed to accord with the Charter of Rights? That is the principle exactly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
CRTCAct


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If we do, the Bill goes forward for detailed study. With one principle, it is not an omnibus Bill. When you try to deal with Bell Telephone on the one hand and the Film Development Corporation on the other, the use of the air waves and the CBC as a Crown corporation all in one piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, you have no single principle. That is how you determine whether a Bill is an omnibus Bill.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's definition of what is an omnibus Bill suits his own purpose. In fact, if you look at the Bill tabled yesterday by the Minister of Justice, while it deals with infringements in the Charter of Rights, it deals with very many different issues which may apply with respect to one statute and not to another. As I said, I support the approach taken yesterday by the Minister of Justice, but I reject the false dichotomy that he raises between his Party and other Parties on Bills.
Will the Hon. Member tell me what the common principle is in Bill C-24 which at the same time amends the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, which is one thing, but also the home insulation program? They both deal with energy and saving it but the points in both of those programs are very different.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would send over the pages that he has in his hands and which he feels are in dispute, I will take a look at them and it would not take me more than 30 seconds to find a common principle. I find myself in a bit of an awkward position in not having the words before me to see exactly what that principle is. Maybe the Hon. Member would like to stand up and read the clauses to us and we might all decide what the common principle is.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether, like several of his colleagues, he is in favour of deregulating the CRTC in particular and adopting a similar approach in many other fields. Is there not a danger?

Is there not a danger in his evaluation of pushing too far, especially in the matter of culture and regulation, concerning the availability of air waves in Canada? As I said yesterday, and I repeat again, there are two minds in Canada concerning culture. There are those of us of French background who are in much less danger of Americanization. Not that I have anything against the Americans; they produce extraordinarily good culture, but it is not our own.
The Hon. Member will realize that those of us who happen to be Francophone fear less of the Americanization of our cultural activities. When I was in Halifax last week, I listened very attentively to over 40 representatives who appeared before a thousand people. They fear a great deal for the survival of what they call the Canadian culture. When they said "Canadian culture", I understood it to mean English or Anglophone culture, if I may put it that way without shocking any Member of the House.

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
The Hon. Member seems to agree with pushing the deregulation process too far. Therefore, does he not see a danger for the Canadian culture, as I described it earlier?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I think the French CBC network can have an impact on the French culture because of its high quality programs. In my opinion, the French CBC network is now better than anything TV viewers can watch in France.

It can work both ways. Canadian programmers, authors, actors and writers are of sufficient quality that it is time we began to look outwards and to be less afraid of others influencing us. It is time to begin to look at the opportunities for us to influence them. If we make that shift in our mind-set, say that we are a strong nation with talented people and realize that we have something to offer the world, then we can begin to look at whether or not a piece of legislation advances or retards that aim.
In terms of regulation, this piece of legislation does not remove the power to regulate. It removes the necessity to regulate so that each situation can be looked at as to whether or not regulation might enhance or retard the situation. It is that principle which I support not only here but everywhere. If there is one certitude which flows from regulation, it is the certitude that it uses up resources and costs money to go through the process and meet the conditions. If it is unnecessary in the first place, surely it frees up money for the creative process. I think we will find agreement in the Chamber that in this field we should do whatever we can to enhance and produce money for the creative process. If that is the case, we are moving in the right direction. If we can take money away from the administrative or paperwork side of it and put it into the creative side, we will have done something for the country. I believe this Bill moves in that direction. That is one of the reasons we should support it.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I have just one last comment to make. Since we can ask questions or make comments, I must say that I enjoyed very much listening to the Hon. Member's speech, especially since he seems to support this Bill so strongly. I have conducted some research for my colleagues since I am responsible for communications, for the time being anyway.
However, the Hon. Member-and it is good politics-did not mention that the Bill is similar to the one of the previous Government. This is why it is unlikely that we will have four or five days of debate on it before it goes to committee. The new Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has brought back before the House the Bill which was introduced by the Hon. Francis Fox. I am very happy that he supports good legislation introduced in the last Parliament. By the way, when the Hon. Francis Fox introduced the Bill in February, 1984 he saw fit in May, 1984, even though the Bill had not been put
before the House for second reading, to amend it to conform with what the Hon. Member mentioned so well-that we should not use air waves for propagation against racism. In any event, I am pleased that he supports it and that he has put forward good ideas.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry, but the question and comment period has expired.

I see the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) rising to speak on this Bill. I am informed that the Hon. Member rose yesterday for the same purpose and yielded his right to the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Technically this puts the Speaker in a dilemma, since the Hon. Member has already spoken on the Bill because of this situation. However, if he still wishes to address the House, it will require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleagues for their courtesy in letting me take the floor again in the House. I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words and express a few ideas on Bill C-20 concerning the-

In examining any legislation which is put before the Chamber, we should not only look at what is laid down or projected in the legislation. We should also consider what is not specified in it and, therefore, what is assumed-that which might be changed but is not being changed.
The most significant characteristic of this legislation is that it envisages the continuation of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. That is a decision about which I personally have a few minor reservations but not one with which I fundamentally disagree.
The CRTC is an example of what my friends in England would call a quango, a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization.

I do not know whether there is a French translation for this word. It is quite popular over there.

Essentially quangos are established to accomplish for the Government what it deems to be too controversial, burdensome or inexpedient for it to tackle individually as a matter of the policy process. In the opinion of those who have observed and analysed them, they are a mechanism which is very much open to misuse and excessive use in terms of allowing them to undertake responsibilities which might properly be left with the Government.
Nevertheless, the CRTC, particularly over the earlier years of its life, did not attract a great deal of controversy. However,
February 1, 1985

I bring to the attention of Hon. Members of the House the degree of dissatisfaction which has existed about the CRTC in many rural and remote areas of Canada. Perhaps I will expand on that later in my discourse.
Like many similar organizations, the CRTC has been the target of or, shall we say, opportunity for the patronage process. We have seen appointments to that Commission which would be difficult to justify on any objective evaluation of the qualifications of the people so appointed. Nevertheless we acknowledge that there are many who have made a good start and have made good progress with that Commission. There is no pretence that under the present structure of the CRTC it can set policy for the Government. Because of the pace of technology and the way in which developments have proceeded, there have indeed been occasions on which policy laid down by the CRTC did effectively make policy for the Government. Decisions of the CRTC made policy for the Government whether they liked it or not.
I am reminded somewhat of the Hound of the Baskervilles and the classic exchange between Holmes and Watson when discussing what happened about the dog. Holmes said: "Remember, Watson, the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." To which Watson replied: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "Ah," said Holmes, "that was the curious incident". There have been occasions when the CRTC did function much as the dog in the night-time and did not do what it might legitimately have been expected to undertake.
We in this Party support the introduction of the clause which gives the Government the right to direct the CRTC to take a certain question, issue or problem under its mandate. By judicious and responsible use of that clause, the Government can indeed prevent the CRTC from being further perceived as the dog in the night-time.
If this power is passed into law, we would certainly enjoin the Government to use it carefully, responsibly and, above all, sparingly. Like any other body in its meetings, the Commission members form an impression of what they should be doing. The introduction of items that were not previously on their agenda is something that can be disruptive to the ongoing functions. In taking the power unto itself, we hope the Government will use it with some responsibility and, as I have said, on a relatively infrequent basis.
I should like to turn to Section 14.6 which gives the Minister the power to exclude a service or activity from regulatory control on the basis that competition is sufficient to ensure just and reasonable rates. I take issue with the previous speaker, whether he be now present or absent, and say that that is a power that we in this Party feel is open to some question and potentially open to some abuse. It is not a power that we like to see in this Bill.
We believe that the regulatory process can be streamlined, such that a mandate of oversight, review, observation and supervision need not take a great deal of resources and need not overly tax the Commission. The power to exempt a par-
CRTC Act
ticular activity, market or service from the Commission's supervision is one that might be open to abuse. It might in fact be used in such a way that it could create loopholes.
It is assured that there are many industries in which the competitive environment changes overnight. We remember the bank amalgamations of the 1920s and the 1930s which reduced effectively the number of chartered banks in Canada from something in the hundreds to a total of five. Because there is no mention of reinstatement or reversal of such an exemption, we would question the usefulness and the appropriateness of that clause.
I now turn to the matter of the proposed amendment to Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act requiring all programming to promote the equality and dignity of all persons. I personally and my Party are strongly in favour of such an amendment, but if it be inserted in there, it must have teeth. Under the present programming regime, and indeed present state protocol, we would find instant violations. We have a national anthem which states "true patriot love in all thy sons command". This should properly be changed if it were to conform with the proposed amendment to Section 3. Promoting the equality and dignity of all persons is a laudable objective; however, it must be supported by concrete stipulations in the amended Act. It is an objective that is too often the subject of too much lip service within this country and not enough action.
My own concern is specifically with the pornography of violence which I see as being an abuse and, in effect, an assault not only on women, although I affirm that they are the most frequently chosen victims, but also on children and indeed on men. I have no argument with the sincere depiction of the act of love. I have no argument with the depiction of naked forms, be they male or female. But I am concerned that under present programming regimes, particularly as regards some of the imported material from our neighbour to the south, we are allowing a depiction of violence, a depiction of hostility between persons that is in danger of creating in the generation that grows up with television, as I and many others did not do, the belief that violence, verbal and physical assault, hostility- sometimes even worse than we find in this Chamber-is the common currency of every day dealings between people.
The matter of satellite dishes is something that came very close to my heart during the election campaign and, of course, since. There was a situation in the community of Red Lake where over a thousand residents were joint members in an enterprise that set up a satellite dish. It was seized on the orders of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. I am pleased by the task force that was established on the distribution in underserved communities of satellite-received broadcasting services. That task force is scheduled to report on February 11.
I look forward to a report that will satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Canadians in remote communities, the legitimate needs and expression of the desire for not only cultural programming, but also the full range of programming that is available to many southern, and urban communities.

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
I support the representations of the Satellite TV Associations of Canada, although in many ways I have to take issue with some of the tactics that were used. When the law does allow for the seizure of equipment without compensation, it is not surprising that people get upset.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the clock indicates exactly one o'clock. May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) had the floor. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River not being here, I recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-20 a very important piece of legislation to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act.
Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, this Bill or at least a very similar one was introduced in the House by the Liberal Party during the last Parliament. I think it would be useful to provide a quick review of the Bill's history, and I am sure Hon. Members would be very upset if I did not take advantage of this opportunity.
On February 8, 1984, the previous Liberal Minister introduced legislation on telecommunications and broadcasting. Subsequently, a number of representations were made by various parties including women's groups and on May 24, 1984, amendments were made to the Bill. These amendments dealt with the principle of equality and personal dignity and were included in the Bill. On May 29, 1984, the same Minister announced a national film and video policy dealing with cultural as well as economic interests. And here ends my brief review.
Now, however, we see the Government introducing a similar Bill in the House. I was a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister introduced this Bill, he did not have the courtesy to mention the excellent work done by his predecessor. Only this morning, we heard the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) saying how important this Bill was and
that it was an excellent initiative and so on. I therefore wish to thank the Member for Calgary West for recognizing this Liberal initiative by the previous Government, and I am sure that when Mr. Fox reads his speech in Hansard, he will be very pleased with what the Hon. Member for Calgary West had to say about him. I think it is important to understand this.
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Member for Calgary West spent quite some time informing the House that Hon. Members should not take advantage of the debate on this Bill to discuss budgetary cutbacks in telecommunications. He then went on to spend ten minutes explaining that the cutbacks were reasonable, after informing the House that the subject was not a suitable one. Mr. Speaker, since a precedent was created this morning, I am sure you will agree that I should be allowed to say a few words about this subject, in response to what was said by the Hon. Member for Calgary West. In fact, I think I would be remiss if I did not speak to this matter at least briefly, always, of course, in relation to the Bill before the House, because I would not want to infringe on the Standard Orders.
This morning when the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) was discussing the fact that we need to have cut-backs in the area of the arts and telecommunications, he told us that the Government was not really cutting off programming, that it was not really cutting anything from the CBC but was only cutting off the money. The parallel I made at that time, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will remember it vividly, is that it was like saying it did not kill anyone, it just removed the head. But Government has removed the very vital resources which the CBC needs in order to fulfil its mandate, then, of course, some of the programs will be eliminated, will be killed by this action on the part of the Government.
The Government says that it wants to be accountable to the Canadian people, that it wants to respect Parliament. Quite a few promises were made during the election campaign by 338 Tories.


An Hon. Member:: Who is counting?


Don Boudria: We are counting and the people of this country are counting.


Mr. Lewis:: What do you do after ten?


Don Boudria: We are counting on this Government to deliver, which we know it will not do, Mr. Speaker. When it made its promises, I don't recall that the Government said that it was going to eliminate jobs. I don't recall that it advocated cut-backs in the arts, social programs and so forth. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure that the opposite was said. I know it seems unbelievable that a government would actually say one thing and do the opposite, but we must remember that
February 1, 1985

this is a Conservative Government and that has been known to happen in the past with that particular political Party.
This Government which is interested in being more accountable to the people has cut off funds to the CBC and we now see a threat to some of the programming of the deliberations of the House of Commons, that precious-I use the overworked word of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-and "sacred" link with the Canadian people. There is a threat that the broadcasts of Mr. Warren and others who perform the vital role of televising the deliberations of this chamber for the Canadian people will perhaps be eliminated in the future. If that is not breaching the campaign promise to be accountable, to give more funding to the arts and to telecommunications, what is it? This Government is again breaking the very promises it made not so long ago.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West told us that the way for the CBC to succeed is to produce programming which will sell world-wide and create an economic market. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't want the CBC to make another A Team and another Fall Guy and others of those programs which supposedly "sell". As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, we already have too much of that kind of programming on television.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, programs like Radio News which informs the farmers of this country and gives vital information is very much needed. Those are things which we need and which are beneficial to us, but will they sell on the world market? Not likely, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the CBC has that specific mandate. We should recognize that it is not only in business in the competitive sense but the CBC and Radio-Canada have a very special mandate for the people of this country. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott) will recognize that fact and will make our concerns known to the appropriate people since I cannot comment on attendance.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I worked with the CBC.


Don Boudria: Yes. I, of course, know that the Parliamentary Secretary worked for the CBC. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was working on Parliament Hill at the time he was working for the CBC, so I do recall that vividly. I am sure that with his background the Parliamentary Secretary will take our side on this issue and will make that representation to the Minister. He is going to stand up to that Minister and tell him, "Mr. Minister, you are not going to make those cuts to the CBC", and the House of Commons proceedings will continue to be broadcast across this country so that Canadians can hear the deliberations of the House and will know that the Conservative Members on the back-benches seldom speak on those issues which are important. The people of this country want to know that, Mr. Speaker, and they have a right to know it. It is part of the mandate of the CBC to provide that vital link and it is part of the Conservative promise which was made to the people of this country. A promise was made to bring Parliament closer to the Canadian people and to make it more
CRTC Act
relevant. Now is the time for the Government to live up to the promises it made.
We had a long lecture on economics this morning from the Hon. Member for Calgary West. He told us about the deficit.
I find it unusual that the particular discourse that we heard this morning on the deficit, and how we should cut things back, was not made during the election campaign. If the policy advocated by the Government is so good, why was it not good enough in July and August? The situation has not changed. It is still the same country and they are still the same voters out there. The only thing that is different is that the Government is now in a position to deliver on its promises, but it is not delivering on those promises, Mr. Speaker. That is the disappointment which the people of this country have to live with.
I am sure that the back-benchers and the bookends, the Conservative Members sitting on this side of the House, will know how important it is to deliver on those promises. When those back-benchers and bookends go back to their constituencies this weekend-assuming they do go back to their ridings on weekends-their constituents will say to them: "Listen, Mr. Bookend or Mrs. Bookend, we expect you to speak up on those CBC cut-backs. We expect you to stand up in the House on our behalf and say that we want to keep those important radio and television programs". Those constituents don't want more A Teams or Fall Guys, and all of those other programs which I try to forget but with which we are faced every day on the other television channels and even on the CBC on occasion.
We heard about the deficit this morning, Mr. Speaker, and about the ratio of our funds which are spent on the deficit. Last weekend I went to a number of different activities in my riding, as some of us do every weekend, and I listened to what my constituents had to say on various issues. Do you know how many talk to me about the deficit, Mr. Speaker? None.


Philip Derek Lewis: How many talk to you?


Don Boudria: No one talked about the deficit. I want to tell the Hon. Member opposite that if he wants to follow me for a weekend-as his Conservative friend tried to do during the election campaign-he is welcome to do so. He is welcome to run in my riding. I beat the last Tory candidate by 10,000 votes in the supposed Tory landslide. I still managed to scrape by with the largest Liberal majority in the country. So he is welcome to follow those Conservatives who attempted to do that at the time. He will know that I have seen many people circulating throughout my riding, as he has.
The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the people of his constituency and the people of mine expect this Government to live up to its campaign commitments. The people of this country do not expect the Government to spend most of its time doing the exact reverse. That is not good enough because they elected the Conservatives in good faith. Could it be that what we are witnessing today on the part of this Government is just a little bit more of what the Prime Minister said at some point in the campaign when he was heard saying off the record
1922

February 1, 1985
CRTCAct
or what have you, or is purported to have said, that just maybe you tell the people of this country something a little bit different than you tell the Tories? Could it be that this Government, which said it was going to be thrifty and do things right, spends just a little bit more time on things that it should not?
Instead of putting money into the CBC and other valuable programs, what does it do? We heard this morning from the Hon. Member for Calgary West that there is no free lunch. I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker, but he forgot to say that there is a free ride. To be specific, $500,000 worth of free rides in only a couple of months for Conservative Cabinet Ministers flying across this country. Another example was not a free ride but it cost $24,000 to deliver the mail on November 8. This was to deliver copies of the mini-budget by messenger to the provinces, and two of those messengers were not even sworn to secrecy. It cost $24,000 in one afternoon to satisfy the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who wanted to soften up his buddy-buddy provincial counterparts. And the Hon. Member for Calgary West has the nerve to come into this House and say that there is no free lunch. Well, there may not be a free lunch for the people of this country or the people at CBC, but there should not be a free lunch for Members of Cabinet either. If we are to represent our fellow citizens in this great Chamber, we should remember that we are not their kings, we are their representatives.
This Government claims that our Party is stalling on legislation. I find that very interesting. Members opposite say that when they were in opposition and deliberated Bills at length, or should I say ad nauseam, that was not the same. They were deliberating on omnibus legislation and, of course, their legislation is not omnibus, according to them. Even when they are amending 50 different statutes with the same Bill, that is not omnibus. The difference is, Mr. Speaker, that now they are in power. Well, the Government cannot have it both ways. The Tories cannot on the one hand claim the Opposition is abusing Parliament when we express the very great concerns of the people of this country on very important topics such as communications, the CBC and others, and then claim they had a right to express their views for hundreds and hundreds of hours on individual Bills in the last Parliament. We have a right to speak on behalf of the people of this country on this very important legislation and the other Bills brought before Parliament.
I, for one, was elected on one promise to the people of my riding. That was that I would speak on their behalf in the Parliament of this country and would work as hard as I could to deliver the goods and ensure that they would be properly represented in this great and illustrious Chamber. I invite all Members of the House of Commons to take that attitude and say what their constituents think about the attitude this Government has towards the promises it made last September 4.


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the Hon. Member's speech and I just wanted to ask him about communications in the CBC. In view of the articles rampant in the media about dissension in the Liberal caucus and the problems they are having, especially with the caucus communications director, and in view of the difficulty the Official Opposition is having in Question Period, would he suggest that the CBC discontinue televising Question Period in order to eliminate the embarrassment of the comic books between the bookends?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that the Hon. Member brought up the matter of communications. His Party took five months to tell us there were going to be two systems of measurement in this country. Then he says we have trouble communicating in this caucus. The schizophrenic policies of his Government are such that we have no reason to apologize for our communications. We in this Party speak with one united voice on the issues. We know where we stand.
The Hon. Member and his colleagues across the way may be at times confused on various issues. He may have difficulty in understanding what the issues are, and many of his colleagues have a hard time even remembering each other. One of them the other day managed to get out of this Chamber without being recognized. They say we have a hard time communicating but they do not have a hard time recognizing me when I leave the House, Mr. Speaker.
We have communicated to the people. They know who we are. If the Hon. Member wants to be recognized and wants the people to know who he is, well, it is he who needs better communications, not us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) on a question, I presume.


David Charles Dingwall: Comment and question, Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member shares my view on regional development policy, that the national Government ought to use every agency at its disposal to try and create economic development across the country. I want to know from my colleague whether or not he agrees with me that the decision by the CBC to single out the poorer areas of this country, particularly Atlantic Canada, regarding the cut-backs of the CBC, dispersing and dispensing with valued employees, flies in the face of what this Government promised in the election campaign. They were elected on the basis of creating jobs, not to decrease jobs. I want to know from my colleague if he agrees with the assertions and statements I have made that this Government, through the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and the auspices of the Financial Administration Act, ought to give a directive to the President of the CBC to reverse those decisions on cut-backs so that individuals who have lost their jobs can be rehired forthwith.


Don Boudria: I think the one thing we should emphasize is that the Minister has continuously pleaded innocent to the charge of cut-backs in the CBC. In my view he is guilty on two counts. First, the cut-backs should never have been made to
February 1, 1985

start with. The Minister has to acknowledge responsibility for that. Secondly, he should be there to ensure that the regions of this country are properly protected, whether we are talking about possible abolishing of certain Francophone radio stations in remote communities or talking about Atlantic Canada losing services and so forth. The Minister's job is to be in charge of communications. If he does not do his job, perhaps he should let someone else do it for him.
During the campaign the Conservative Party made many promises. I will review only a few of them due to my limited time. The Canadian Conference on the Arts sent out a questionnaire to which the Conservatives responded that they were committed to maintaining federal funding for agencies and councils in line with inflation. I did not know inflation had gone down this year. Do we have negative inflation this year? Everyone seems to be losing this year. As far as I am concerned the cost of living is still going up.
In response to that questionnaire during the campaign the Conservatives said that they were committed to real growth in federal contributions to this sector. Since when does real growth have a negative number? Perhaps the Hon. Members who lectured us this morning on economics could explain to us how real growth has a negative number this year. The Tory Government has not maintained funding for agencies and councils, the arts or communication. Instead it has cut funding in these areas by $121.5 million.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on his excellent speech on a very timely subject. He brought up the problem of cuts within the CBC. I see some Members here in the Opposition from Newfoundland who understand what the outlying areas of this country are all about.
The basic industries of my riding in Prince Edward Island are agriculture and fisheries. Two of the most important informational programs for farmers and fishermen were Radio Noon and Window on Resources. Window on Resources supplied fishermen and farmers with an update on market conditions, catches, and other items which are extremely important to those two very important sectors. On December 1, Window on Resources was discontinued. Radio Noon provided quality local information. It contained weather forecasting, product prices and market conditions in the entire Maritimes region and in Toronto. Those pieces of information really helped farmers and Fishermen plan their futures.
I see my good friend from Newfoundland who obviously knows the value of weather forecasting. He is a former sea captain. Fishermen rely on all of this information. I come from a farm, Mr. Speaker. For years when the farmers and fishermen were eating their lunches they listened to the forecast. The farmers wanted to know whether they would be baling hay the next day. Those were very important programs. Could the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell comment once again on the extreme importance of those programs?
CRTC Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret that the period for questions and comments is now over.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-20. It was interesting to hear the last speaker for the Liberal Party remark that the Government Members, whether the bookends on either sides of us in the House or those across the way, are not speaking on this legislation. I find it ironic that we elect so many people to the Government side for them to sit here and not speak. When the Liberal Party was in government we used to say some rather nasty things about their back-benchers. I suspect that the Hon. Member who just spoke does not mean to reflect on his own colleagues who never did speak in the last four years.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is either inadvertently or intentionally being negligent in his comments. First and foremost, Members who are sitting here today played a very active role in the last Parliament. I think it is totally out of order for this Member to comment or make judgments on previous intentions, comments, or lack of comments by other Members in the previous Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the nervousness which the Liberal Party may feel about this. Regardless of what legislature one talks about, it is a fact that if the Government wants to get legislation through it will tell its back-benchers not to get up. The Hon. Member who rose on the point of order is not new to the House and must recognize that on many occasions it was opposition Members who kept the debate going in the House. By and large government back-benchers do as they are doing today, which is to say nothing. Unfortunately that means that their constituents are not being represented in this debate. We do not know what people in various parts of the country think because their Members are not speaking on this legislation, which affects a number of them.
The Liberal Members spoke with regard to the abuse of Government jets and things of that nature. That is not a new thing. During a provincial election in Manitoba three federal Government jets were sitting at the airport in Winnipeg. Three Ministers discovered that they had to be in Winnipeg on a certain date and they could not fly together. I presume that the abuse by the present Government is nothing new; the old Government did it too. These things did not happen only after September 4.
I would like to speak about the Bill itself. I come from a riding that will be affected by this legislation. There are sections of the legislation which I must applaud. I do not agree with everything in the legislation, but there are some ideas which have been a long time coming. I agree that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) should have the power to give policy direction to the CRTC. This is often necessary within the CRTC or the CTC. I see that the Minister of

February 1, 1985
CRTCAct
Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is in the Elouse. There is often a Government commission which makes unpopular decisions. We ask questions in the House of the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Communications and are told that that was not done by them but by the CRTC, the CTC or some other body which happens to be filled with Government supporters. It is essential that the elected Ministers make the policy decisions and take responsibility for them. We support that particular change in the legislation.
However, as a caveat to my earlier remarks, I wish to say that it is important that there still be a forum through which those people affected by such measures have an opportunity to make their representations known. The CRTC has performed such a role over the years whereby people who were affected by certain applications would be able to appear at a hearing before the CRTC to make representations.
1 hope that when the Government makes decisions about cutting back services or encouraging private enterprise to the exclusion of the CBC it will also provide a forum for those citizens affected by those decisions to make presentations. I must say that I do not believe that that is necessarily a job for the committees of the House of Commons because most of them do not travel. Commissions such as the CRTC and the Canadian Transport Commission are able to travel to the areas affected by applications. We hope that the CRTC will continue to play a role in hearing evidence from concerned groups affected by policy on the future of communications in this country.
There is another aspect of this legislation that concerns me. In areas where the Minister believes there is enough competition in the future, the CRTC would lose its power to make regulatory decisions. I am not convinced that there is much competition with regard to communications. Most communities across this country have only one or two stations serving them. Most people who subscribe to a cable network only receive one cable network. Therefore, we should realize that there is not a lot of competition in the communications business in this country and it is necessary to have a regulatory body which will retain the authority to hear submissions not only about price but the level of service being provided to the various communities. If this clause is put into law, I hope there will not be many exclusions from the regulatory process which has generally served us well in the past.
My riding covers the northern two-thirds of Manitoba. It covers 186,000 square miles and consists of 50 communities. One study which will affect my riding is that by the CRTC special task force on service to small, isolated communities. One of our difficulties in speaking to this legislation presently is that we do not have the findings of that task force at the present time. When we are speaking on a Bill which affects the future communications policy of the Government and the direction which communications will be taking, it is unfortunate that we do not have that information before us at the present time.
This has been a problem in the past because this aspect of communications is one for which rules that were set up for the CRTC were really meant for larger communities with greater numbers competing for licences and areas where inexpensive cable systems can be established. These are areas where Canadians live close to the American border and are already able to receive extra service.
The problem faced by northern and smaller communities was that they either received no television or radio or perhaps only received one network, which was the CBC in most cases. The CBC had a mandate to serve smaller towns while the private enterprise networks, by their own admission, did not see a profit in providing a television or radio service to communities such as those in my riding and those in the riding of my colleague, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
The advent of the satellite dish provided the capability to pick signals out of the air. As a result, many of these communities became involved in what was called illegal broadcasting. For example, one of the first satellite dishes in Canada, certainly in northern Manitoba, was brought in by a reserve in my riding, Red Sucker Lake. That reserve did not even have CBC service, let alone any other service. The chief and council took $60,000 from funds that were raised from various sources such as bingo and sports and bought a satellite dish. It picked up signals for free and provided broadcasting to the residents of that reserve. Although it was illegal, it was the only way they could get any television service.
That system mushroomed throughout the North and the rest of the country. In reaction to the situation the Cancom satellite network was set up whereby legal service was provided which could be used by many of those northern communities. However, that is a very expensive service to provide. One of the inequities that exists at this time is that larger cities such as Winnipeg have fairly reasonable rates, such as $6.40 a month for cable service, while the poor, small communities in my riding must pay $19.20 a month or more to get the Cancom satellite service. Many of the people in those communities are unemployed and do not have a lot of money.
When the task force makes its recommendations it should find ways of providing good Canadian service, because we need a service which guarantees a minimum of Canadian content. Certainly there is enough Canadian content available, with Ontario educational TV, the CBC and some of the programs coming from the National Film Board. However, it should also consider the price of that service. I hope that report takes the provision of cheaper service into consideration for the eventual regulations.
We should also recognize that the people who live in smaller communities do not have the same entertainment options as those who live in Winnipeg, Regina, Toronto or Montreal. Quite often they are tempted to pick up illegal satellite reception of channels which cover sports or movies, such as the Home Box Office, because they do not have professional hockey in their communities, and many communities in my riding do not have movie theatres. The only way they can see
February 1, 1985

hockey or baseball or have access to a variety of entertainment is from channels received with a satellite dish.
I hope the task force considers that serious problem in its recommendations. It may be said that these communities can watch the CBC. I believe the CBC has done a good job in the past and Canadian content is important to keep the cultural identity of this nation. However, we must also recognize that these people live in communities where the entertainment options are very limited. They have a greater need for a variety of programming than people in some of the larger areas and cities of this country.
There is one other item on which I would like to speak before my time draws to a close, Mr. Speaker. It is a concern which has an underlying theme in this debate. We are not sure where the Government is going in its communications policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think many of us in the Opposition and probably some Members on the Government side would feel more comfortable in this debate if we had a more comprehensive communications policy set forth before us at this time. When the Minister talks about reducing regulation where there is competitition, I would like to know what he means by competition. As I said earlier in this debate, we do not believe there is that much competition in television service in this nation. We know by the very nature of the physical arrangements that most people do not have an option regarding which cable company they contract with. They have a choice of maybe one or two cable companies. In most cases it is a system where they only have one. In most communities there are not that many cable companies. Perhaps in Toronto the situation is different, but in most communities across this country there are not that many television stations. There might be one, there might be two. In most of the communities in my constituency we have only the CBC and in a few other communities we have the CTV network. None of my communities has the Global network. None of my communities has the Ontario educational system. I do not see a lot of competition out there. I would prefer, when the Minister makes the suggestion that he has in this legislation, that he clarify what he means by adequate competition.
I would also be concerned that we are giving him the right to make policy decision and to give policy directions to the CRTC. We agree with that and I support him. I would like to know what policy directions the Minister is thinking about. I think we have a right to know. I note that the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary is here today. I hope there would be some clarification of what kind of process will be there for the public to have input when the Minister is making policy decisions. I hope the Member indicates that to this House when he has a chance to speak a few weeks from now. It is a major concern.
This week alone we have a group of people concerned about the future of the CBC. Pierre Berton, Farley Mowat, and
CRTC Act
others have been sitting in this House and expressing their deep concern about what is happening with the CBC in the future. I have received letters and I am sure other Members have received letters about what direction the new youth network will be taking. Will it be done, as some of our Members have suggested, by the National Film Board, or will it be done by an American-based company such as Walt Disney? Again, that is a policy matter, just as it is a matter of the CRTC. The Manitoba Teachers' Society, for example, has written to me about what they would like to see and how they can present some of the questions they have with regard to youth networks. How will that happen if the Government is making policy decisions? How can they have input? Certainly one or two of those kinds of organizations will be rich enough and have the means to talk to the Minister directly, but in many cases that is not possible. I would like to see some kind of forum for hearings by the CRTC or some other means by which the public can have input.
I think there are some very good clauses in this Bill generally we support the direction of the Bill. We certainly support the addition of sex as one of the areas that must be considered in controlling and regulating broadcasts so we can make sure sexually abusive broadcasting is not taking place in Canada. Certainly this need has been demonstrated in the last year or two.
There are improvements in this Bill to help make the broadcasting system better in Canada. There are some weaknesses also. I would hope some of the Government Members who are knowledgeable in this area will get up and take part in this debate and let us know what they are thinking, perhaps with the help of speaking notes from the Department.
I have one other concern which I have not had a chance to express and it is a good one on which to end my speech. There is an increasing level of violence in television programs coming into this country. For the most part they are not Canadian-based programs. They are brought in in most cases, by the very nature of our system, from the United States. I am concerned about this. Like many people, I have a chance to flip channels to see what is going on. There is much too much violence, much of it degrading. I do not believe this is necessary. I believe the CRTC or the Government itself should take some action and look at the amount of violence taking place, violence which most parents are not in a position to control. They do not know what channel their children are watching at a given time. They do not know what is on television. That is a personal concern of mine, and I hope that the Government or the CRTC would look into this.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and then a question for clarification which I will address to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), whose very thoughtful remarks have been listened to carefully on this side and will be taken into consideration.
I am the designated clean-up speaker at the end of the second reading debate on Bill C-20 and at that time I will address directly the questions which the Hon. Member has raised.

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and I had the honour to host a luncheon for Pierre Berton, Farley Mowat, Dinah Christie, Doris Anderson, the former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, the Hon. Pauline McGibbon, and Ray Hazzan, who is the spokesperson for the CBC producers. We are well aware of their concerns. We had a most useful exchange at that luncheon.
I listened with interest to the argument made by the Hon. Member for Churchill that the Government should have greater power of direction over the CRTC. Would the Hon. Member not agree that the CRTC, the Canadian Transport Commission and other such bodies are quasi-judicial in nature? They are and in my view must remain initially at an arm's length relationship from the Government. I agree with the Hon. Member that they should not be policy setters. The Government should set the regulations, then these Commissions should enforce them and carry them out. Is the Member making the point that the problem with the CRTC now is that it has wound up being both policy-maker and regulator?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Hon. Member survived his luncheon with the various people who are concerned about the CBC and I hope the CBC survives this Government.
With regard to the substantive matter which the Parliamentary Secretary has brought up, whether the CRTC, the Canadian Transport Commission or others should have an independent policy-making role, I believe that will always be the case to some degree anyway. Just this last month, the month of January, there were decisions made by the Canadian Transport Commission which will have the effect of reducing service to a number of communities on the CN rail line in my riding. Two historic railway stations will be closed down and eight station agents will be cut, many of whom speak Cree. The population of my riding in many communities speak Cree. They will be in a situation of finding it very difficult to get service in the future. Some will say that is an administrative matter. I would say that when the Government cuts services affecting one language or cultural group in the country, in effect it is setting a policy or it is following an existing government policy. It is a bit more than administration.
I can speak with some experience as I used to be the vice-chairman of the Manitoba Police Commission. Even though the Government of Manitoba set a policy, the decisions of the Police Commission or any other commission in the decision-making process somehow established policy for the future. It is a balancing act. I hope the Government sets the general policy so that we in the House can rise and question the Minister as to policy directions and express our concerns to various Ministers, whether it be the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) or whoever. At the same time there are other citizens and interest groups out there who need something like the
CRTC or the CTC which visits their communities and hears presentations from people affected by the ultimate decision.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the address of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I particularly appreciate his remarks in the latter part of his speech when he referred to the need of the community at large to hear and to feel the impact of the CRTC in a very local sense. Clearly, that is what has been missing in the past.
I should like to refer to some small communities in the Slocan Valley such as New Denver and Silverton, communities of that nature. They are a very isolated area where the geography is vertical instead of horizontal. When their permits expired for the rebroadcast of a Canadian channel-and at that time it was the CBC-they were told by the CRTC that they would not be relicensed. When CRTC officials came to me to describe the reason for that decision, they suggested that perhaps the little town of New Denver should put in a television studio to broadcast from the community at the base of the mountain where no signals were available, so that the people in that community could receive television. Those are the kinds of things which have been alluded to that make absolutely no sense. They demonstrate that the Government and the bureaucracy at the time were totally out of touch with the people. I am pleased that this Bill will open up that entire component and allow communities such as the little town of Burton with 300 people to have these services. Instead of the people in Burton watching the signal from the north and listening to a French language program when the people of that town are not bilingual-and I must say that they do not undersand Cree or Inuit-and instead of receiving two very poor signals, the circumstances have been revised and improved upon and they are now receiving CBC and CTV programming, programming which they need in order to be informed.
I should like to conclude with the following remark which deals with the inequities of communications and refer once again to that little town of Burton with 300 souls. There is a telephone line going right by its door. It carries the signal of CBC Radio. They cannot listen to it. These 300 people have radios which do not have sufficient strength to pick up CBC Radio, yet the CBC signal runs on the telephone line by its door. They cannot tap into it. I suppose they could do so if they were millionaires. However, the bottom line is that the rate which the B.C. Telephone Company wants for the service is so astronomical that there is no point in even considering it for a community of some 300 people.
Again I thank the Hon. Member for his comments regarding the need for the CRTC to relate to the circumstances of smaller communities and in isolated areas of Canada. I very much understand his comments in that regard.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong reservations about Bill C-20. They are not related to the original intentions of the Bill, for it is very similar to the one prepared by the previous Liberal Government and introduced by the previous Liberal Minister
February 1, 1985

of Communications, the Hon. Francis Fox, nor are my reservations about Bill C-20 to be found in its wording, although there are some important omissions in it and amendments are needed.
My reservations are more fundamental than that. When amendments were written under the Liberal administration, we assumed that there was an absolute understanding by all- and this was right and reasonable-that the Government would continue the arm's length policy of not interfering with the CRTC, the CBC or, for that matter, with cultural and arts councils. That was always Liberal Government policy, and it was written at the time. The Liberal Government at that time assumed that that relationship would continue. However, I now have strong reservations after only six months of rule by the Tory Government. All indications are that the Government and the Conservative Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) have a different approach and a different agenda in mind.
On November 29, 1984 The Globe and Mail indicated that the Tory Minister of Communications said that he wanted to rethink the arm's length policy and that his Government was moving rapidly to apply a direct political hand into the affairs of the agency, the CBC. He hired three private consultants to advise him on the fate of the CBC. He interposed political agents into the CBC situation and asked them to monitor and, I imagine, to manipulate. This has already been brought to the attention of the House by my Liberal colleagues.
Another proof of flagrant government interference is by hands on manipulation-by putting its hands on the throat of the CBC to strangle it Financially, to force it and to intimidate it, to make it tremble and conform to Tory Government objectives. Imagine the ramifications of Bill C-20, if it is put into force now, in the hands of this Minister and this Government.
How can we trust the Government with power of direction of the CRTC? How can we trust it in light of the facts? In the few short months the Government has been in power, it has created more havoc and chaos among the cultural and artistic community than any foreign invader could have done in as many years. By its massive and ill-considered budgetary cuts to the CBC and to numerous arts and cultural organizations in the country, the Government has created distrust, fear and consternation among broadcasters, writers, artists, musicians and communicators of all kind who give us a sense of our own identity. Our feeling of national identity is now being threatened. The cuts the Government has made to the CBC will result in a serious blow to Canadian programming. CBC management has virtually conceded this.
I ask the Government how it can go on reducing Canadian programming at a time when the cultural sovereignty of our air waves is being threatened as never before. I remind the Government that it was its own Party which originally founded the CBC with the following words:
This country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources... free from foreign interference or influence.
CRTC Act
Why, then, is the Government actively behaving as if it wants our air waves to be filled with American programming? Does it know that two major documentaries have recently been aired in Europe devoted exclusively to discussing the pathetic and tragic situation that is occurring in the Canadian television situation?
Does this Government realize that on any evening of the week, only 23 per cent of the programs over television have any Canadian content whatever? Does it know that for every hour of Canadian drama seen in this country, 24 hours of American drama is broadcast? Finally, if it is aware of all this, why is it carrying out a policy that will make a bad situation even worse?
The record of this new Conservative Government in broadcasting is one that no true Canadian, no Canadian with any sense of feeling for this country and what it stands for, can support. By slashing the operating budgets of the CBC, the National Film Board, the Canada Council and all other institutions which we rely on to give us our sense of identity, the Government has thrown away any credibility it may have had as a defender of our national dreams.
It is this Party's forerunner that created the national dream by building a railroad across this country. We now see the sorry side of this very same Party destroying a national dream of another kind, a national dream of a Canadian identity expressed through the artists and their broadcasters.
This Government cannot be trusted to control broadcasting. It has shown that in a few short months. It slashed the central pillar of our broadcasting system, the CBC, so deeply and indiscriminately that it is in mortal danger. Given the record of this Government and its shameful betrayal of our national dream, our expression of our Canadian identity, given the record of betrayal of public broadcasting by this Government, we must not allow it to gain even more control over broadcasting by means of this Bill.
Let us look at the record of this Government in the few short months it has been in office with regard to its communications policy. There have been massive cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which have been widely decried as hasty and ill-considered. The $85 million cut to the CBC has needlessly created 1,200 unemployed broadcasters at the CBC. In addition, hundreds of independent contributors to the Corporation are now without a source of income.
There has been a major reversal of the traditional arm's length relationship between the Government and the CBC. The behaviour of the Government has created an atmosphere of fear, distrust and unease amongst the artists and broadcasters of this country. Culture is a multimillion dollar industry in Canada. The cuts to the CBC were not eliminating frills. The CBC budget is spent to support scores of film laboratories, sound studios, small production companies and other associated industries.
The CBC appropriation spends over $15 million every year on musicians and composers in this country. No one else

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
supports our musicians to the same degree. Every year well over $20 million goes to the writers and performers who belong to ACTRA out of the CBC budget.
What will be the trickle-down effect from the CBC cuts on these talented Canadians? To the thousands of technicians, writers, artists, musicians and performers, the CBC is not a frill. It is the principal if not the only source of their income. The cuts to the CBC will mean that these people, who have never found it easy to survive, now face truly difficult times.
The Minister of Communications is reported to have admitted last December that, in retrospect, perhaps he ought to have looked at the mandate of the CBC before he made the cuts. That is small comfort to the thousands of CBC workers.
My riding is in Toronto. What I will say is not only because of letters I have received from people in the CBC, but from my understanding of the problems of those who report in my riding. The morale of the CBC is in tatters. With wholesale slashing of its operations, personnel and program budgets, the organization is bleeding. The rumours of further cuts and the hints of secret government reviews have engendered an atmosphere of bewilderment and terror at the Corporation, yet nowhere have we seen a rational agenda for the cuts to the arts.
Let the Minister of Communications understand one thing. The CBC cuts were not, as he seems to believe, simply efficiencies in a bloated bureaucracy. The cuts meant that hundreds of professional people are out of work with little likelihood of finding professional work elsewhere. The cuts have meant that the only program for native people, Our Native Land, will not be returning. Let the Minister of Communications tell our native people that the CBC cuts will not affect programming. The respected children's show-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would just like to point out that the Member's speech should be relevant to the subject, that is, the CRTC and modifications to the Act concerning the CRTC, and not the cuts to Radio Canada.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to point out that this morning, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) spent at least fifteen minutes talking about other things, and the Chair decided to allow this. He talked about the deficit, he talked about almost everything under the sun except the Bill. So I think the Hon. Member . .. I merely want to state this fact, and I know the Hon. Member is listening. The Hon. Member can certainly relate the cutbacks to the Bill, because there have been cutbacks at the CRTC.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: First of all, I shall if I may inform the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that this morning, the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) did not speak for a period of fifteen minutes about Government cutbacks or the deficit and that, as far as I know, he related the Government's cutbacks to the subject
dealt with in Bill C-20. It is true that this morning, the Chair was rather broad-minded in its interpretation, except that in the case of the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), I do not see how, up to now-


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to defend the relevance of what I am saying on Bill C-20. It will be seen, if one reviews the text of what I have said, that I have been establishing a very simple principle. I said at the outset that Bill C-20 as written would have no problems within it if the Government operated on the basis of an arm's length relationship. That was the assumption when this Bill was first introduced. It was based on the assumption of an arm's length relationship.
I am establishing that in every area the Minister and the Government are not carrying out an arm's length relationship with the arts, the CBC and other cultural organizations for which the CRTC presumably is responsible. If this Bill passes and it defines for the CRTC its areas of responsibility on the basis of the Commission's record, this will threaten our freedom. Therefore, it is extremely relevant as to what has been done to the CBC by this Government. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will give me the three minutes I lost because I would like to establish that it is an extremely relevant relationship that I have been trying to develop. Let the Minister of Communications understand that the CRTC cuts are not simply efficiencies to a bloated bureaucracy, as he seems to believe. I was pointing out that these cuts affect our native people. I stated that Our Native Land will not be returning as a program. I was saying that we should let the Minister of Communications tell our native people that this will not affect programming. The respected children's show, The Friendly Giant, will not be continued. Let the Minister of Communications tell Canadian children that CBC cuts will not affect programming.
The cuts have meant that the CBC cannot increase its participation in the Telefilm Fund. The Tories say: "Well, so what?". I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, The CBC is the broadcast organization which has provided over 80 per cent of Telefilm projects with Canadian independent producers. If the CBC can no longer afford to co-fund with Telefilm, where will the independent sector find air time and dollars? Let the Government tell the Canadian independent film industry that the cuts will not affect programming.
There has been a major reversal of the traditional arm's length relationship between the Government and the CBC. It is no longer 1984, but it appears as if Big Brother is alive, well and living in Ottawa. The appointment of a troika of so-called consultants from outside to oversee the CBC and its cuts amounts to a major reversal of the traditional arm's length relationship between Parliament and cultural agencies such as the CBC. I am using the CBC as an illustration.
The Government cannot and should not tell newspapers what to print, nor should it tell the CBC what to do through the instrument of the CRTC. If the Government can tell the
February 1, 1985

CBC which dollars ought to be spent where or how, the Hon. Minister of Communications could in theory control the CBC.
I suspect that few Canadians knew that the Conservative Government's communications policy was to undermine what has been one of the most respected information services in the world.
This Government maintains that the CBC is inefficient and over-funded. Yet the Minister is reported to have expressed surprise at the results of his budget slashing, which has been the loss of 1,200 jobs. It appears as if the Minister and his appointed overseers had not foreseen this disastrous effect on the CBC.
What objective proof did the Minister have to justify the cuts to the CBC? A major study of the CBC by the McKinsey Management Consultants concluded that, compared to any other broadcaster in the world including the BBC and Australian and American broadcasters, the CBC is substantially more productive. They found that the CBC produces twice as much programming per employee while the cost is much lower. What is more, the CBC does the costly programming that the private network in the country will not do because it is not profitable to do so. That is why the CBC does the only drama, religious and science programming in Canadian television. The private industry will not undertake to provide Canadian information.
One must ask oneself if the Canadian television industry must face this cut of $85 million and possibly more. Why are the Tories doing this? Is there a sinister purpose? Certainly given the Government's activities in the last few months, there is a growing mistrust of a government policy which has apparently been shaped behind closed doors. Many of our talented young people are gathering around the country to ask what this policy will do in terms of their futures and in terms of the future of the arts and the sciences. What about their roles as young people?
I suggest that we are facing a very critical time. I wish to say on behalf of our arts and communications industries that there are people in Toronto, for example, who are seeing the loss of jobs of those who are paid by the CBC as well as those in allied industries and realizing that the whole cultural framework that is centered in that metropolis is being gravely threatened. I am told by my colleagues, not only on this side of the House but also on the other side, that in Montreal there is a large community that is extremely anxious, suffering and very concerned about its future as well.
I would like to conclude by saying that I would feel much more comfortable if in fact the Tories had not put forth these other policies during the past six months. This Bill would have made sense in the context of an arm's length relationship. I feel I must express my reservations and I feel that, under these circumstances, I cannot give my support to this Bill when I know that the Government is not able at the present time to give us a policy for an attitude and relationship with the arts community that would ensure that it would stay at arm's length, allow the Canadian identity to be protected, and not allow a collapse of our entire identity as Canadians.
______________________________1929
CRTC Act


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


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question to ask the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille). I must commend him on his very fine speech on this very important subject.
I know that I receive many letters from constituents dealing with the quality of the programming that is on the air waves. Most of this programming is coming via satellite and in some cases is probably not quite legal. However, we are seeing more and more violence on programs and more and more sexually explicit programs. This Bill, in some way at least, addresses the quality of programming, and I think that is certainly a step in the right direction.
I wonder if the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence would share his views on the kind of programming he would like to see. It is a very delicate situation. It is very difficult to get into the area of ccensorship. How does the Hon. Member see the role of the Government and of the CRTC in addressing this very delicate subject?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly not be possible to lay out all of the possible ways in which the Government or the CRTC could in fact impose limits upon that kind of undesirable broadcasting. I certainly agree with the Hon. Member that the passage of such a Bill would do a great deal, if in the right hands, toward bringing about a proscription of those things which are obscene, violent and undesirable.
The conundrum is that if one supports a Bill like this, one hopes to put into the hands of a responsible Government the opportunity to deal with irresponsible kinds of broadcasting. That is why putting it into the hands of the Government, as was planned with this Bill originally under the Liberal Government, would have brought about the possibility for the Government to step in when such abhorrent things as promiscuity, attacks on women and attacks on children were taking place. That would have been the good side.
The down side, which I have tried to develop and which the Hon. Member probably understands and perhaps even shares with me, is that in light of the policies of the Government over the past six months during which it has been in power, the Government has been causing mayhem in the communications industry and particularly with that very organization which has been the keystone to presenting an option from the Canadian side. That is why it is a conundrum. If one votes against this Bill, then one is voting against the possibility of dealing with obscenity and other kinds of abuses. If one votes for this Bill, then one is voting for a Government that would strangle the CBC as it is strangling other arts organizations. That is the problem which I was developing.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) a question. Is it not the height of arrogance to say that the Liberal administration, which was trounced so badly at the polls

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
because the people no longer wanted it, was a responsible Government and could have handled this Bill whereas the Government which was elected by a vast majority of the people is irresponsible? Is it not arrogance on the part of the Liberals when they tell the Canadian electorate that it did wrong?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member should try to remember the history of the situation because the Liberal Party and its Government were in power for some 40 years and had the support of the Canadian people in all of the developments on which I have spoken, such as the development of the Canadian identity, fighting for Canadian sovereignty, bringing back the Constitution to Canada, the development of our own energy policies and our own resources, and the evolution of our own national flag and anthem. These were all fought against by that Party opposite which, for a few short months now, has held power. I must point out that the Liberal Government had power for 14 years in a row. With the exception of about six months, the Liberal Government has had uninterrupted 14 years of large majorities. No, it is not arrogant at all for a Liberal to stand up and say that the Canadian people are behind a policy that supports a CBC which will protect and uphold a sense of Canadian identity. But this should not be a partisan argument.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You made it that.


Roland de Corneille: What I am doing is simply pointing to the record of the Conservative Party during these past six months and what it has done to tear apart and tear down FIRA and now the CBC. Those are institutions which will protect and affirm our Canadian sovereignty and identity.


Mr. King:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member, who has just provided us with a recitation of the wonderous things which liberalism has brought to Canada, would also identify that liberalism with the $190 billion deficit which it has brought to Canada and the $35 billion deficit which is facing the nation in this current year? I wonder if the Hon. Member would identify liberalism with the fact that one-third of the revenues of Canada now go to pay interest on the national debt which Liberal philosophies and practices have produced?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Chair spoke to the Member who had the floor about his comments which were not related to the Bill before the House. I think the Member who has the floor has strayed from the subject of Bill C-20.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I must inform the Hon. Member for Bourassa, as I said earlier, that the Chair finds itself in a situation somewhat of its own making as a result of this morning's occurrence.
Comments were made earlier to the Hon. Member's colleague, the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), about the relevance of his speech, and we must now deal with the consequences.


Frederick John King: I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he also identifies Liberalism with the fact that one-third of the revenues of Canada now go to pay interest on the national debt?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order.


Frederick John King: If the Hon. Member does not wish the Government to restrain spending, at what point would he think it is important that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government of Canada take note of the increasing amount which is going simply to service the interest to the national debt? Would the Hon. Member allow it to go to 33.33 per cent, to 40 per cent, to 50 per cent or to 60 per cent before taking action? Where would the Hon. Member think would be an appropriate point at which to draw the line?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Respectfully, the period for questions and comments is now over.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief and hope that one more speaker from the Liberal Opposition and perhaps my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) will be permitted a few moments to make the points they have in mind.
This Bill is intended to change the regulations of TV and radio broadcasting. It is intended to give the Minister power to regulate the content of what is broadcast by any "undertaking", as it is called, and also to define the "undertaking" so as to include most of those which are not now clearly enough licensed. It also undertakes to give authority to the CRTC to regulate the content with regard to any attacks upon the equality and dignity of any group, and that specifically includes any attacks related to sex. It also undertakes to regulate only the larger outlets and not the very small ones, although those are not defined clearly.
I believe my constituents, from what I have been told, would agree with the main thrust of this Bill. The people of Spadina are patriotic people whether they were born here or came here from other countries. They want to see news of Canada. They want to see a variety of Canada represented on TV and on radio by the CBC and by other stations. They do not want to be fed exclusively with what comes from across the border or from overseas. They recognize, therefore, the need to have the Canadian state regulate what is otherwise capable of being monopolized by one private point of view. In that respect, they appreciate the state enterprise created by the Tories half a century ago. Some of my constituents recognize that as a very positive forerunner of socialism.
There are some defects in this program, however. This Bill does little to deal with the question of violence on TV. It gets closer to it but does not get very far. It also leaves the way open for total deregulation, which we know is in the philosophy
February 1, 1985

of Reaganomics, which philosophy is espoused by the Government at the present time. That is a worrisome matter and leaves undefined the question of services to small communities, although perhaps there is a task force report which will deal with that subject.
As has been pointed out, this Bill does nothing to offset the danger to Canadian content, the danger of losing the presentation of Canadian news, lifestyle, drama and music. There is the danger of destroying that opportunity through the budget cuts which have previously been referred to and which, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, have in fact become part of this debate. I agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that they do belong to this debate, certainly from the point of view of the people in the constituency of Spadina.
There are many people in Spadina who earn their living, albeit a very small one, by producing programs not only for the CBC but for the private producers on radio and on TV. No amount of careful regulation under this new Bill will ensure that they can make their contribution as Chinese, Portuguese, British, Irish or native people, whoever they may be. No amount of regulation will make sure that they can make their contribution if the whole of the funding for the work they do is destroyed by the budget cuts of this Government. We will be hearing more from them in the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker, because they are organizing with others in this country to present their views publicly. I will therefore not take any more time to present their view today, but I will be back.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have some concern about the Bill before us and I have discussed one or two of them with the Parliamentary Secretary, who was very forthcoming regarding the intent of this legislation. The amendments to the CRTC Act will give the Governor in Council the power to direct the Commission on policy matters. My concern lies with the procedural safeguards.
For those regarding the tabling of documentation, referral to committee and the time period, I commend the Government. I think it is important that Members of Parliament, regardless of political faith or ideology, have an opportunity to discuss in great detail the changes the Government might wish to bring forward. There is no better avenue than the floor of the House of Commons or the committee rooms.
Concerning the amendments to the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act, I am happy to see that the CRTC will have a clear mandate for dealing with all types of abusive programming. I hope that, notwithstanding the statements regarding sexually abusive programming, this will cover violence as well. Notwithstanding the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to make Canada the fifty-first state, we are quite different from the U.S. I think a lot of that has to do with our programming. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the U.S. there is a very great and sophisticated lobby to maintain the public broadcasting system. I hope that in Canada we will
CRTC Act
continue with an enriched CBC in the future and with its quality programs. In this respect, I hope the Government will very clearly spell out to the CRTC its policy direction on abusive programming. Other Members have alluded to the violence we see on television, particularly in rock videos. A number of programs and videos are quite damaging. However, I am optimistic that the necessary and all-encompassing policy direction will be forthcoming.
The other amendments to the Broadcasting Act are designed to reduce the burden of broadcasting regulation on the private sector. I applaud that intention, but one thing did concern me and I raised it with the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not wish to misquote him so if I do it is not intentional and he will have a chance to clear the record. I am talking about unlicenced satellite master antenna TV systems. There seems to be a proliferation of such systems in Canada which gives those operators an unfair advantage over those who have gone to the CRTC to plead their case for a licence or a licence renewal. I was hoping this legislation would clearly spell that out, but I am told that is not the case. I have no doubt, in view of the majority on the other side, that these amendments will be passed, Mr. Speaker. However, I hope the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), shortly after passage of the Bill, will get up in the House and state his policy in this regard. We do not want these unlicenced systems proliferating in Canada. I think this is extremely important and I am confident that the Parliamentary Secretary will be cognizant of the suggestion I am trying to make and will take some action on it.
I have alluded to some positive aspects of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, but the part of the Bill which gives me the most difficulty is Section 14.5. It says in part that the Minister shall consult with the executive committee of the Commission with respect to the nature and subject matter of the direction or notice. Perhaps on some other opportunity, unless there is time to debate this matter into the wee hours of the morning, the Parliamentary Secretary could elaborate on this. Indeed, perhaps the Minister could do so. What do they mean by consultation? Is it a 30-minute meeting with members of the executive committee or is it passing on a statement to members of the committee? Is it meaningful consultation with members of the Commission who, I have no doubt, will be appointed to that body because of their objectivity and competence, not because of their political persuasion? I have no doubt that will happen now as it has in the appointments we made, Mr. Speaker. What of the consultation? It has to be meaningful, very meaningful.
I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because, as you know, cuts were applied to the CBC as well as to many other aspects of our cultural efforts, that is, to the Canada Council, the National Film Board and the Arts Council. Where was the consultation there? I am afraid that because of the loose language contained in the Bill, particularly in Section 14.5, what we may be authorizing here today is the opportunity for the Government to go forward in its direction to the CRTC, but that it will continue to slash arbitrarily, without meaning-

February 1, 1985
CRTC Act
ful dialogue with those who regulate telecommunications here in Canada. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of his distinguished career in the other place, would want that to happen. This ought to be amended to read "meaningful consultation". It has to be spelled out so I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be cognizant of my concern in that regard and, hopefully, we will be able to raise that matter in committee.
The other aspect of my concern, and it is semi-related, concerns the direction which the Government of Canada can give to the CRTC on policy matters. One can applaud this because in essence what the Government is saying is, "We, the national Government, will decide and give direction to the CRTC". Another tool which it has is Section 99 of the Financial Administration Act which related to Crown corporations. Pursuant to that section it can give clear, unequivocal directions to Crown corporations on how it wants them to proceed. It is incumbent upon those who occupy positions of responsibility, whether in the CBC or other Crown corporations, to follow the directions contained therein. I refer again to Section 14.5 which relates to consultation. What does it mean? The Government has not elucidated what it means by that. We have seen what has happened with the cuts in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Knowing your objectivity and background, Mr. Speaker, you can readily see my concern for those areas in Canada which, through no fault of their own but because of geography and the way in which people are dispersed throughout the country, are experiencing very serious effects as a result of the CBC cut-backs.
There is no consultation, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government cannot argue that there is. I hope that in the future the Government will be clear in its policy with regard to abusive programming. I hope that the directives will not be solely of a budgetary nature.
In my area there are some very devastating cut-backs which are very much related to this legislation. The program Radio Noon is an example. I know that there are Hon. Members here from urban areas of Canada who, perhaps because of restraints, have not travelled as extensively as they would wish. Window/ on Resources is another very important program to those individuals in Canada. It is very unfair to cut back on that. One could make the argument that it is in breach of the constitutional accord. There are programs which are akin to the more urban areas of the country. Surely the Canadian national Government would want to have programs which affect, assist and aid the rural areas of Canada as well as the urban areas. Fishing communities have been dependent upon those broadcasts for a considerable period of time. Due to lack of knowledge some Members may feel that that program cannot be that significant. It is significant when you live in an isolated community where that is your only communication resource. I urge government Members to attempt to effectuate a change in that type of policy.
There are other programs in my own riding that have been cancelled. Talent Cape Breton-


Robert Hylton Brisco: What talent?


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Conservative Member says, "What talent". I know he did not make that statement intentionally. He does not want to cast aspersions intentionally on the artists employed by the CBC who participated in that program. I am sure he does not want to do that, Mr. Speaker. I hope not. I hope he is a big enough Canadian to appreciate that there are many areas in this country with a different background and culture than his. Surely he can appreciate that although it may mean nothing to him, it meant a great deal to the individuals associated with the programs Island Echoes and Fresh Air. In the Hon. Member's wisdom he may have a second thought about casting aspersions on the individuals associated with those programs.
The individuals who conceived and produced those programs and the artists who were retained to provide their services and talents met with a great deal of success and public recognition and acceptability. That ought to be fundamental to any national policy concerned with communications. I hope that members of the Government recognize that because of the geography of our country and the way in which people are dispersed throughout it, we need an improved CBC rather than cut-backs.
If the Government wants to change management, it should do so. That is its prerogative. The CBC provided a very important service to all the people of Canada. The Government is wrong in the direction in which it is trying to take us. I retract that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Government has a direction in mind. I was hoping that the Minister of Communications would give us a clear policy. He has not done that. That is the old Tory philosophy. When they do not know what to do, they just cut back. That is very harmful to the Canadian people. It is very harmful to the individuals who have lost their jobs. Many of these individuals have been with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a considerable period of time and have prided themselves on the work they have done. They have done a good job and now, because of the cutbacks announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, their jobs no longer exist.
That is a shameful way for a national Government to proceed against a constituency, the true intrinsic value of which all Canadians, regardless of philosophy, have learned to appreciate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw the attention of the Chair to the comments made by the Hon. Member who has been speaking. I asked the rhetorical question, "What talent?", providing him with the opportunity to tell us of the talent of Cape Breton for the first time in his address. Why should he feel so negative toward this Party and toward the Member for Kootenay West when I have given him that opportunity? I clearly fail to understand. He
February 1, 1985

should be grateful for the fact that I have given him that opportunity.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


George Albert Proud: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but with respect, 1 submit this is not a point of order. This is not Oral Question Period, and the Hon. Member did not raise a point of order. I submit this with due respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned.", 'Monday, February 4, 1985']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Shall Order No. 2 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) wish to move this motion before the House, since the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) is not here?


Frederick John King: I believe it has already been moved.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. It is my understanding that the motion was introduced some time ago. We are resuming debate on it. Perhaps the record should show the original mover and seconder of the motion. I do not believe the seconder was the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). Perhaps the record should be corrected to show the person who actually seconded the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I profoundly regret that the confusion may have come from the Chair. This is not the same motion. It is a different motion.
The problem that we are presently confronted with is the fact that I believe the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills is not in the House. The Chair would like to know if there is a mover to replace the Hon. Member.
It was my previous understanding when the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen rose that he would accept to be the mover of the motion. Am I correct in that assumption?


Frederick John King: Yes.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I second the motion.
Constitution Act, 1982



Frederick John King: That, in the opinion of this House the government should amend the Constitution Act 1982, to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if the good people in Ottawa would drink more of that Similkameen wine they would soon be able to identify the region and associate the quality of debate that comes from this desk with the quality of that wine.
I wish to acknowledge the cogency of what the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has said about the entrenchment of the right of enjoyment of property in previous remarks in the House. I have the greatest respect for him and I know that we share the concern for the protection of property rights. It is a concern that farmers in all of our constituencies have expressed to us in earnest terms. This has not only been expressed by farmers but, since I am a farmer, I refer to those good citizens of Canada.
Private Members' Hour provides an opportunity to discuss, in a general way, some of the issues arising out of the idea of entrenching property rights in the Constitution. However, I do not believe that Private Members' Hour is suitable for resolving a matter of such significance. This is so, even though it is my wish that the property rights should be entrenched in the Constitution. It must be recognized that there are many individuals and groups, as well as provinces, who have expressed reservations about the entrenchment of property rights. In that context, it does not seem to me that it is appropriate to make decisions about this matter during Private Members' Hour.
I emphasize my support and the support of my Party for the entrenchment of property rights. It bears repeating that it was the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, the late former Prime Minister and Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. As a result, the right of enjoyment of property is protected at the federal level in Canada.
Since that time, the Progressive Conservative Party has supported the entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a matter of fact, we lobbied to have property rights included in the Charter when it was first established. We have continued to advocate its inclusion.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that property and the right to enjoy it are essential features of our democratic society. These features, among others, distinguish our society from totalitarian countries. The well-being of our country is not dependent solely on government. In Canada,

February 1, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
government, business, individuals and others are economic partners. We want to retain that system.
At the basis of our ability as individuals to participate in this partnership and contribute to the well-being of our country, is the right to own and enjoy property and the right to employ our property in our business enterprises. Our business enterprises, whether large or small, are the backbone of our economy and they are owned by individual Canadians.
These individuals provide the resources and the capital upon which these enterprises depend. In this context, the comments of Professor Jack Knetsch of Simon Fraser University are particularly apt. I quote the following from page one of his book Property Rights and Compensation:
In most societies a system of entitlements has evolved which, among other effects, largely assures that the rewards to productive effort are returned to those making the effort and are not gratuitously appropriated by others. This "sowing and reaping" rationale remains, in most communities, a major protection for investment and an important incentive for the efficient use of resources. Entitlements that encourage individuals to husband property, and individuals' efforts to obtain further advantage, provide gains for the community.
I suggest that it is appropriate to note that the socialist philosophy of state ownership which is espoused by the NDP provides the exact opposite, a disincentive to progress and economic development.
The right to own and enjoy property allows us to enjoy the fruits of our endeavours whether we are self-employed or wage earners. It enables us to own automobiles, homes and farms and to have the sort of things we need to carry on the good life that we enjoy in Canada. Our right to own and enjoy property gives us a stake in our country. It is important then that property rights should receive adequate protection, and that means entrenching them in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Entrenching property rights would mean that they would not be dependent on the good-will of the government of the day. The Charter is now the supreme law of the land. The tradition of the supremacy of Parliament has been altered. The actions of government are now subject to the scrutiny of the courts which are charged with interpreting and enforcing the Charter. It is, however, precisely for this reason that the entrenchment of property rights requires careful consideration. The consequences of entrenching property rights are potentially far-reaching.
Many individuals and groups as well as provinces have expressed sincere concerns about the possible consequences of entrenching property rights. This concern must be recognized and dealt with. In this connection I would note that the federal Government cannot by itself entrench property rights in the Constitution. Amending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to entrench property rights would require resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population. To date, however, only two provinces, British Columbia and New Brunswick, have passed resolutions supporting the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other
provinces have expressed some reluctance to support the entrenchment of property rights. That is why we say that perhaps a Private Members Motion is not the best way to ensure that full consideration and negotiation is established before this is entered into.
The provinces are concerned that by entrenching property rights we will enable the courts to interfere with laws which protect important societal interests. As examples of this the provinces cite land use planning and municipal laws, environmental laws, resource laws, real and personal property laws, building and health and safety laws, and other types of laws. They ask, for instance, whether an entrenched right to the enjoyment of property might affect their ability to control the use of privately-owned land in order to protect the environment or to protect communities. Their concerns are sincere and deserve consideration.
I believe that the provinces are open-minded on this matter. Because their support is necessary if we are to entrench property rights, we should be working together with them to see if we can resolve their concerns in a way that is acceptable to all interested parties. We should be attempting to build a consensus on this matter, adopting the co-operative and conciliatory approach to federalism which is the hallmark of the new Government of Canada.
There is another reason for taking this sort of approach. Subsection 38(2) of the new Constitution, that is, the Constitution Act, 1982, allows a province to opt out of a constitutional amendment which "derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province". It would appear that a property rights amendment would undoubtedly come within Subsection 38(2). It is possible then that acting in an untimely fashion might prompt a disaffected province to opt out of a property rights amendment, which would be its right. It is surely our responsibility to avoid the resulting inconsistent application of property rights protections across the country. Doing so requires us to endeavour to reach a consensus on this matter.
Not only the provinces are concerned about the effects of entrenching property rights. Women's groups are apprehensive that the entrenchment of property rights may jeopardize the interests of women as they have emerged in recent family law reform. These reforms were intended to recognize as equal the contributions of homemakers and breadwinners to the family. They do so by providing for a presumptive equal division of assets when a marriage breaks down. The courts may award assets to one spouse even where the other spouse has the apparent legal title. Women's groups are afraid that constitutional property rights guarantees might prevent a court from doing this, with a resulting adverse impact on women. Even if the courts were ultimately to uphold these matrimonial property laws, women's groups are concerned that women will have to bear the cost and hardship of fighting the cases which will inevitably arise under a constitutional property rights guarantee. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women
February 1, 1985

dealt with the matter of the entrenchment of property rights in a resolution dated September 27, 1983. It reads in part:
Whereas on March 29, 1983, an amendment to Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, concerning property rights, was introduced in the House of Commons and was defeated;
Whereas a second similar amendment may be introduced;
Whereas the aim of the amendment of March 29, 1983, was to protect property rights in the traditional sense of the word, meaning primarily real property;
Whereas Canadian women in general, are not owners of real property and, furthermore, own relatively little property of any kind;
Whereas the probable consequences of such an amendment have not been sufficiently studied and discussed;
Whereas such an amendment could have grave consequences on the rights which women have already obtained, such as the right to division of the matrimonial home;
Whereas any increased protection of property in the Canadian Constitution must also protect new types of property, which are often social rights and benefits such as rent control, pensions and labour standards;
The CACSW recommends to the federal government that no new amendment be introduced in the House of Commons before an in-depth study can be made to establish the consequences of such a measure on the lives of Canadian women. We also ask that any such measure be submitted to the general public so that Canadian women be given the chance to voice their opinion on the matter.
It seems to me that these are sincere concerns that have to be considered. Women's groups appear to be open-minded on these issues. We should make an effort to resolve their concerns. The opportunity to do so should not be forgone.
Even assuming that we can reach a consensus on the entrenchment of property rights, it remains for us to settle the form of the protection. Even the two provinces which have passed resolutions to entrench property rights have not agreed upon the form that such a constitutional amendment should take. The Legislature of that great Province of British Columbia has passed a resolution to entrench property rights in the Constitution-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: -by amending Section 7 of the Charter to include the right to enjoyment of property. B.C. has proposed that Section 7 should read as follows:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
On the other hand, New Brunswick, the only other province to pass a resolution regarding the entrenchment of property rights, proposed that everyone has the right to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. This provision differs from the one proposed by British Columbia, by providing that a person may only be deprived of the right of the enjoyment of property by due process of law rather than in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice.
There has been much debate about the meaning of fundamental justice and due process of law, as well as about the differences between the two phrases. I do not propose to consider that debate now. Suffice it to say that these questions
Constitution Act, 1982
must be addressed in consultation with the provinces on the entrenchment of property rights.
We should also keep a sense of perspective about the immediacy of the need for action on the constitutional front. My concern and that of many constituents is the economy. We must work toward the restoration of a healthy, balanced economic framework as a first priority for the achievement of all-important social and political objectives.
With property rights protected at the federal level by the Canadian Bill of Rights and with the proprietory safeguards available in the provinces by common law and by statute, I do not see any overt risk to the property of our citizens which requires us to move as the first priority on the constitutional amendment.
I see Mr. Speaker signalling that my time is up. I know that there are people who are awaiting my final words. They will have to speak with me privately in order to obtain them.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably not often that you get the official response of the Government before you hear the motion by the Hon. Member who is backing it. Indeed I would like to speak privately with the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) because I have a feeling that his private views are somewhat different from the official view which he presented-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -albeit there are some legitimate questions which could be discussed. In my view this is a critical subject and it is an important opportunity for the House. We, as individual Members of Parliament, once again are given the opportunity to rise and say to the Governments, the executive levels, federally and provincially, that we stand with the people, that we stand for the rights to property. Of the four fundamental freedoms for which our ancestors fought and died, there are only three entrenched in the new Canadian Charter of Rights. Of course they are life, liberty and security of the person. However, the fourth fundamental right for which our ancestors fought and died is not entrenched in Canada. It is true that it is part of our common law tradition and that it is part of our statute law, provincially and federally, namely the Canadian Bill of Rights, but it is not entrenched.
When we as Canadians through the House committed the nation to an entrenched system of rights, we should have included that ancient and historic right to property. The battles of 1215 for the Magna Carta, the battles of 1689 for the Petition of Rights, the battle of the French people in 1790, the French Revolution, and the American War of Independence, were fought for the four fundamental freedoms-life, liberty, security of the person and property.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Blaine Allen Thacker: In the 1700s when people were given the right to property, we opened up the creation of wealth. This has

February 1, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
meant that even poor people in the western world are better off than the kings of old. In the 1700s when all wealth was concentrated in the kings, the kings had absolute jurisdiction, and ordinary people were serfs on the land; they had no future at all. However, when we tried this economic experiment of giving people their rights individually and to land, they worked hard and saved for subsequent generations. As a result, we are a wealthy people today.
We have more than just the ancient and historic reasons for entrenching property rights. This nation, Canada, is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We as a nation are a signatory. Therefore, I believe none of us can stand in the House and oppose that. What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state? Article 17 reads:
(1)	Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2)	No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
We often see members of the New Democratic Party standing and quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I often wonder why they selectively skip over Article 17. It is because fundamentally they do not believe in property rights. We cannot have security of the person, liberty and freedom without property rights. When people have property rights, the chance to work and create, they create their own pension plans. They can then turn up their noses at power, bureaucrats and Governments because they can look after themselves. This is why it is critical. That is the difference between western and eastern democracies.
Another step in that ancient trail was the Canadian Bill of Rights. Everyone should read Article (l)(a). Several provinces have statutory Bills of Rights which talk about the right to property, but there is a major difference. A statute is a statute. It can be changed overnight. Once it is entrenched and becomes part of the fundamental law, it cannot then be arbitrarily taken away by Governments that might be responding to the immediate heat of the day rather than to the long-term good of the people. Therefore, having decided as a nation to go into an entrenched Charter with all it means in terms of the transfer of power to the courts, I say that we should have all of it.
Why was it not in the Constitution Act, 1982? It is a sad story, because for a few hours it was there. When the constitutional committee was sitting, I remember the Progressive Conservative Party put in an amendment on a Friday. It was debated and accepted by the Liberal majority. The Leader of the NDP stood up on Saturday and said that if the Liberal Government did not take it out, the NDP would withdraw its support. On Monday, to its perpetual shame, the Liberal Party removed that amendment, and we lost forever the right to property.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I appreciate the fact that NDP Members are happy that we are over that step, but I do not think Canadians are.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Where were the Tory Premiers? What did your Premier have to say about it? What is the official position of the Government of Alberta?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Where are we now? It is interesting that NDP Members get fired up over this. The provinces have a position. At the constitutional committee level the provinces, quite properly, raised some legitimate perspectives. They said that under the Constitution Act, property and civil rights are provincial jurisdiction and therefore should be left with them to protect. That is a fair perspective. In response I say to them that we agree, but to be Canadian is to mean something, to have a Canadian citizenship means something. It means the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security of the person and the right to property. It should be entrenched for those reasons.
If we put it out to the people, I am confident they would adopt our perspective rather than the provincial view that it should be left to their statutes. I am fair-minded. Let us put it out to the people. Let the people decide. In my own mind I know they will go for entrenched rights.
Certain other provinces, such as the Province of Prince Edward Island, were concerned. It is within two generations that Prince Edward Island was totally owned by foreigners. Because it is such a small island, it wanted to ensure that it would have the provincial right to control ownership. Prince Edward Island did not want to be owned by non-residents. Nova Scotia can express the same perspective because of its shoreline, which was being taken over by Americans.
There is protection in the entrenched Charter for Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. That is Article 33, the notwithstanding clause. They could legitimately pass a statute and say that notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights, if you are non-resident, you cannot own property in Prince Edward Island. That would be upheld by the courts because it is a reasonable limitation on the rights of other Canadians because of the small size of Prince Edward Island. Likewise for Nova Scotia with respect to its shoreline.
I am convinced we could switch the view of provincial Governments because of Article 33, the notwithstanding clause. I hope this House will join with the Legislatures of British Columbia and New Brunswick and the Territorial Legislature of the Yukon, which have all passed resolutions on the entrenchment of property rights. All we need is for this Parliament to pass a resolution. We then just have to convince seven other provinces. We have three years in which to pass a similar resolution and it can become an amendment to our Constitution.
We are here to present the views of our people. I have no hesitation in asking my colleagues to support this resolution.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is the third opportunity I have had to speak on a resolution put forward by a Conservative Member on property rights in the Constitution. As happened on other occasions when I spoke on this proposal,
February 1, 1985

I suspect it will be the Conservative Party that will ensure there is no vote and no resolution of this issue in the House.
The two previous speakers, the Member who moved the motion and the Member responding for the Government, tried to blame the New Democratic Party for the fact that this is not in the Constitution. The Member who spoke on behalf of the Government pointed out all the problems that might occur if this were in the Constitution. We have never had an official Conservative Government position on this. That is what is missing from this debate.
Members are probably quite sincere when they put forward motions and present their Private Members' Bills to this House of Commons, but they are part of the governing Party. I would like to know the official position of the federal Conservative Government. I have yet to hear it in this House of Commons. I have never heard it. It was not in the Throne Speech and it was never presented by a government back-bencher. Individuals have stood here and made a few political points and used the occasion to attack our Party.
I am the official spokesman for our caucus on the Constitution, including the issue of property rights, and I can speak with the authority that that position gives me. In the past I have introduced motions which say that we believe in property rights. I said that we can even accept the principle of property rights in the Constitution, but that we must do so only if we do it in a way that does not take away at the same time the rights of other Canadians. The motion is on the book. It was made as an amendment to a motion made by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. It is a motion which I as the official spokesman for our Party stand by at this time.
The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), speaking on behalf of the Government, pointed out many of the same concerns that I have expressed, as have many other Canadians, about the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution. He said there are a number of women's groups which are concerned about the effect of property rights in the Constitution and what that would do for the hard won rights women have achieved over the last many years, especially as most women are not considered the owners of real property.
That is a very legitimate concern of women's groups and others in this country. Coming from a riding where there are many native groups, I find they are also worried about how property rights can affect their land claims and land entitlement. Those groups add their concern to the voice of women. Labour groups have expressed concerns about how the rights of workers will be affected versus those who own property.
When I spoke of this type of proposal on the previous occasion, I read from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of July 1983. A representative of mortgage holders explained why he wanted property rights in the Constitution. He stated that because a mortgage is considered property, he would have more rights than a worker or others who may make claims on the assets of a company which had gone bankrupt. That is a legitimate concern. He was speaking for his industry and his special interest group. He said that, as a mortgage holder, someone who had lent money to a company, he had more
Constitution Act, 1982
rights than did the workers who had given their labour. There is somebody from the other side explaining why they want property rights in the Constitution.
Environmental groups have spoken about their concerns and what kinds of laws can be passed in this land if property rights are in the Constitution. More important, Conservative provincial Governments right across this nation have said that they do not want property rights in the Constitution. It is not 30 New Democrats in the House of Commons who are preventing or have prevented in the past property rights from being in the Constitution. It is the Premier of Alberta and the Premiers of other Conservative Governments across this land.
Members do not have to take my word. They can check the word of various Conservative provincial spokesmen. As the mover of the motion is from Alberta, I will use the example of his own provincial Government. Mr. Horseman, the Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs of that Province, said:
It is made clear that the Government of Alberta's position is that the Constitutional responsibility for property and civil rights is that of the provinces. It should properly remain there and not be entrenched in the Charter of Rights and thus become subject to any control by the federal Government.
I do not know Mr. Horseman personally. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) does. I presume they are friends and colleagues. I presume the Hon. Member was not calling his provincial colleague a socialist. I further presume it was that man's responsibility to speak for the Government of Alberta. The official position of that provincial Conservative Government is that it does not want it in the Constitution. Don't blame us, blame your colleagues. The Government of Alberta is not alone. I further quote Mr. Horseman:
After a brief survey of other provinces by the Province of Alberta, it was clear that there was very little support given by other provinces for inclusion of the subject of property rights in the Charter.
The time period in which they spoke was very similar to the present time period. Almost every one of those provincial Governments is led by a Conservative administration. Let us not play politics. Let us be honest with each other. Let us tell the truth about who is really opposing property rights as an entrenched part of our Constitution. If we could resolve the other concerns which I expressed, the concerns about the environment, the concerns about the provinces' ability to regulate the use of land within their jurisdictions; if we could make sure that we could protect the ability of provincial Governments to make sure that farm land is owned by residents of the provinces, by people who are actually working the farms; if we could protect the rights of women, and if we could prove that the right to property is not a right that is more equal than the rights of the workers, then there is nothing wrong with property rights being entrenched in the Constitution. However, if property rights will be put in the Constitution as rights which would make one group of Canadians more powerful and will give one group of Canadians more rights and more privileges than others, then it is a problem.

February 1, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
I am not speaking strictly as a New Democrat, I am speaking also on behalf of provincial Governments and women's groups, just as one of the previous Conservative Members did in the past. I am speaking on behalf of labour, on behalf of people who are concerned about how they will get back wages if there is a property rights clause in the Constitution. Those are concerns that are expressed by many, many Canadians. Therefore, I cannot support this resolution and I will leave it up to other Conservative Members to make sure that it does not pass.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon. I listened very attentively to the comments made by the Hon. Member who proposed the motion as well as to those of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).
I think it is obvious that this is an issue with which various Members have very deep concerns on either side of the issue. It is not a clear-cut and easy issue to discuss. The people who have opinions on this issue have opinions which are very heartfelt indeed and they feel very strongly about their beliefs.
I think everyone is in favour of Canadians having their full rights to own and keep what is theirs. I do not think that that is really what we are discussing here today. I think we are discussing what the inclusion of property rights as such in the Constitution will do or could potentially do positively or negatively. That is somewhat different from the principle that everyone wants to retain his or her own property.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member, who presented this motion in a very partisan way by reminding us how the Tories were in favour of this motion and how in his opinion others were not, that in my opinion the largest expropriation that ever took place that I can remember was the expropriation of the shares of Crown, Seaway and Greymac Trust Companies in the Province of Ontario. Those shares were expropriated by a Conservative Cabinet Minister and his colleagues. To accuse others who are not of the same political persuasion of not being in favour of property rights is not quite correct. I would like to remind the Hon. Member who proposed this particular issue of that.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Look at the record.


Don Boudria: Another Conservative Member says, "Look at the record". If we do look at the record, we will find that Governments of various political persuasions have in the past taken actions which affected the rights of individuals owning property. On the one hand, if we look back at the Crown Trust issue in Ontario, it was the public interest or the so-called public interest versus the rights of the individuals owning the shares, an issue which is still being debated in the Ontario Legislature and one to which I am not sure we will ever find the answer. It is a very, very complicated issue.
I do not think that there is anyone here who will say that he or she is in favour of having someone's rights violated or that he or she is in favour of someone's property being confiscated. Again, that is not what we are discussing.
Let us go back in history and look at what happened to the same issue in the United States. For a great many years, courts in the United States interpreted the inclusion of property rights as precluding legislators from enacting minimum wage laws. What would happen if that would be the effect here in Canada? It is fine to say that we are in favour of people retaining and holding what property they have, but on the other hand, the inclusion of property rights must never have that kind of adverse effect on people. I think we must assure ourselves that any amendment to include property rights, albeit many of us are in favour of its inclusion in principle, will not have side effects which are far worse than any benefits that we could potentially derive. I believe that we should always keep that in mind.
As well, the reason why some of the provinces are against the inclusion of property rights, apart from the reason to which I have already referred, is the fact that they are of the view, and rightfully so to a degree, that the property and civil rights issue under the Constitution as presently stated falls within the jurisdiction of provincial Governments anyway, and to put that in the constitutional document elsewhere under the Charter would, in their view, be taking something away from them. I can understand that reluctance on the part of certain provincial Governments. It is not simply an issue of Conservative Members being in favour of property rights and others being against them. Anyone who attempts to portray the issue in that way is over-simplifying it a great deal.
We had a similar debate-I would not say the same debate but a similar debate-not that long ago in this House. At that time, I expressed the view that I was in favour of the principle of our rights being protected, but felt somewhat worried about the potential side effects of such an inclusion. I received a letter from one of my constituents and I would like to quote a few sentences from it if you would permit me to, Mr. Speaker.

This is to express my objections to the proposal you received that the right to private property be enshrined in the Constitution.
After reading about this in the newspaper "Le Carillon", I got in touch with other members of my organization to call a special meeting and ask that the proposal be withdrawn. However, because of my workload, I was too busy to follow through with my plan. As you probably know, my work tends to spill over into my leisure time. In any event, I mentioned it to-
-to others... in the same organization, Mr. Speaker. This person is talking about a proposal by an organization to which he belongs, and I left out the name on purpose to avoid using this name here in the House. My quote continues:
-and he told me he was not there when the motion was adopted. He said, in fact, that he did not like the suggestion either.
As you know, the right to private property is directly related to the right to work.
That is another subject we could discuss this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Why ask for one without mentioning the other? Which is the most urgent of the two? The answer is obvious. I wonder
February 1, 1985

whether the people who drafted the motion even stopped to think for a few minutes-
And the author of this letter adds in brackets:
-(if they can think).
I am sure you have enough sense not to support this motion, at least until people have had a chance to talk about it. Personally, I do not think even an opinion pool would be an adequate way to deal with this. If you analyze it, this is a matter that goes beyond the right to own property constitutionally.
Finally, the author of the letter concludes by reiterating his concern that such a proposal would be enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What it all boils down to, Mr. Speaker, is that many people would welcome some kind of formula whereby they would be personally assured that nobody would invade, take over or even remove their property, but at the time they emphasize that such a guarantee should not have a negative impact which might totally offset any positive aspect.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said in the last debate on a similar subject: some of us are in favour of this principle, and we certainly do not question the good will of the Hon. Member who has raised this issue. Perhaps the best thing to do as parliamentarians would be to submit this file to a parliamentary committee and ask constitutional experts with wide-ranging experience in Canada and the United States, where they have been familiar with this kind of entrenchment for years, to give us their opinion and reassure all of us that such constitutionally guaranteed rights would not, as I said earlier, turn out to be a disaster rather than a blessing.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to acknowledge the commitment the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has shown to the entrenchment of property rights. It is a commitment that I too share. I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to deal with this matter and to discuss some of the issues. At the same time I must say that I agree that Private Members' Hour does not lend itself to a full examination of the issues. The entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution is a matter of no little significance and of some debate. We should be careful to accord this matter the consideration it warrants and not to foreclose public debate by all the interested parties.
I approach this matter with the basic premise that property rights should be entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms along with such other basic rights as the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The point of entrenching property rights in the Constitution, as I see it, is to ensure that the property rights which we now enjoy are not dependent simply on the good will of government. Governments do change, as we all know. Currently there is nothing to prevent a Government in Canada from passing laws which unfairly restrict property rights. By entrenching property rights in the Constitution, we would protect them from the arbitrary
Constitution Act, 1982
encroachments of government. Today we enjoy, by virtue of the common law, many property rights protections against the action of other citizens. We can, for instance, sue in the civil courts persons who trespass on our land or who create nuisances which affect our enjoyment of our land. We would, however, be, to a great extent, legally helpless if Government were to pass a law enabling it to affect arbitrarily and detrimentally our use end enjoyment of land. Entrenching property rights in the Constitution would provide protections against such arbitrary and ill-considered government action.
In entrenching property rights in the Constitution, we would be following the lead of several western nations. In the United States, for example, property rights are protected by the United States Bill of Rights. The United States federal Government has been subject to constitutional property rights guarantees for almost 200 years.
In 1791, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was passed. It provides that no persons shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Towards the end of the 19th century, but still more than 100 years ago, the United States Constitution was amended to apply property rights guarantees in respect of the state Governments. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed. It provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law".
In the United States and other countries, property rights have received constitutional protection because they recognize, as we do, the fundamental importance of these rights to the preservation of democracy. In my view, the concept of property is inseparably linked with freedom. This link has been articulated by the American legal scholar, Charles Reich, from whom I would like to quote. At page 733 of Volume 73 of the Yale Law Journal he wrote:
The institution called property guards the troubled boundary between individual man and the state. It is not the only guardian; many other institutions, laws, and practices serve as well. But in a society that chiefly values material well-being, the power to control a particular portion of that well-being is the very foundation of individuality.
Professor Reich traced further the connection between property and liberty at page 771:
Property is a legal institution the essence of which is the creation and protection of certain private rights in wealth of any kind. The institution performs many different functions. One of these functions is to draw a boundary between public and private power. Property draws a circle around the activities of each private individual or organization. Within that circle, the owner has a greater degree of freedom than without. Outside, he must justify or explain his actions, and show his authority. Within, he is master, and the state must explain and justify any interference. It is as if property shifted the burden of proof; outside, the individual has the burden; inside, the burden is on Government to demonstrate that something the owner wishes to do should not be done.
Thus, property performs the function of maintaining independence, dignity and pluralism in society by creating zones within which the majority has to yield to the owner.
I think that Hon. Members will agree that Professor Reich very persuasively makes the case for the protection of property rights. On this understanding of the concept of property, the right to own and enjoy property is no less important than the

February 1, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
right to liberty, which is already protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At the same time, I must say that there are other values and rights against which property rights must be balanced. My colleagues have noted that there are many laws created by all levels of Government in Canada which serve important societal interests but which in some way affect the use and ownership of property. Some of the provinces have been reluctant to support the entrenchment of property rights because they are afraid that the result of doing so may be to endanger these laws.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similk-ameen (Mr. King), noted, women's groups are also concerned about the risk that recent family law reform may be invalidated by the courts on the basis of the right to enjoyment of property. Environmentalists are concerned that laws providing for the regulation and control of industrial wastes and emissions may be challenged on the basis that infringe on the industrial land owner's right to use their land. Environmentalists are also concerned that legislation providing for the safeguarding of prime agricultural land might also be at risk if property rights were to be entrenched.
None of these Governments, organizations and individuals are unalterably opposed to the entrenchment of property rights. Rather, they are concerned that we have not had the opportunity to study and consider fully the ramifications and consequences of entrenching property rights. It may be that by taking the time to deal with their apprehensions, we will be able to resolve them in a way which will produce a consensus on this matter and which will facilitate an amendment to the Constitution. In the meantime, there are a number of areas which deserve further consideration. As my colleagues have stressed, the process of constitutional reform takes time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The hour allotted for consideration of Private Members' Business has expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, February 4, 1985